no moment without it we should either join with men in Sin or live without the Ordinances of God. Let me here make use of the Testimony of a worthy Person one whom the Dr. afterward bringeth against us and therefore in reason cannot refuse his Suffrage tho' we are far from hanging our Cause on mens Opinions as the Dr. doth that is the learned Monsieur Claude in his excellent Book called the Historical Defence of the Reformation the design of which is to shew that every man hath a right to believe the truth and to dissent from Errour and to profefs this and to reform Religion by setting up Religious Assembles for the true Worship of God when they cannot have Truth nor right Worship in that which goeth under the name of the Church He saith Part 2. p. 169. As it is ridiculous to demand of a man in a civil Society what personal Call he had to live to labour to avoid that which would be hurtful to his Life and to have a care of his own Preservation so it is also an Absurdity to demand of our Fathers what Call they had to believe aright in God and to worship him purely and to remove far from them all that which they believed to be contrary to a spiritual life and their own Salvation And much more to this purpose He objecteth p. 170. Is not this to rend the Church by Divisions and answereth No for the Vnity of the Church lieth not in Errour or false Worship it is love to the Church to endeavour her cure by shewing a good example And Part 4. p. 14 15. When it is objected That the Protestants could not separate because their Pastours were against it he answereth That many Pastors went along with them and if that had not been they might have chosen Pastors all which he discourseth at length We have an Example of setting up God's Ordinances without yea against the Laws of men in the Word It is clear from Ezr. 5. with ch 4. 21. that the Temple was built against Law And it is clear from Hog 1. 2. that it was the Peoples Sin that they neglected it so long even when Law was against them and that they ought to have done it before Haggai and Zechariah put them on it Sect. 23. Next the Dr. p. 82. bringeth in some Non-conformists condemning Ministers Preaching after they were silenced It is evident to any that readeth p. 82 83. that it is silencing by the Church that is there spoken of but our restraint is by the Magistrate only who doth not pretend to give nor to take away Pastoral power Pag. 86. he bringeth Mr. Bradshaw reasoning against Ministers preaching against the will of the Magistrate but in the First part of Mr. Bradshaw's Discourse it is evident that he speaketh only against publick Preaching in such a place in defiance of the Magistrate and running on the Sword 's point or opposing Sword to Sword which we are far from either practising or approving I confess p. 87. he is for the Ministers living privately yet saith expresly that he is to labour mean while privately upon particular occasions offered why they may not be also sought I know not to strengthen and confirm in the ways of God those people that are deprived of his publick Labour If this be not an allowance of his private preaching I understand it not But. Mr. Bradshaw will have the People to submit to the Ministry of another in publick with the liking of the Magistrate tho' he would have them to affect and love the former as their Pastor How congruous this Advice is I shall not enquire not laying so much stress on mens thoughts of things as to be turned out of our way by them But Mr. Bradshaw seemeth to speak of a Case wherein the Magistrate is offended with a Minister on some personal account and another is set over the People with whom they may as lawfully join as with the former but that doth not come near to our Case in which Ministers are restrained because of a Scruple common to them and the People that join with them to wit using the Ceremonies Would he have the People over the belly of Scripture-light to join with the new Incumbent in Ceremonies and not rather enjoy the Ordinances in purity tho' in private from their own faithful Pastor I cannot see how that can be gathered from his words but if it was his Opinion we crave leave to differ from him Beside Mr. Bradshaw did never advise that some Thousands of Ministers being all laid aside at once should deprive the Church of their more private Labours when they were forcibly restrained in publick The Non-conformists in former times were not in our Circumstances Sect. 24. The Dr. is now come to his Triarij his last Argument to prove what was the general Sence of the Non-conformists in this It is Mr. Sprint's Argument for Conformity rather than to be deprived to wit That a lesser Duty should cede to a greater He supposeth Conformity and Preaching to be a greater Duty than abstaining from the Ceremonies And he confirmeth this it seemeth by the Apostles who he saith submitted to the Jewish Ceremonies rather than lose the Liberty of the Ministry The Dr. I see hath not kept his best Wine till the end of the Feast this is one of the meanest of his Allegations for the Non-conformists had an easie Answer to this Argument that here a Sin and forbearing a Duty are brought in competition which maketh an easie choice to wit using unlawful Ceremonies with not preaching in publick What he saith of the Apostles using the Jewish Ceremonies is quite out of our way for these Ceremonies for a time were indifferent as all acknowledge buâ— that ever any of the Apostles used them after the full promulgating of the Gospel and the Destruction of the Temple when they became not only mortuae but mortiferae as the Schools speak we utterly deny But even what he maketh the Non-conformists answer concerning the greater usefulness and necessity of the preaching of the Apostles than of their preaching maketh nothing for his Design Nor doth it prove that they did not think that the Apostle's Wo be unto me if I preach not the Gospel did reach to their Case for it can import no more but that if such a great necessity might warrant some things otherwise not warrantable as the abstaining from things strangled and Blood was warranted yea made necessary by a present necessity their publick Preaching was not of that moment and it was only their publick Preaching that was hindred by their Non-conformity And thus I have got through the Thicket of his Historical Collâ—ctions and proceed to the Rational Part of his Discourse which I hope shall prove less tedious PART II. IN the Second Part of his Book the Learned Dr. enquireth into the nature of the Separation I wish he had taken as much pains to find out the true Cause of it and
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their
confesseth that Sedulius Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam In Comment in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom because he was a Presbyter and no Bishop I hope they will allow us the like liberty to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them who themselves were Bishops and then let them reckon their Gain when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll. Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications and other Censures saith they are done in the Assemblies and that praesident probati quique seniores Clem. Alexandr Stromat lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common and every Assembly had its president with power of Discipline Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century when no little Deviation had been made from the right way yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked quia sine alicujus fratris consilio But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause was approved quia cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processit Ambros Ep. ad Syagrium And even Cyprian as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy as that age could bear Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine as a Witness of this Truth Ep. 19. ad Hieron Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit He maketh the Bishop Major not Lord over the Presbyter and even that Majority was but by the Custom of the Church not divine Ordinance and a custom that had now obtained was not always Also lib. quaest com he proveth from 1 Tim. 3. Bâ—shop and Presbyter to be one and saith quâ—d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter and this Oâ—eness he further sheweth because Bishops such as then were to wit in the beginning of the Fifth Century when the Order of the Church was much changed called the Presbyters Compresbyteri but never called the Deacons Condiaconi Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office but Deacons being distinct from them both The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3. homil 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt sola quippe ordinatione superiores illâ— sunt Bellarm. saith that Primasius Theophilactus and Oecumenius on that Text teach the same things and almost in the same words And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century the last in the Tenth or Eleventh The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this is not worth taking notice of to wit Chrysost. meaneth that Presbyters have jurisdiction as Bishops have but only by Commission from the Bishop This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse which is to shew an Identity of them as they are in themselves What he alledgeth out of this Citation that a Bishop may ordain not a Presbyter the learned Father's expression will not bear for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge or that the difference between them was only in order or precedency not in Power or any Authority or that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution but it can never signifie the power of ordaining for then Christ who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said potestate ordinandi not Ordinatione Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations which tho they be not â—oncludent in themselves being but humane Testimonies yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church The 1 is That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters lib. 4. dist 24. liter I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons because the primitive Church had only these and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment the rest were after appointed by the Church And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop Arch-Bishop c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins Horum autem disoretio saith he a gentilibus introducta videtur Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy The 2 Consideration is That the Waldenses Albigenses Wickliff and his Followers and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrinâ—s that the Protestants now profess were of a Parity among Presbyters and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops This is confessed by Medina and is not denyed by Bellarm and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders Priests and Deacons and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops where their Religion was suppressed The third thing that I offer to be considered is The observation of Spanhemius a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church in his Epitom Isagâ—g ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii as Tertul. de pudicitia c. 25. or only a reverence to their age and their conversing with the Apostles and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition SECT IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple on the forementioned grounds I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned to wit to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches in the times of Cyprian and Augustine and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations 1. That his phrase is ambiguous that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth
bring Papists to the Church tho' it proved after a while rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass. And King Edward 6th with the Council did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West who had risen in defence of Popery saying that the Service that now they had in English was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible and the Mass and this Service may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass than between it and all the Worship of God that the Scripture giveth account of to have been practiced in the Apostolick Church 2. This may appear if we consider the Original of this Service it was taken out of several Popish Books the Prayers out of the Breviary the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual Adminstration of the Lords Supper out of the Mâ—ss-book and Consecration of Bishops out of the Pontifical as any may see who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together Sect. 12. I know it will be said that they retain only those parts of those Books that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and used in the primitive times But this is no sufficient defence for 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original yet being now of late so grosly abused to Idolatry and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists rather than like Apostolick Worship and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds why should we chuse their way of worship and in so doing both differ from the primitive times especially the Apostles times and from all other Reformed Churches 2. It is false that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers it is indeed said by some that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use oâ— weak Christians but that he or any other such did compose this Frame or any thing like it is denyed and I have proved that there was no such thing in these Times The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great Anno 600. or thereabout other parts were added by other Popes the Responds came not in till many years after What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists James Peter Matthew Mark is now so exploded as learned men among our Brethren do not plead for them This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy about which more might have been said but I have said more than at first I intended SECT VIII The other Terms of Communion that they impose considered I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse about thesâ— other Terms of Communion that his Church imposeth and we scruple And first I take notice that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals and pretending that they judge they esteem the Terms of Communion unlawful but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them He saith Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion The Answer to this is easie 1. They were charged with Separation and in answering the Dr's Sermon acted the part of Defendants it was enough for that deâ—ence to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy and against the Ceremonies Didoclavius the Author of the Book called the English Popish Ceremonies Mr. Jeans Treasuâ—e out of Rubish a Treatise of Divine Worship English Puritanism Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies Smectymn G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists and many other pieces There is so much said in these and yet unanswered that it was needless to repeat what is there said I must be guilty of the same fault if it be one having at length disputed against the Ceremonies and proved them to be unlawful to be used in a Piece entituled A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship against Mr. Geoâ—ge Ritchel and others I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written provided I leave nothing unanswered that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments but we are ready to be concluded by a Prison instead of Arguments but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low because our Persons and worldly Interests are so Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument out of his Sermon against our Separating that there ought to be no Separation where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine of this I have given my judgment above Part 2. S. 1. Section 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship and alledged the Cross in Baptism to be a Substantial part of Worship Hence the Dr. undertaketh p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship 2. That the Cross is not made such The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship to wit Substantial and Circumstantial or Accidental and alledgeth that many of us are misled by not considering it I much desire the clearing of it and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith that The Nonconformists great Principle is That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship they said that made True Worship but without it an Act might be Worship that is False Worship and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship This Subject I have discoursed at large in the Book above cited cap. 3. sect 1 3 4. But shall now a little consider what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship was Worship either Real or Substantial for they well know that the Meeting-place the Ministers Maintenance the Pulpit Communion-Table c. are designed for Worship and yet are no Worship Real nor Imaginary Substantial nor Accidental True nor False If he mean by being designed for Worship that the person doing such an Act intendeth to Worship God by so doing which I cannot take to be his meaning I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act
the Command of Superiors in that sense Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews p. 342. for this he sheweth That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists to prove That they equalled their Traditions with the Commands of God and hâ—nce inferreth that this was not look't â—n as an indifferent Ceremony but as a thing whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth to wit the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church not before so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies Wherefore Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse by this one saying as the Dr. alleadgeth I well know what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them But all this Sanctity they founded not only natural or antecedent goodness of the things observed but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them He telleth us that they said Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom deserveth not only Excommunication but Death too and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies except that it is not yet made death by the Law though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account hath brought them to their death I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of Eâ—gland that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings He admireth p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews and required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are A. He need not admire for none of us say so of that Washing when imposed and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition as our Ceremonies are That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are a Reason of the difference is already given to wit That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies for taking away Uncleanness Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution for honouring Him and edifying of Souls Sect. 13. He proceedeth Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth by considering the Popish Ceremonies and their opinion of washing away Sin and Justification by them And for this he citeth many Authors all which pains might have been spared For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abouâ— the Jews opinion of their Washings and needeth no other Answer All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies is consequent to and dependent on their being injoyned by the Church None of them say that they have such Efficacy in themselves and that they attribute taking away of sin to them ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works which the Church of England doth not maintain The Church of England maketh them good Works but denieth their Merit because she denieth that even to the Works that God hath commanded The Papists do but make them good Works also and that they think them meritorious is from this their opinion that all good Works are such and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves without Institution They ascribe spiritual Effects to them saith he so do you to your Ceremonies as stirring up of dull Minds engaging the Soul to God c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this without a Divine Institution that it has to drive away Devils as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity by the Doctor on this ground He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies with these of Rome but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites than that hath to make them Causes of Grace He telleth us pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise than as purged from Popish Superstition and for this citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer and Can. 30. Answer Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned if they may be their own Judges it is Amicum Testimonium I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them but to purge out all is impossible The things themselves as stated in the Worship of God without His Institution being such Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause by this Discourse our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies viz. That these things being unnecessary in themselves that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition ought not to be brought into God's Worship by them who abhor that way nor indeed can they without much scandal But of this and other Arguments I have treated elsewhere Sect. 14. His second way how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship he hath pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians And this he purgeth the Church of England from What is already said doth abundantly refute this for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts tho bad ones of Worship without this and the former too And indeed if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship none of the Popish Ceremonies were such for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God as he pleaseth more than the English Convocation will And I believe there was never Church in the world that held That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned unalterable and so as to bind all Christians But still the Doctor as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies and their Practice in reference to them If they be alterable why will ye rather ruine your Brethren hazard Souls rend the Church than alter them If they bind not our Consciences why do ye charge us with Sin for refusing them If they bind not all men why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon by many of your Church Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship and answereth them It is here to be observed that the Arguments that he mentioneth are but some of many that we use against the Ceremonies And these not they that are most directly against them Mr. A. Argueth thus An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of and Subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship The Dr. Answereth An outward visible Sign representing between men the duty or engagement of another is no
The Dr. is pleased Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus and counts opposing it a blow at the Church If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony he should have answered what is of purpose learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken and twelve arguments against it by another hand and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A. But this Ceremony being imposed by the Church as one of the terms of her Communion which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it I shall a little consider it by proposing our scruples against the use of it and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it But we must first consider the true state of the controversy which is not whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name whereby that Blessed Person or either of the other Persons of the God-head are designed to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty whom Saints and Angels Worship Yea nor thirdly whether it be in it self and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling as bowing or lifting up the eyes when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names All these we readily yield And our Brethren on the other hand grant that no Worship direct or indirect mediate nor immediate such as Papists give to their Images is due to the Name i. e. the Word 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service it is not there restricted to the Lessons and the Creed as the Dr. alledgeth page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeths Sermons are also taken in a general clause when otherwise in the Church mentioned carrieth it to all acts of Worship which the Dr. without ground would limit to wit when they are not imployed in any other act of Devotion 3. They make it no natural but instituted piece of Worship the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful never pleadeth for the necessity of it and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church It is true some of them plead Scripture for it to wit Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty as naturally necessary as praying and believing But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this The question then is 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence by bowing the head or knee or otherwise when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands To both our Brethren answer affirmatively and we answer negatively Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship Ergo it is unlawful The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of Mens Traditions in his Worship as vain on this account that they are the Commands of Men Math. 15. 9. Mark 7. 7. of which before And I think the Doctor will not deny it who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant page 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts to wit that this Act is uncommanded and that it an Act of Worship For the First Few of our Brethren alledge a Command for it for then it should not be indifferent as they make it and they that plead a Command found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way injoin any such Rite For first the Greek Text is plain not at but in the Name of JESUS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words For the plain sense is that subjection to his Dignity and Power shall be yielded by all Creatures 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service but must either prove this a duty at all times when this Name is uttered or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling and I know not that it is in the Churches Power where the Lord commandeth kneeling to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be injoined so is confessing with the Tongue ver 11. What power hath the Church to pick and chuse Scripture-Commandments to injoin one and neglect another of equal Authority But why do I stay on this many Episcopal men and even some Papists look on this Text as nothing to the purpose in hand for the Second Part of the Antecedent that this Bowing is an Act of Worship I hope that will not be denyed it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ and the stating of it in Divine Service and appropriating it to that doth constrain men to look so upon it Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service Ergo It is not acceptable Service The Consequence I hope will not be denyed The Antecedent I prove because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word rather than at the mention of these other Names by which God Father Son and Holy Ghost or our Blessed Redeemer are called It is not enough that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST and therefore must either prove the Church faulty in not instituting Worship to all these names or they prove nothing at all 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony between this name and others that are equally holy therefore they must either give a reason why adoration is fit in this case rather than in the other cases or they do not reach the Question The Reasons given by the learned Hooker Eccles. polic lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent to wit 1. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him is not warrantable He hath appointed ways for it and not left them to our devising 2. He saith It maketh much against the Arians who deny his God head Answer 1. His way of convincing gain-sayers is by the Word we must not devise ways of our own to convince Hereticks Moses and the Prophets being God's way are more powerful to convince than if one were sent from the dead
the Magistrate to protect those that did break off from them but to suppress them who should have done so and would not If he will not own this he doth more to over-throw the Reformation than all that he can charge Non-conformists with can amount to We are far from questioning the Magistrates Power over Ministers to inflict civil Punishments on them if he do it on good Grounds he is approved of God if otherwise he must answer to him for it But our Magistrates do not own any power of inflicting Church-censures by themselves whatever some Flatters do on their behalf The Objection from the Old Non-conformists I have answered above By what hath been said it will appear whether he saith truly p. 137. That not one word of our Plea but might equally serve the Papists Sect. 18. What followeth p. 137 138 and 139 of the Peoples Power of chusing their Pastors and the Nullity of their Title to that Charge without the Peoples Consentt he Dr. it seems thinks that Recitasse is Refutasse for he saith no more to disprove it but Asserteth That it layeth a Foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Separations which we deny And enough I have said above to evince the contrary He maketh another of our Grounds of Separation to be the Persecution of the Prelatists and their having a Hand in silencing of Ministers This we disown Indeed their Persecution for our not submitting to their Impositions is a Barr by which we are forcibly kept out of the Church but it is not the motive that determineth us to leave the Church we are willing to wait on Gods Ordinances even Administred by them that persecute us if they will suffer us to do it on sinless Terms And if Mr. B. whom he only citeth in this matter mean any thing else I cannot answer for him SECT III. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church AFter Examination of other Pleas for Non-conformity the Dr. cometh Sect. 13. to examine that which he confesseth to be the most colourable Plea that hath yet been used to wit their imposing of unlawful Terms of Communion with them And this I look on as not only the most colourable Plea but is the causa sine quo non that without which no Separation can be made from a True Church which is sound in the Faith without Sin and as the very Foundation of that Cause that I now plead and if the Dr. can beat us out of this Hold we shall become his willing Proselites Let us hear then how he taketh this Plea from us Sect. 2. His first assault is by a distinction which is really true but very ill managed tho' by amost Learned hand but the Dr. being Master of so much Learning as few men are doth I suppose sometimes make him consider less what he writeth than they find need to do who move in an inferiour Orb. His distinction is between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fansied to be so through Prejudice and wilful Ignorance or Error of Conscience That there are some Terms of Communion with a Church really sinful and others that are not so tho' they be fansied by some to be so I think none ever doubted and therefore the Dr. might have better imployed his pains to say nothing of his Ink and Paper that he hath taken to prove this by a multitude of instances And I grant that when the sinfulness of the Terms is only fansied the Sin of Schism that followeth on that apprehension lieth not on the Imposers but on those that separate Only I must add an Exception of a Case in which it may lie on both that is when the thing imposed is unnecessary and is made a ground of Separation by the mistake of persons otherwise orthodox and sober and who pretend to no other cause of Separation If the Imposers will not yield in that case that is the wiser to the more wilful they shew not that moderation nor love to Peace that they should If the Quakers could be gained by forbearing preaching by an Hour-glass the Dr's instance I would think it hard to lose them for that for whom Christ lost his Life Sect. 3. As the Dr. manageth this distinction it is hard to tell what to make of it for he confoundeth two things that are most distinct yea different to wit Terms of Communion plainly sinful and Terms of Communion in themselves sinful And in the other Lemma of the distinct on he hath set nothing in opposition to plainly for fansied to be sinful through Prejudice wilful Ignorance Error of Conscience are all opposite to those that are sinful in themselves He should then have told us if Terms of Communion imposed be sinful in themselves but not plainly but only obscurely so what censure he would pass on them that could not comply with them also what degree of plainness he would require about the sinfulness of imposed Terms of Communion that it might be lawful to Separate rather than yield to them My opinion is that if Terms of Communion be imposed that are in themselves and really sinful and if the sinfulness of them can be known by diligent searching of the Scripture and depending upon God for Light and Guidance tho' there be not such plainness as the Dr. had above called glaring Evidence that all the world may see they that are consciencious ought to withdraw from any Church whatsoever rather than submit to those Terms There is an Ambiguity in the Term that he useth In themselves sinful for I know that it is their usual Plea for the Ceremonies the imposed Terms of Communion now under debate that they are things in themselves indifferent This may either be understood that they are in their general nature such which we grant Habits and Postures and Gestures importing neither good nor evil as such Or as considered under the circumstances that they are cloathed with as they fall under our debate and so we think them sinful Now the Dr. should have told us whether he meaneth of Terms of Communion that are things imposed which are really evil under the circumstances with which they are imposed or Terms of Communion which are things in their general nature evil We think the sinfulness of Terms of Communion even in the former and not only in the latter sence may warrant our withdrawing Sect. 4. He telleth us That the Magistrate of Church may lawfully determine and impose Time and Place and such-like circumstances of Worship which we grant tho' we think it inconvenient to be rigorous in these Impositions or too frequent and universal in them but about these our Question is not conversant Therefore if any Separate from these Impositions he saith the Sin of Separation is on their part This we do not deny We also grant his Hypothetick Proposition that followeth to wit If other things be as much in the Magistrate or Church's Power they sin who separate because of
the Lord with them by their sinful Impositions and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise by their Persecutions many things of that nature are our Affliction and their Sin but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking and come to attend him in his second to wit That constant Communion is a Duty where Occasional Communion is lawful This he manageth Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this as it is here set down to wit joining with other Parishes in a Journey at a Lecture c. but I am willing to understand it with the Dr. of Communion with a Church whereof we have been or should be Members and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties for his opinion in this he bringeth two Arguments the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church This he inforceth by proving this Obligation which none of us ever denied but do with more reason retort all that can be said on that heâ—d on themselves who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies â—or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity but the Dr. should have proved 1. That our coming to their Sermons as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication and Câ—piâ—ndo's would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Vnity 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away to desert these Meetings and wait on so much of their Administrations as they should be pleasâ—d to allow us Our Hearts do not reproach us as this Learned Author doth That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience He meaneth toward Communion with the Church Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it is built on a mistake to wit That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments If Mr. B. or any other are of that opinion I know not why they should be Non-conformists If I were convinced of it I should not deny constant Communion with the Church whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth p. 159. when they speak of some cases where joining with the Church would do more harm than good Was ever Schism saith he made so light of And the Peace and Vnity of Christianity valued at so low a rate Ans. Yes to wit by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony for the Peace that they so much talk of but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force to the dividing of the Church the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians than these men do if you believe their deeds and yet value it more highly if ye regard their words He asketh p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies Ans. We read part of that Service-Book daily in our Assemblies to wit the Scriptures therein contained we read them out of the Bible but for using the Book or any part of it as in that composure we find no obligation on us to that both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church more than Preaching of the same Doctrine and praying for the same things is counted by them also we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service as a humane device that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship Aâ—d lastly because having once parâ—ed with them in the matter of worship we think we should take our Rule for manageing our Worship from the Scripture rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Sect. 6. All his Arguments Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake to wit that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful If that were true Communion with them sometimes for peace might well inferr constant Communion for the same good design Neither do I say that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere then where we are Members of a Church I look not on our Lords Communion with the Jewish Church as only Occasional but Constant so far as the Woâ—k that he was sent into the World for did permit but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship as the Dr. alledgeth p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication as other Jews were is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it and therefore his bare asserting it should not have been thought enough to set it off All that the Scripture saith of this is That he walked in Solomon's Porch Joh. 10. 22 23. Did none of the Jews more than this at that Feast Is it not to be thought that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings and other religious Observations on account of the want of Institution and defended the Non-conformity of his Disciples to these Observations would himself observe a Religious Solemnity that had no other warrant nor foundation but what those other things had which he condemneth It is then rational to think that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse as the Apostles after did when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated and not fit to be observed Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument Sect. 19. from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful constant Communion is a Duty for saith he from hence appeareth evident that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity This Argument is but lamely proposed and this Scripture but weakly improved by what the Dr. saith to prove his design Two things it seems he would inferr from it to wit Vniformity and Study of Peace I first ask him whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined so
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
Communion They separate because the Church is polluted with these We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these we think the fault of other men I mean in things of that nature no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church so that in effect they go away from the Church We are driven away by the Church Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church is It weakâ—neth the Câ—use of the Reformation This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines and he beginneth with Calvin whose words too long here to be transcribed do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful because of lesser Impurities or great Faults while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her yea he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181 182. and being anathematized for not complying with these Corruptions a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome which is parallel to our case But saith the Dr. he doth not mean indifferent Rites Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites but sinful Ceremonies And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of Enâ—land with that of Rome as â—o causes of Separation yet here there is a likeness the one rejecteth some of her Members because they will not sin with her and will force her Impositions on their Consciences and so doth the other Another Author he citeth is Daillie giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them And what need was there to mention them when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly if the differences had been such as we might safely have yielded to then Separation had been rash and unjust So say we for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship as we cannot to that which is greater to wit idolatrous Worship Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus who saith If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in Her Communion Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England for these and such-like faults We refuse the use of these and because of that the Church casteth us out of Her Communion And if Amyrald us say That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema we leave him to his own Sentiments in that but are of another opinion It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies when they are compared with these Romish Abominations but when we consider them by themselves and compare them with Scripture we cannot think so of them The Dr. further urgeth us with the Answers given by Claude Paion and Turretine to the Book entituled Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies this is both false and inconcludent It is false for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church because of their Ceremonies One of the chief Objects saith he that presented it self to our Fathers was that of the great number of the Ceremonies which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship making it look partly like Judaism and partly like Heathenism He saith It was without doubt a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and much more to that purpose What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head I know not for I have not seen them This Argument is also inconcludent because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery Sect. 5. One passage he citeth p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine that no tolerable superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience are sufficient grounds of Separation And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by fâ—lse Doctrine To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation And I deny not that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable to wit where men will use them and do not impose them on others They that are left to their liberty may well tolerate others in the use of them but I do not so well see that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience for Superstition is Sin and no Sin is tolerable in that case To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer That it is absolutely false and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof for that I may not deny as he asserteth without reason 1. A Superstitious Riâ—e is one of the Traditions of Men in the Worship of God and that the Scripture doth simply condemn without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisâ—ical Washings were enforced with but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness Mat. 15. 6 9. but of this afterward 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Riâ—e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will make it to defile the Conscience as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine If this Doctrine were true men might impose what they will in the Worship of God they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used or Papists either if they keep but orthodox mind and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites but only sic volo sic jâ—beo To what purpose he citeth le Blanch shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists I see not but that many Names of Authors make a shew and it argueâ—h great reading for he saith not one word of the â—eremonies and we all know that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England but those of Rome it self yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds Sect. 6. It was needful that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations home to his purpose which every Reader could hitherto hardly â—iscern how it should be done Wherefore p. 185. he telleâ—h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by but the things that we now scruple And he telleth us how we would be laughed at all
in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
Work by Delegates when they are at ease nor doth it prove that these did any thing without the Presbyters that Cyprian citeth tu es Petrus and whatsoever you shall bind c. was to very good purpose when some Martyrs invaded the Discipline of the Church and i proveth that as Christ gave the power of the Keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles not to the People so he had given it to Cyprian and the rest of the Presbyters not to the Martyrs It had been well if tu es Petrus had never been more abused He saith indeed that the Church hath ever been governed by Bishops but the Dr. must prove that he meaneth by Bishops alone as they are distinct and separate from the other Presbyters The rest that followeth that the Bishop is to govern and give Account to God that he is in the place of Christ that a Church is a People united to a Bishop do all agree very well either with a Congregational Bishop or Minister or a Presbyterian Moderator acting in parity with other Presbyters and yet these are the Herculean Arguments from Antiquity that men make such a noise with Sect. 8. I now proceed with the Dr. to the third Thing that he had undertaken to wit to prove That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church this Last he supposeth that he hath proved is no devisiâ—g a new species of Churches nor repugnant to any Institution of Christ. To prove which Sect. 11. he bringeth some of Mr. B's Concessions which I neither yield nor will vindicate He bringeth also some Arguments of Mr. B's to prove that the ordinary governing part of the Apostolick Office was setled in all Ages Wherefore I must for a little leave the Dr. and Answer these Arguments of Mr. B's But first I take notice that it is a Mistake in the Dr. and Mr. B. too to call the governing part of the Apostle's Office ordinary For 1. That is to suppose the Thing in question to wit that it was continued in the Church that they governed and preached is true but that Officers that after were imployed in governing or preaching can claim that power as succeeding to the Apostles in any part of their Office and without other warrant we deny The Apostles governed and preached by another Commission from Christ than men now do and that both as to the manner of it the one being immediate the other mediate and as to the matter of it their Commission warranted them to do many Acts in governing and preaching that others have no power to do as giving Authoritative rules to all Churches where they came ordaining and censureing every where going up and down to Preach every where without a call from any Church without being fixed any where this power no Man can now pretend to Wherefore I say that Minâ—sters Teâ—ch and Rule the Church not by vertue of Apostolick Office or any part of it committed to them but by vertue of anoâ—her Office distinct from that of the Apostles which they receive by their Ordination 2. It is evident that the Apostles governing Power was not ordinary because there was an ordinary governing Power in the Church even in the Apostles times distinct from that of the Apostles and exercised by other Men tho' in subordination to the Apostles governing Power The Presbytery did then Ordain they did also Excommunicate as was above shewed and the Apostles directed them so to do and sometimes concurred with them and sometimes they acted without them Sect. 9. Let us now hear Mr. B s. Arguments 1. We read saiâ—h he Christ direct pt 3. Question 56. p. 831. Of the sâ—â—lâ—ng of that form viz. general Officers as well as particular but we never read of any Absolution Discharge or Cessation of the Institution Ans. 1. If this Argument have any force it will prâ—ve the continuance of all the extraordinary Offices that ever were in the Church Prophets Evangelists Workers of Miracles c. For we read not that ever they were discharged Ans. 2. It is enough to Abolish and Discharge that Institution that this Office was setled in the persons of some Men immediately by Jesus Christ himself and after their decease He neither put others in their room immediately by himself nor gave the Church any hint that such a thing should be done but instead of that he hath given sufficient direction for propogating other Officers in the Church in all Ages Argument 2. If we affirm a Cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of Mutabillity as setling one form of Government for one Age only and no longer Ans. I hope Mr. B. will not say that a change in Gods Works yea or Institutions doth argue mutability in God are not all the Old Testament Institutions now changed Were not Prophets Evangelists Men gifted with divers tongues c. His Institutions and yet now ceased and no other proof can be given for their Cessation then what we give for the ceasing of Apostles Neither do we say they are ceased without proof that they were by immediate Commission from God that that now cannot be pretended to and that the Lord hath hinted no other way of continuing such an Office in his House nor that it should be continued is abundant proof of this Cessation Argument 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastors Sacraments c. and to say that they were but for an Age. Ans. There is not the least shew of reason for this for their Gospel Institutions have more abiding Warrant then Immediate Commission given by Christ to some to Administer them Argument 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World Maâ—h 28. 20. Ans. 1. If this Argument prove any thing it proveth too much to wit that only General Officers have that promise which I hope Mr. B. will not say Ans. 2. It was spoken to General Officers but the promise is not made to them alone but to all that should be Imployed in the work of Teaching and Baptizing And these being particularly here mentioned will prove that there shall be Teachers and Baptizers to the end of the World but not that there shall be General Officers as the Metropolitans c. that Mr. B. dreameth of to the end of the World. Sect. 10. The Dr. to improve these Arguments of Mr. Bâ— to his purpose joineth with him the consent of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave successors in the care of Government of the Churches Aus Who doubteth of that but the question is to whom did the Apostles commit this care we say to the Pastors in Common he saith to Diocesan Bishops this we deny that it can be proved either from any Writing or Deed of the Apostles or from the consent of the Ages next after them that the Bishops were looked on as succeeding to the Appostles in
will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act and another thing then private dealing with a person the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person in Preaching they are in more general Terms Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man I know not 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercisâ—d because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly and personally inflicted on Offenders and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn hic num without fault aâ—d where it is fâ—ulâ—ily forborn it doth nullifie the being of a Church yet it must not always be forborn His 2. answer is If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly and debar in that Case Reply why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick and the Law thus to clash especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubriâ—k are setled by Law And he doth by this fairly yield that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing parturiunt montes Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself Sect. 16. that the neglects and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed To this he hath several Answers The 1. is That the question is whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches this I pass for I think it doth not The 2. is It is easier to complain of this or separate then find out a way to remedy it We propose the Scripture remedy to wit to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common The 3. is That therâ— is not that necessity of Church Discipline as in the primitive times the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders and so to vindicate the honour of the Church And to confirm this he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tuâ—es petrus and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors as Augustine Theodoret c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus and his followers proving that the Church and Republick are distinct Societies tho made up of the same Persons that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World that the Rules Laws Punishments and immediate ends of Church-State are different Let him no more tell us of the Church of England but of the Civil Laws of England as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed and ordered by I shall not digress to refute this Assertion but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ and his Apostles who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs to Church-men and not to the Magistrate Sict 18. His Fourth Answer is that Excommunication by Protestant Divines is not left to a Parochial Church I do not plead for that but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that miâ—d It is false That among us a Minister I mean with his Elders can only admonish not repel from the Lords Supper Why saith he may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie â—he Bishop as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive Church was exercised by a single person If the Dr's principle be true I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace than either of both What he saith of the Affrican Churches is answered above Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery by the declining of him is meant declining of them The Inconveniences that he allegeth by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance to a meeting of Pastors But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship it could hardly be so ill managed and made so ridiculous and contemptible as it is now in the Hands of Bishops or rather their Servants in England It is well known how solemn and terrible it is as practiced which is seldom in Presbyterian Churches and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments as he doth against Parochial Discipline to wit That there are no certain Rules to proceed by no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication no method of Tryal no security against false â—itnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals besides multitudes of other Inconveniences Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church without a Book of Canons such reflections on the Word of God are very unbecoming a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer But he might have considered if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible and if he have not his Will must be his Law why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery respective take the help of them He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile would prove more Tyranical than any Bishops Court. It may be so if managed by bad men but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates as the Bishops Courts for these we medle not with His fifth Answer I say nothing against Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline even supposing every one left to their own Consciences as to their
neither possession â—or Acts of Parliament can take that right that Christ hath given to hâ—s people and bâ—stow it on another His Allegation that the peoples consent is swallowed up in the Parliaments Act is answered above That this right hath been owned in the King from the first planting of Christianity in England is said with more confidence than any semblance of Truth or shadow of Reason That Edward 3d asserted it in an Ep. to Clement will not prove it men use big words sometimes instead of strong Arguments and I believe that his Assâ—rtion was so far true that from the beginning of Christianity heâ—e the Pope had not that power which he had claimed and which the King was debating with him Sect. 23. He saith p. 326. That the right of inferior Patronage is justly thought to bear equal daâ—e with the first settlement of Christianity in peace and quietness A bold Assertion It must then have begun in the days of Constantine the Great His proof of this is Presbyters were setled in Country Cures what then In the First Council of Orange express mention is made of Patronage and it is reserved to the first Founders of the Churches If a Bishop saith the Dr. built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocess yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved When first I read this I could think of no other Answer but that this was far from what was to be proved Christianity was setled in peace long befâ—re this time for I doubted not of the Truth of a Citation made by a Man of so much Learning Reading and Integrity but I now find it is fit we should see with our own Eyes for in that Canoâ— it is the 9th the Dr calleth it the 10th there is no mention expresly nor implicite of Patronage nor presenting of a Clerk only this Favour is reserved to the Builder of the Church ut quos desiderat in re sua videre ipsos ordinetis in cujus civitatis terri orio est vel si ordinati jam sint ipsos habere acquiescat It is evident that no contest between the People and the Bishop is here determined who should chuse the Clerk but between the Bishop that builded the Church and him in whose Diâ—cess it is built The Builder of the Church is to have his desire as to the Officers of the Church and not the Bishop in whose Diocess it is but it may be rationally thought that the Bishop's desire was not to cross Christ's Institution nor tâ—e ancient Canons in depriving the people of the Election Such a desire this Councâ—l could not grant him nor is it rational to suppose that they granted it But it might be supposed that tâ—e Builder of the Church might more influence the People they being his own Vassals or Tenaâ—ts as we now speak then the other Bishop in whose Diocess the Church was and therefore the one is here decreed to have his desire rather than the other He saith this was confirmed by Concil Arelat 2. c. 36. it is mihi Can. 35. Now let any judge whether this Canon doth affirm any such thâ—ng or rather doth not speak plainly for popuâ—ar Election The words of it are placuit in ordâ—natione Episcopi hunc ordinem custodiri ut primo loco venâ—litate vel ambitione suâ—inata ad Episcopis nec nominentur de quibus Clerici vel Laiâ—i Cives erga unum eligendi haebeâ—nt potestate The Relative de quibus is not Diacritick as if some might be named by the Bishops which is the only ground on which this Canon could be drawn into the Dr's design for here Bishops not a Bishop are mâ—nâ—ioned and the choice is of a Bishâ—p not a Presbyter of whom a Bishop might be a Paâ—ron the Relative is then to be understood Vniversâ—litâ—r that the Clergy and Lâ—ity have the power of chuâ—ing their Bishop and therefâ—re the rest of the Bishops must not name him Sect. 26. He bringeth next the Constitutions of the Emperours Zeno and Jusiinian I have above answered to this they were out of their Line when they medled in these matters The Citatiâ—ns tâ—emselves I cannot examine not having the Books but if they be like what goeth before it is little matter He saiâ—h this was setlâ—d also in the Westâ—rn Church as appeareth by the 9th Council of â—oledo Ans. 1. This Council was held An. 650. saith the Dr. 656. saith Alstedius this was in a time when Corruptions in the Church were come to a great height 2. In this Provincial Council were buâ—â—â—xteen Bishops With what face then can it be said that what they did was brought into the Western Church This it is to speak big words instead of using strong Arguments 3. The 1st â—anon impowereâ—h the Heirs of Founders of Churches to prevent Dilapidations in those Churches The Second impowereth the Founder himself quum diu in hâ—c vita supeâ—stes extiterit during Life to have a care of these places and to offer fit Rectors to â—erve in them Where it is to be noted 1. That the Founder might be pâ—esumed to be a good Man by his liberality and theremore trust might be reposed in him as to this matter but his Heirs who mâ—ght be profane Hereticks or Atheists are not intrusted with a conâ—ern of that nature as it is with us Where Papists must chuse a Minister for Protestants or an Atheist or Drunkard c. 2. It is not said that the people shall not chuse nor must consent but he was to offer a Pastor which might well consist with the Peoples Election All that followeth is nothing but a raking into the Dunghil of the latter Corruptions of the Church to confirm this right of patronage I therefore wave it Sect. 27. He is now arrived at his last consideration p. 328. Things being thus setled by general consent and established by Laws there is no ground for the people to resum the liberty of Elections I hope the weight of this is already taken of in the judgment of the unbyassed Reader that there never was such general consent nor Laws till the Church was quite corrupted and that these if they had been could not take away the peoples right of Election and therefore they are to own iâ— still He giveth three reasons for this Assertion 1. It was not unalterable That is deny'd 2. No inconvenience can be alledged against the setled way of disposing of Livings but may be remedied by Lâ—w easier than those which will follow on popular Elâ—ctions in a divided Nation Ans. 1. It is not only inconveniences that we object but crossing of Christ's Institution 2. The Doctor hath nothing in his eye but Liviâ—gs it is the Pastoral Relation that we mind and the conâ—ern of Souls in it we desire to know who put the power of disposing of these into the handâ— of Paâ—rons 3. We deny his Asserâ—ion for though the Law will restrain a Popish Patron from presenting a Popish
Priest that is opeâ—ly so yet he may present a Protestant in Masquerade or one of the meanest of men for parts and other qualities of a Minister which it is known they often do when yet the Law of the Land can haâ—dly reâ—ch the Man. And a Debauched Patron may present one who will not reprove him too severely who yet may have qualifications to satisfie the Law. But the dissenâ—ions that arise among a divided people may be remedied by Church Dâ—scipline or if they break out into external disorders by the Magistrate 3. Bâ—cause saith he other reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable preteâ—ce Answ. Mens Authority must not preponderate with us against that of Christ. He proveth what he saith 1. By Beza declaiming against popular Election see this in Bâ—z Ep. 83. Answ. Beza speaketh only against Election by the people without their Church-guides to manage them in that action The Lutheran Churches that he next addeth are no Examples to us Their way is much applauded by the Church of England men much more then the way of Englâ—nd is by them For as Pezel melâ—fic â—ist part 3. p. 345. observeth none did more fiercely persecute the Exiles in Qu. Mary's days than they did in Denmark Lubeck Rostoch and especially at Hamburgh The Salvo of the Synod of Dort shewâ—th that they did not allow Patronages but must proceed warily in removing them which hath been the case of other Churches but maketh against the Doctâ—r's opinion not foâ— it That the Ministers in France or the Council of State at Genâ—va chuse Ministers and obtrude them on the people without their consent we deny Sect. 28. I have by what is said preoccupied most of the Doctor 's Reasons against Mr. B. contained Sect. 26. I shall only take notice of a few things We make void no Laws about Patronage but so far as they respect the peoples right of chusing a pastor for their Souls and thus far they are cassate by the Laws of â—hrist As to Temple and Tythes as he speaks we medle not with Laws about them only we wish the removing of them as a Griâ—vance and that Rulers would provide for the Church in a way that the peoples right of Elâ—ction might not be hindered nor restrained in its Exercise Mr. B. objecteth p. 330. That the Patron by giving a right to Temple and Tythes doth not make the man a Minister to that peopleâ— Souls and the Parliament cannot dispose of peoples Souls The Doctor instead of an Answer giveth the meaning of this that if the people be humersome and factious they may run after whom they please in opposition to Laws This is ad populum fâ—lâ—ras but no fair way of Arguing The true meaning is that though the Paâ—non by Law may give a man a title to the Temple and Tythes and the people can neither keep him out of the Church nor deny to pay his dues yet the Law cannot make him their Pastor without their consent I do not say they should run after another it is fit they should consent to a tolerable person so imposed on them for peace sake yet it is not the Law but their consent that maketh him their Minister That Anabaptists Quakâ—rs and Papists will put in for a share in this priviledge is but a mâ—an objection for Christ hath given people power to chuse sound Pastors not whom they will. The Doctor asketh Whether all must have equal Votes then the worst who are the most part will chuse one like themselves Answ. This is to be regulated by the Guides of the Church the worst are to be instructed yea and censured if need be and if they chuse a bad man the Pastors are not to ordain him He alledgeth few are competent Judges Answ. Many can judge tolerably and they who cannot are to be guided by others but the matter is not wholly left to their judgment the Elected man being to be tryed by the Eldership He enlargeth on the tumulâ—s and strifs in popular Elections This hath been abundantly answered above That the matter is devolved on a few doth not take away the right of others who are willing to be advised by these few The Doctor is as certain that Christ never gave people such an unalterable right as he is that he designed Peace and Unity in the Church This certainty is built on no good grounds and therefore amounteth to no more but fancy I have shewed ground for a contrary perswasion and a way that Christ hath laid down for peace consistent with this right SECT VII Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church and First of the Liturgy THe Reverend Author is now at last Sect. 26. come to that which I reckon the main plea for our withdrawing from the Communion of the Church of England to wit the Terms of Communion that she imposeth on all that shall partake with her in the Ordinances of God which we count unlawful and therefore cannot submit to them the Church imposeth them so as none are permitted to joyn with her who forbear them and therâ—fore we cannot partake without them This putteth us on a necessity of forbearing Communion with her and the necessity of Worshipping God doth not suffer us to live without the Ordinances and thence resulteth a necessity of keeping sepâ—rate meetings which our Brethren blame us for and we blame them for forâ—ing us to it against our will. If these Terms of Communion upon due examination prove lawful we refuse not the blame of separation which we think as gâ—eat as they do but if they prove unlawful then doth the blame lie at their door who impose them Yea unbyassed men will say that if the things be but indifferent and of no necessity the Imposers cannot justifie the imposing of them when so sad inconvenience followeth upon them Sect. 2. These Terms of Communion in particular are the constant use of the Liturgy and the Ceremonies which are the Cross in Baptism Kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper and observing of Holy-days that God hath not appointed â—â—her Ceremonies they have which we also dislike but because they are not imposed as Terms of Communion we do not here mention them What is to be said of Godfathers and â—odmothers in Baptism we shall in its place examine The Doctor excuseth himself from saying any thing about the Lituâ—â—y because it hath laâ—ely been so very well defended by a Divine of this Church ciâ—eing on his Margin Dr. Falâ—oner's Vindication of Liturgies and I for the like cause forbear this debate or answering Dr. Falkoner that having been exceeding well done Anno 1681. by the Learned G. F. in his Questions between the Conformist and Nonconformist truly stated and briefly discussed which the Doctor if he had pleased to read the Writings on both sides the neglect of which he blameth us for might have taken notice of before his Third Edition came out 1682. But beside that neither Doctor Falkoner nor any other
saith it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church because he saith We receive him into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him c. Answer It is not material to our debate which of the Two be said for the question is Whether the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ when he hath already appointed a sign for that end We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign to be done in her name after the person is already dedicated by Christs sign and in His name If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number and that may be done in her name I answer by Christs sign that is also done by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christs Flock But beside this it is evident that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church but dedicating of the person to Christ not only from the plain words of the Canon of which already but by what followeth in the words used at the signing which are We receive him into the number of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Souldier and Servant unto his lives end Amen Will any man say that this is meer admission as a Member of the Church or into the Church of England and that no more is intended by these words Is it not made a sign of our Covenant or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism To wit all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of The absurdity of this notion to wit that Crossing is meerly an admitting sign will yet further appear if we consider that in the same office of Baptism used by the Church of England the Minister having put the God-fathers in mind of Christs promise to the Infant to be baptised he is to say Wherefore after this promise made by Christ these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties that they will forsake the Devil and all his works and constantly believe Gods Holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments This is the baptismal Dedication I hope that will not be denied Now is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign as well as Baptism And it may as well be said that Baptism is meerly a rite of admission into the Church as that is such Sect. 22. He telleth us page 351. that all publick admissions into Societies have some Ceremonie belonging to them That we deny not and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church which he having done how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end As Baptism saith the Doctor is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used withâ—ut prescribing to other Churches This now is the fine new Notion for the sake of which all the foregoing discourse is designed The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour and hard throws of a Mountain I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. that by this one Notion the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book which is to charge them with separation most of whom he here doth implicitely and by necessary consequence acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England they never having been signed with the Cross For if they never were Members they were not capable of separation more than another Mans Leg can be said to be cut off from my body to which it never was united 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church but the quite contrary as is evident from what is already cited both out of the Thirtieth Canon and out of the Office of Baptism both which are the authentick Writings of the Church wherefore this is to be lookt on as but one Doctors Opinion and we are to take the scope and meaning of the Churches Ceremonies from her own declaration and not from the thoughts of any one man when he is streightned in defending of these rites 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross should be willing now to join as Members of the Church and to submit to all her terms of Communion whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission The same may be enquired concerning any Baptized in France Scotland or any other Church I suppose he will not own such Crossing I am sure it was never heard of if he say it is not to be done How do these become Members of the Church The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant even where it is not joined with Baptism why then do not the Church of England for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church require this Crossing out of Baptism if it be meerly a sign of admission into the Church of England 4. If the Church and the Dr. too and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church would declare never so often that this is the use and the only use of Crossing all this could not satisfy as long as the words used with it and the Religious State in which it is by their practice sixed do make the contrary apparent Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross his Brethren do not approve yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating or common professing sign of Baptized Persons to wit that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end Then the Dr. answereth True but not only for that end but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men for which God oâ—ly ought to appoint means Reply 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christs for all the ends that they are appointed for but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends because Christs means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify Gods promise of giving grace but also to signify our engagement to perform duty Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one more than for the other 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a
mean and instrument of conveying grace to men Ergo ex concessis it is unlawful to be appointed by men The antecedent I prove for the Church maketh her Ceremonies to stir up the dull minds of men and this in particular to be a token that hâ—reafter the party baptized shall not be ashamed of Christ therefore it must be a mean of stirring up one to own Christ and is not this the very use of Baptism What difference is there but that the one is a mean appointed by God for conveying the grace that he hath promised the other is a mean appointed by man for the same end Sect. 24. The Dr. chargeth the Church of Rome with Insolence in appointing Rites for applying the Merits of Christ and saith This is the only possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments Answer Though we have many other Arguments against the Ceremonies than that they are Sacraments of mens making yet we will not pass even from that Argument The Drs. assertion 〈…〉 false for a Sacrament is a visible Sign of invâ—siâ—le Grace â—nd if men appoint signs of their own for representing or conveying Grace they make new Sacraments tho' they do not intend by these to apply Christs Merit Sacraments are for applying the Spirit of Christ as well as for applying the Merit of Christ and therefore if men pretend to make signs for the one tho' not for the other they make new Sacraments We do not say that every significant Custom in a Church is to pass for a new Sacrament as the Dr. would make us say Sitting at the Sacrament putting off the hat in Prayer c. which he paralleth with the Ceremonies are quite of another nature being Actions made sit by civil Custom and for their fitness used in worship but not appropriated to it Mr. B. objecteth against the Cross being a bare Rite of admission that the obligation is to the Common Duties of Christianity The Dr. Answereth And is not every Church-Member bound to perform these How this Answereth the Objection I see not For the Question is not what Church-Members are obliged to but when Christ hath appointed a Sacramental sign to represent the common duties of Christianity whether the Church may appoint another sign for the same end and join that sign with Christ's sign to be performed with it with the same Solemnity and in the same Office of divine worship He saith that To shew that Crossing is a solemn Rite of Admission the Church alloweth it to be forborn in private Baptism Answer 1. This only sheweth it to be a solemn action not that it is a solemn rite of admission for all this it may be a solemn Sacrament or a solemn piece of other worship 2. This allowance of the Church doth quite cross the Drs. Conceit of its being a Rite of admission into the Church of England for if it were so look't on the Church would rather injoin it then because without it the person baptised should not at all be admitted into the Church and so be no Member of it and surely the Rite of administration to the Church is more needful where admission into the universal Church to wit Baptism is more questionable whether it hath been done or not as in private Baptism than where it is publick and known to all To Mr. B's Objection That Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient and therefore we need not devise more He Answereth If it be lawful the Church is to judge of the Expediency and to appoint other Rites that do not encroach on the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Reply 1. Mr. B. and others assert and prove the unlawfulness of these Rites as the Dr. well knoweth wherefore he might well have expounded We need not devise by We ought not devise 2. There are other ways how mens Rites may encroach on Christ's Institutions than by challenging any effect peculiar to them when as they are appropriated to Religion used in or amidst Religious Exercises and for Religious Ends. 3. Dedicating a person to God engaging the Soul to own Christ and such like are effects peculiar to Christ's Institutions for they are instituted for these ends and nothing else hath any efficacy that way being destitute of the promise of a Blessing Wherefore even on that account and by his own Confession our Ceremonies import a charging of God's Ordinances with insufficiency Sect. 25. The rest of his debate with Mr. B. pag. 353 354. I wave it being ad hominem only on a principle of Mr. B's that I allow not He pleadeth against Mr. B. pag. 355. that the sign of the Cross if it had Christ's Institution would be a Sacrament because then it should have promises annexed and the nature of it quite changed and the Minister should sing in Christ's Name not in the Church's Answer The Nature of it would be then changed no doubt because it would be a true Sacrament and have the annexed Blessing but there would be no other Change from what it now is than what dependeth upon the Authority by which it is instituted But that doth not hinder it to be now a Mock Sacrament and to have as much of a Sacrament as is possible without divine institution The Ministers signing now in the name of the Church which he then would do in the Name of Christ saith no more but that in the one case it is Christ's Ordinance but in the other case it is Mans Ordinance but doth not hinder it in that case to be a humane Sacrament Whether Mr. B. do misrepresent the Popish Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments or not which the Doctor by many Testimonies endeavoureth to prove pag. 357 358. is not much to our business The Doctor saith That if by the Protestant Doctrine the Sacraments do at all convey Grace whatever way it be done it sheweth that the sign of the Cross-can never be advanced to that Dignity since in no sence it is held to be an Instrument for conveying of Grace Answer It is true it is by this excluded from being a true Sacrament But it may for all that be a false Sacrament for though it be not their opinion that it conveyeth Grace yet it is by them held to be a mean of stirring up the mind and engaging the Soul to these Acts to which nothing but the Grace of God can effectually help a person I hope the Doctors Conclusion of this debate with Mr. B. may now appear to be groundless to wit That this Phrase of a new Sacrament is groundless and only invented to amuse People Neither can I understand what sort of people these should be who have been satisfied against all the other Arguments which he calleth conveying their prejudices and have so stuck at this stumbling block for we bring many Arguments against the Ceremonies that more weight is to be laid on though this wanteth not its force Sect. 26.
it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated motive to Worship And after if men sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship yet how shall we excuse our own adorations Sure the application of all this to the present Controversy is not so hard to be understood but that a man whose wit is not a wool-gathering may see these are not the words of a delirious man. He doth not charge the Church of England with using Images but with using the sound of a word to the same purpose with the lower use that Papists ascribe to Images and inferreth that if the one be a sin so is the other and the one may as lawfully be done as the other The adorations he speaketh of are worshipping God by the help of the sound of that word as a motivum cultus and therefore there is no need of proving that ye Worship any other beside God before ye need excuse your adorations The Dr. confesseth page 361. that their Church never denied that men sin in making Images a stated motive of Worship Hence Mr. A. inferreth that their Church sinneth in making the sound of a word a stated motive of Worship but this the Dr. is not pleased to take notice of But when Mr. A. asserteth that they may bring in Images with equal reason the Dr. denieth that we may worship Images on the same reason that we perform external adoration to Jesus at the mention of his Name still he will not take notice wherein the parallel and consequently the strength of the reason lieth to wit in making Images a motive of worship and making a word such but the Dr. parallelleth making Images the object of Worship and making the word Jesus the occasion only of it which is to seek subterfuges not to stand to the argument insisted on Sect. 33. Mr. A. giveth a difference between the tolling of a Bell to call People to Church and the word Jesus occasioning our bowing that the one is out of worship the other in it when we should be intent on devotion In answering this the Dr. saith They contend not for the seasonableness of this bowing when they are in other acts of devotion and immediate application to God but about the lawfulness of it in repeating the Lessons or the Creed Reply 1. I have before shewed that this is not the sense of the Church which injoineth it in time of Divine Service which I hope taketh in prayer yea when ever that Name is mentioned in the Church wherefore the Dr. must be sore put to it when he must defend the Church by contradicting her and setting up his private opinion that he is forced upon against her Authentick and publick Records 2. Here are two distinctions hinted equally useless to this design The first is he pleadeth not for the seasonableness but for the lawfulness of this usage but if it be unseasonable even at these times that he will have it used then it is also unlawful seeing duties acceptable to God must be done in their season 3. The other distinction is it is not to be done in acts of devotion and immediate application to God but in the Lessons and Creed I desire to know whether hearing the Word read and hearing the Articles of our Faith rehearsed in a solemn manner while we are about Worshipping God be not acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God as well as prayer which he seemeth to understand by that expression The word read as well as preached Heb. 4. 2. should be mixed with Faith and so should the hearing the Articles of our Faith and is not Faith in its exercise Devotion and an immediate Application to God At least it cannot be denied that serious exercise of the whole Soul is requisite in these exercises as well as in that which he will call Devotion and therefore it must be as unseasonable to be diverted by waiting for the fall of a Word in the one exercise as in the other 4. The Dr. taketh no notice of the main strength of Mr. A's reason to wit that the toll of the Bell is out of Worship the sound of the Word in it The one is in statu Civili or Communi the other in statu Religioso For I hope he will not deny these exercises in which this bowing is to be used to be Religious acts He saith it signifieth nothing to this purpose whether persons be in the Church or out of if when the Bell rings for in the same page he Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell which ringeth in Worship and if the object of their Worship were right it would make him better understand the parallel Reply It is a rash assertion to say there is no difference between the Bell ringing when People are in the Church and when they are out of it he must mean when they are in the act of Worship and when not otherwise what he saith is impertinent for the one is motivum Cultus and in status Religioso the other not It is true Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell in the next page but he parallelleth it with the sound of the VVord Jesus both being a stated motive of Worship and therefore that is mentioned by the Dr. to no purpose Sect. 34. He saith when it is said in the Injunctions that we must bow at mentioning the Name Jesus in divine Service or when it is otherwise in the Church pronounced Yet saith he by the manner of shewing this reverence viz. with lowliness of courtesy and uncovering the heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other act of devotion Answer By this way of commenting he may easily make the Church say whatever he pleaseth for this is to contradict the Text by his Commentary Let him tell us when is that Name pronounced in the Church and yet People at no other act of Devotion This manner of reverence required proveth nothing for it is no wonder to hear them speak inconsistencies in requiring low courtesy and uncovering of the head in time of Devotion when the head is already uncovered who injoin the same in the Church out of that Devotion when that VVord is mentioned tho' heads be already uncovered as all must be in time of Divine Service by Can. 18. the same that injoineth this Bowing He saith it giveth no interruption to Devotion But doth it give none to other parts of Worship which he is not pleased to call Devotion He will still have it lawful as long as the object of Worship is true the mention of this Name only expresseth the time as the Bell doth of going to Church Answer It will then follow that if Papists will only Worship God not the Image and use it only as a stated motive of Worship that were lawful too But he considereth not that the manner and mean of Worship may be sinful when the object to which it is directed is true and that this is so is
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
a mind to expose the present Non-conformists as far degenerate from their Ancestors in the same Profession But of this more in its due place Sect. 3. He complaineth p. 2. of his own hard Usage on the like Occasion His Sermon entituled The Mischief of Separation was indeed solidly refuted by several Non-conformists and in that sence his Sermon was hardly used but I never heard before that hard Arguments were counted hard Vsage from an Adversary and if Bishop Jewel had no harder Usage for his Sermon there was no need of this Complaint unless it were to make his own hard Fate the more conspicuous by so venerable a Parallel This Reverend Author should consider That tho' we owe and give all due deference to the Memory of Bishop Jewel and to the Worth of Dr. Stillingfleet for their Labours in Defence of Protestantism yet it is neither Ingratitude nor Incivility in us to defend the purity of Gospel-Worship Worship against their Assaults We honour them but retain our Liberty of dissenting from them and of owning our Dissent when they mistake and are out of the way We call no man Rabbi having one Master CHRIST whose written Word we make the Rule of our Faith and Worship But one great part of the Doctor 's hard Vsage lieth in this That it hath been maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that he was put on that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise Persecution I confess Malice to suggest Evil and over-easiness to believe it is a thing too common among Dissenting Parties the Lord heal these Distempers on both hands but the particular Ground of this Charge on his Antagonists should have been mentioned If any have suspected that he was put on the Work if the work be good that doth extenuate the fault of such Suspicion I know no Evil in following either the Advice or Command of others to do our Duty So that hither to there is no Ground for the heavy Charge of Malice and malign Credulousness If any have judged his Design that is not fair dealing such Secrets are to be left to the Judgment of him who knoweth the Hearts But tho' I have a great deal of Charity in reference to the Intentio Operantis yet it is not so easie to pass a favourable Judgment on the Intentio Operis but he endeavoureth afterward his Vindication in this where I shall attend him Sect. 4. His professed Design in preaching that Sermon was only his just apprehension That the Destruction of the Church of England under a pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the likeliest Means to bring it Popery in Here he supposeth if I understand what he saith that the Protestant Dissenters aim at the destruction of the Church of England or at least that Non-conformity tendeth to destroy it than which no imagination can be more groundless nor can I conceive what should give cause to such a thought unless it be an extravagant Idea that some men frame to themselves of the Church of England as if her Essence consisted in the Ceremonies and the removing of these were the destruction of the Church We who Dissent from that which they call the Church of England are far from such low and dishonourable thoughts of Her we look on her as a Reformed part of the Church of God professing the Protestant Religion in opposition to the Errours of Popery but mixing this True Religion with some humane Ceremonies and therefore we think that opposing of these Ceremonies is so far from tending to the Destruction of the Church that it conduceth much to reforming of Her But suppose the Ceremonies were good and lawful things it is still a strange Notion and inconsistent with the Sentiments concerning them that our Brethren do profess that they are indifferent things and of no necessity If they be so what hazard is there of the destruction of the Church from their being laid aside If the Non-conformists had their wish it would inferr no other Alteration in the Church but the removal of such Accidents which the A betters of them do say That possunt adesse vel abesse sine subjecti interitu such Incoherences would not have been expected from so Learned a Pen. Sect. 5. It is also unfairly to say no worse hinted That Non-conformists Zeal against Popery is but pretended and that the real Design is to destroy the Church of England we can clear our selves of both before a higher Bar and therefore lay little weight on such Suggestions neither do we meerly dislike the Ceremonies because they are Popish he knoweth that we have other Arguments against them I hope Non-conformists shew their Zeal against Popery in other things Nor do we desire the Destruction of the Church that these Ceremonies may fall to the Ground but the removing of the Ceremonies that the Church may be more acceptable to him who can make her stand in despight of the Gates of Hell. If he charge us with the Church's Ruin because our Divisions about the Ceremonies may tend to it For answer Let it be considered who giveth culpably the Rise to these Divisions Whether they who forbear the Ceremonies because Sinful or they who do violently impose them tho' Indifferent in their Apprehension But this will afterwards fall to be further discoursed I deny not that Papists design the Ruin of the Church of England but not as Ceremonious but as Protestant they do not design to destroy Her by removing what the Non-conformists scruple but by taking away what they agree with Her in And therefore there is no Cause to think that the removing of the Ceremonies which Non-conformists desire though under a pretence of Zeal against Popery or under whatever other pretence should be one of the likeliest means to bring it in which our Author feareth Sect. 6. The Learned Dr. hath caught this Notion That Non-conformists by their Zeal against Popery are like to be Instruments of bringing it in and he seemeth to be very fond of this fine Conceit runneth away with it at a great rate is confirmed in it from the proceedings of Papists p. 2. starteth a Paradox p. 3. As it seemeth to unthinking People like the Non-conformists that when Papists 〈◊〉 appear no longer in that Work others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry it on for them and these unthinking people are carried away with meer no se and pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most passion and with least understanding against is and more to this purpose One may think it little Glory for the highly Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to labour in refuting such a contemptible Adversary as he here representeth But their Wisdom and Learning and Reasons for what they hold will I hope find more Equitable and less Supercilious Judges in the world neither will Hectoring stop their Mouths though they are ready to be silent to plain
Scripture or solid Reason He judgeth p. 3 4. That East and West may meet and the most furious Antagonists of Popery may become of the easiest Converts Deus avertat omen If we may form any Conjecture of what may be from the Observation of what hath been easie Conversion to Popery is liker to be found among his own party who are tame and gentle towards Popery and no way furious And if any be furious against it let them bear their blame We applaud and practise Rational Zeal against it but not Fury for The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God. He cannot get out of this fear concerning many Thousand zealous Protestants I deny not but there is cause of Fear for many have got sound Principles in their Heads without saving Grace in their Hearts and the Knowledge and Fortitude of most is very weak and the best have Cause to fear themselves and look to him who is able to make them stand but I hope all the Ground of Fear is not on our side Sect. 7. But now the Learned Author cometh closer to his Design viz. To lay down Grounds of his Opinion that he is so confirmed in That the principles and practice of Non-conformists do tend to re-introduce Popery among us one is That they mistake what Popery is being as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony and of the Cross as of real Idolatry and of Kneeling as of Adoring the Host. Ans. 1. The Dr. might have known that the learned Labours of some Non-conformists against Popery do sufficiently testifie that they are not ignorant what it is 2. We generally know that the Ceremonies are not Popery but loâ—k on them as a part of Popery but are far from equalling them with some other parts of Popery that are far 〈◊〉 re grosly evil 3. We never counted even the nocent Ceremonies used in England for innocent Ceremonies we know none but those of God's Institution so bad as real Idolatry nor Crossing and Kneeling so bad as worshipping Images tho' we count both sinful and dare practise neither Therefore if we should come to see our Mistake in the one Case which we expect not yet there is no Ground for the Consequence of this alledged by him viz. That we should suspect our selves deceived in the other also unless he would say that every Discovery of a Mistake that Men make about the smallest matters in Religion will shake the very Foundation of their Faith which I hope he will be very far from asserting left they that have read his Irenicum in former years and now read his Sermon and this Defence of it should inferr that which Good Men will be far from imputing to a person of his worth especially when he doth not deny but rather own a Change in some things now debated p. 72. of the Preface Sect. 8. It looketh like another Ground that Non-conformists serve the Designs of Papists that When they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can trace it so very near the Apostles Times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves Ans. 1. Here is still a confounding of something that is Popish with Popery a part taken for the whole an Accident without which Popery can well consist and which doth subsist without Popery with the body and substance of Popery He looketh on his Antagonists according to his wonted Esteem of them as very mean Logicians when he will have them conclude the Antiquity of Popery in those things that he and we do jointly dislike it in from the Antiquity of some Rites that were used under that Apostasie and which we have continued among us under the Reformatiom 2. It were still as bad a Consequence from our traceing some things near to the Apostles times to inferr that they were setled by the Apostles For we can make it appear that not only soon after the Apostles times but in their times some things were in the Church that they did not setle as the Love-Feasts which they reproved and abolished after that abuse of them was observed 3. To call those things that Non-conformists Scruple Viz. The Ceremonies the undoubted practices of the Ancient Church which may be traced near to the Apostles times is gratis dictum a bold begging of the question the proof of it we expect Sect. 9. It will saith he P. 5. be very hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so Vnanimously and so Vniversally as it must do if Episcopacy and the use of Significant Ceremonies were any parts of the Apostasie Here is still the great Antiquity of these things taken for granted but not proved But further his Considering men if they read and consider the Scripture will easily be perswaded that a Church may very early and quickly degenerate and that Vnanimously and Vniversally especially in some things that are of lesser concern in Religion How suddenly did the Church of Israel degenerate and Aaron with them when Moses was but 40 days absent in the Mount that in matters of higher moment than what we contend about even worshiping a Calf for God see Ex. 32. 1. and particularly Vers. 8. And the Lord foretold to Moses their after Apostasies Deut. 31. 16. And Moses took notice of their Apostasies while he was yet with them and how soon they would break out after his departure 27. 29. How Quickly Vnanimously and Vniversally did the ten Tribes apostatize after Solomon's decease And is not the whole History of the Church of Judah under her Kings a witness of this When ever a bad King arose presently the pure Worship of God was turned to Idolatry In the days of Joash as soon as Jehojada was gone how quickly did a Faction with a Complement to the King turn the whole Nation to Idolatry 2 Chron. 24. 17 18. These Apostasies were in higher points than we now speak of and yet How quickly did the Church thus degenerate And that this should not be thought strange even in the Gospel-Church we may see if we consider what Christ telleth us of the Tares sown while men sleep and growing up insensibly and without Observation Also the degeneracy that the Church fell into even while the Apostles were alive and faithfully watching over her and that both in Doctrine and Practice is evident in the Errours in Corinth and Galatia in the Abuses in publick Administrations at Corinth insomuch as the Apostle behoved even in his own time to make a Reformation by bringing back to Apostolick Example and the Law of Nature for reforming some Indecencies among them and to Divine Institution for reforming their Enormities 1 Cor. 11. 1. 20. 23. If these evils crept in under the Inspection of the Apostles What wonder is it if Men afterwards began in some things to deviate in Church-practice
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
either so undervalue Conscience or reflect on the worthy Persons that answered his Sermon If we cannot shew plain and evident Reasons for what we say as he requireth we refuse not causa cadere Sect. 31. He telleth a very formal Story p. 51 52. of the Effects of his Sermon of the mimick Gestures of the Non-conformists when it was spoken of the Truth of which History tho' I doubt I cannot disprove It neither was worth his writing nor my confuting He thinketh it lay at bottom of many mens Stomachs that he did not perswade the Church of England to the Dissenters Who did ever require that We pretend to no Authority over Her if she would have condescended to us for Peace sake which that Party talk so much of to forbear imposing her unnecessary things which we judge unlawful that should have satisfied us But he thinks p. 53. it had been unseasonable to speak of Alteration of Laws before Magistrates who are tied to the Laws that such Alteration is one of the weightiest things Ans. Supposing as he there saith his private Opinion for Abatements there was no need of proposing the Alteration of Established Laws but the exposing of them that were under the lash of Inconvenient Laws may well be forborn before the Executors of these Laws by a man that thinketh that Abatement should be made of the rigour of these Laws I do not think as he doth that the alteration of every Established Law is a Matter of such weight as any thing that can be taken into consideration provided the consideration about it be by such as have Power to alter it What is more common than altering of Laws when they are found inconvenient Our first Reformers thought not so under Edward 6. The Liturgy and the Law for it was altered when excepted against by Mr. Calvin abroad and some Zealots so the Historian speaks at home Full. Chur. Hist. 6 7. p. 386. Why may not this be done now when Dissatisâ—action is become more universal But it is a supposition that I can give no account of that the Laws against Non-conformity for of these his Discourse must be understood if it be at all to the purpose should be so looked on as that they concern the preservation of the Church and Religion That Church and Religion must stand on a tottering Foundation that cannot be preserved if those things be laid aside which are acknowledged to be indifferent But thus it is to dote on Mens Inventions it is ordinary to equal if not preferr them to Christ's Institution Mark 7. 13. Mat. 15. 6. Qui amat ranam ranam putat esse Dianam Sect. 32. But the Dr. is not content not to advise the altering of these Laws where it had not been very pertinent to propose it but he bringeth Reasons able as he thinketh to preponderate all the Considerations that any might use for changing them these Reasons are in number Six the 1. is The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters Must therefore none be satisfied because all cannot Some will be satisfied if you will but forbear imposing what God hath not commanded Others will not be satisfied unless you forbear also some of Christ's Institutions such as Infant Baptism is it reason to neglect the doing the one of these for Peace and Unity because you cannot do the other The 2. is The Vncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations If any man look on this as uncertain it must be either because he knoweth not what we scruple at or because he thinketh us resolved to dissent without reason when the reason of our Dissent is removed but I hope the Dr. is neither so ignorant nor so uncharitable He may be well assured that by relaxing the Imposition of humane Ceremonies all the Presbyterians shall be gained to join in worshipping of God with the present Church and I hope he will not say that they are no considerable number in England His 3. Reason is The difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church considering the ungovernableness of some mens Tempers and Principles Answ. If the Discipline that Christ hath instituted be duly exercised in the Church that will either make men governable yea actually govern them or it will exclude them out of the Church and so Factions shall cease in the Church But it is a strange piece of Ecclesiastical Policy on supposition that some will prove ungovernable to obtain the making of Civil Laws for imposing those things on mens Consciences which the Imposers count need nots and they on whom they are imposed know them to be unlawful This is the way to make them ungovernable in reference to these particular Impositions who would tamely submit to any Yoke that is not contrary to that of Christ. But it seems the Dr. looketh on all that scruple at human Ceremonies as ungovernable Persons And we rationally think that his Party are resolved that we shall either be governed by their Will not by the Word of God or they will take the most effectual ways that they can to keep us out of their Church I confess Conscience is an ungovernable thing except by the Laws of Christ but it is much the Strain of some of his Party I am confident the Reverend Dr. doth not mean so ill to ridicule and cry down Conscience in private persons that they may be governed by the publick Conscience a Soloecism in Divinity never heard of before i.e. The Will of the Superiours the thing to wit Blind Obedience is an old Popish Tool to enslave Consciences but such an express affronting of Conscience God's Deputy in the Soul is a new Invention that this Age is honoured with Sect. 33. His 4. Reason is The danger of breaking all in pieces by a Toleration Ans. Toleration is both commanded in Scripture Rom. 14. 1. Eph. 4. 2 3. In this last place it is joined with endeavouring after Unity so far is it from being the way to break all in pieces as the Dr. thinketh It is also condemned Rev. 2. 2 20. wherefore it should not have been so generally censured as a Church-ruining thing Beside Toleration is not that which we plead for in the first place but that the things that grieve our Consciences may be removed that so we may join with you in worshipping God in his own way that we may need no Toleration but if that cannot be obtained our next desire is that we may be suffered to worship God in that way that is acceptable to him by our selves when we cannot do it with you neither is it a vast and universal Toleration of all Blasphenius Heresies and Vnpeaceableness that we contend for but a forbearing of such as live peaceable in their Dissent from you in the smaller Concerns of Religion This Toleration would break nothing in pieces but the denying of it tendeth to break all in pieces For while Men have the use of their Conscience they will Dissent and serve God in the way that they
apprehend pleaseth him without mens leave when they cannot do it with their leave It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Vniformity and not rather in Consent in the main points of Religion and loving forbearance in reference to the rest Sect. 34. The 5. is The exposing our selves to the Papists and others by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation This is plain enough yet without wronging the scope or sence it might have been thus expressed more openly We are ashamed to mend lâ—st Men should think that we once were wrong This Reason if it prove any thing will conclude against all Reformations Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's Azariah's and Josiah's time of which before This will expose us to Baal Worshippers as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time and in Q. Elizabeth's time in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead and some other things were laid aside that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other what could they say but that some of their Superstitions were at first over-lookt which now you see the Evil of and think fit to remove them What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England It will be hard to convince those of mistake who think that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them when they see how loath they are to go too far from them This Principle seemeth to make what we have done or the first Frame of the Reformation the Rule of the Reformation rather than the Word of God Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment and next to nothing compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation It is known to them who have lookt into the History of the Council of Trent that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy that was so much desired and stickled for by some His sixth Reason is The difficulty of keeping out priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against Peoples reading Scripture The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests and willing to have their Company or so unskilful that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine from that of a Protestant or to admit Ministers among them to the Discharge of that office without Trial and Testimonials Or if he suppose that when men are allowed by Law to Worship God without Ceremonies that the Law is so laid asleep that men may do what they list If I say all these things be supposed this Reason may seem to have some weight but without such a supposition it is lighter than Chaff and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions and that they are necessary to keep out Popery Enough hath been already said to lay open the fondness of this Imagination and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare when it serveth a turn After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon he distinguisheth p. 55. between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity that he meddleth with the former not the latter his reason is If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church many Ministers would change their Mind I contract but not misrepresent what he saith To this I return two things 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse is not easily understood But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Non-conformist Ministers and their People according to the Maxime Divide impera If all the People might lawfully conform and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth Lay-Communion is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds not to say Thousands of ministers many of them Eminent and most if not all of them compleatly fitted for the Work of the Gospel and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church how the Labours of all these may not be lost while the Harvest is great and the Labourers few unless it be thought that the Case is not so now and Shall they all be rendered useless rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with when it suiteth their purpose Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination yet we cannot think so of our selves and that one Principle sheweth them the greatest Schismaticks that are among Protestants for by it they unchurch most if not all the Reformed Churches and unminister all their Pastours and nullifie Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion that is joining in their Service and the use of the Ceremonies that nothing that we yet have seen is able to remove as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear He alledgeth p. 6. that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists For the sign of the Cross Mr. Baxter saith The sin if it be one in using it is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptized but the Ministers and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy To all this I answer We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old but do not for it withdraw it being the Minister's fault not Ours For Kneeling it is our own act and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it which the Church will not do or for bear the Sacrament in which it is for we utterly deny that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it neither do I see how they can and disallow other Ceremonies
new grounds of Separation because now they are scrupled at more than at first and though the things were before yet they did not such Mischief then as now and therefore they who continued them when thus hurtful though it were granted that the hurt of them arose from the mistake of the Scruplers do create a necessity of Separation while they may remove these scandals and will not But they that scruple cannot remove their Scruples The other Expression is That continuing of the Ceremonies is venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom which the Dr. against all Reason understandeth of the Reformation but is indeed to be understood of the Ceremonies The Reformation is founded on Scripture a sure and sound Foundation The Ceremonies on Mens Will and Authority and therefore justly termed a Worm-eaten Bottom That he saith There was no Non-conformists in K. Edw. 6. days is before disproved and if there had not while we can give Scripture-ground for our Non-conformity we need not be ashamed tho' Martyrs and other Reformers acted otherwise Sect. 10. That Dr. Ames can bring no other Instances but Rogers and Hooper is nothing against us who have before shewed that a Party they had of whom they were the Ring-leaders He seemeth p. 5. to lay some weight on P. Martyr and Bucer perswading Hooper to submit to the Episcopal Habit I deny not but they diâ— so and he at last yielded to their Advice but P. Martyr in the Epistle cited by the Dr. to wit Ep. Theolog. Hoopero p. mihi 1085. doth there fully declare his dislike of these things and of all Humane Inventions in God's Worship only that for the necessity that then was adviseth the Use of them as the Apostles on the like ground as he there mentioneth forbad eating of things strangled c. He highly commendeth Hooper's Zeal in endeavouring Vt ad castam simplicemque puritatem christiana religio denuo aspirâ—t and desireth Vt omnia paulatim resecentur quae parum aut nihil habent quae ad solidam aedificationem referri pâ—ssint redundare potius superflua quodammodo piis animis judicantur And he commendeth the practice at Strasburg where he lived Vbi vestrum discrimina quoad sacra sunt sublata as being Morem candidiorem apprime resipientem Apostolicam ecclesiam And after he saith Accendit hoc meum desiderium partim quod in ritibus quamproxime vellem ad sacras literas accedere atque meliorum temporum ecclesiae imitatione persequi partim quod animadverto papae sectatores adhuc his reliquiis conari speciem saltem missae instaurare And afterwards Si pateremur prius evangelium propagari altas radices agere melius fortasse facilius persuaderentur homines ut hos externos apparatus removerent And he addeth a Similitude of one that was sick and recovered by degrees who cannot forbear the use of some unfit things that in health he will willingly put away Doth not all this fully express what I have already said That all the Ceremonies ought to have been cast out at first That the Reformers partly by the Church's and their want of due light like one in a state of Convalescency and partly out of a design to gain and not offend the Papists did for a time retain these Ceremonies with a design to have them afterward removed And is it not plain that P. Martyr under our circumstances would be a Non conformist as well as we The opinion of this good man is yet more clear and against the Dr. out of another Epistle Amico cuidam in Anglia who none that readeth the Letter and knoweth the History can doubt to be Hooper p. mihi 1126 1127. where he saith De pilâ—â— vero rotundo vel habitu extra sacra gestando non arbitramur esse plus quam oporâ—eat rixandum at de vestibus ut Sacris in ministerio ipso adhibendis cum spâ—ciem Missae referant sunt merae papatus reliquiae Dominus Bullingerus censâ—t non esse illis utendum ego vero et si usui ejusmodi ornamentorum semper sum adversatus idcirco tardior eram ad suadendum ut potius episcopatum abdicares quam uâ— illarum vestium usum reciperes attamen quia scandala ejus generis vidi prorsus evitanda propterea in ejus sententiam fucile cessi He after adviseth that he may not act against his Conscience and sheweth that he himself when at Oxford though he were Canonicus yet would never wear the Surplice in the Quire. I say nothing of Bucer not having his Book Script Anglican but it is reasonable to think that he was of the samemind Sect. 11. That Mr. Bradford was a Non-conformist he cannot deny but saith A good man had an unreasonable Scruple Might not we answer the same way to all his Allegations of the Martyrs and first Reformers compliance with the Ceremonies to wit That good men did not scruple where it was reasonable that they should The words that he cited out of the Act. and Monument Vol. 3. P. 319. where Mr. Bradford calleth Martyrdom the Lord's Cognizance and not Tippets c. do rather make against than for his Design for it 's plain that he putteth Tippets c. in the same Rank with Shaven Crowns and calleth them Antichristian Baggage and no reason can be given why these should be so called except that they are brought into Religion by Man not by God which agreeth to all the Ceremonies Who they were that kept secret Meetings under B. Ridley it is needless to enquire The Dr. guesseth that they were furious Anabaptists or secret Papists I know no reason for this guess but because he is resolved that there shall be no Noâ—-conformists then such as are now but that there then were some excellent men who disliked the Ceremonies I have shewed that some of them did use them notwithstanding I acknowledge That any did separate I do not undertake to prove nor can he prove the contrary so much as probably I am sure there were Principles then maintained by a Party of men which would have made them do as we do if their Practice had been sufficiently adapted to the Sentiments that they had about the Ceremonies which maketh it not unprobable that some of them did withdraw though it may be the men of more note among them who considered the necessity of their Case as warranting that Practice might do otherwise but it is no way likely that the Church did so furiously impose these things on the Consciences of Scruplers as we are now imposed on Sect. 12. The Dr's long Harrangue p. 6 7. to condemn our practice by the contrary practice of the first Reformers doth either prove nothing or it concludeth that it is possible that such holy Men could mistake Which before he himself had imputed to holy Mr. Bradford one of them here mentioned by him Their Holiness Learning Integrity Industry profound Judgment Mortification did not entitle them
be evil and to have had its Rise in the decay of the Church let us bear the blame He saith the rejecting of the Ceremonies gave a great check to the Reformation in France and citeth for it Thuanus and Balduinus both Papists without pointing to their words or places where they may be found wherefore I look on what he saith as gratis dictum And if it were true it saith no more but that there were two in France that were fond of humane Ceremonies as there are many in England VVe have cause to bless the Lord that the Reformation in France was not checked but made very glorious Progress was owned by many great and small was sealed with the Blood of many Martyrs And that it was not universally received we may rationally impute to the supreme Power being against it which useth to have the Command of the Consciences of the greatest and carnal part of the world But what the Dr. saith in prosecuting this reason I wish he would reconcile with his Third Reason That England retained the Ceremonies to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches Sect. 27. His Second Reason is to manifest the Justice of the Reformation by letting Enemies see that we did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Ans. 1. Papists might have seen that if they would have opened their Eyes without our retaining any of their Ceremonies to wit That we brake with them on weighty points of Heresie and Idolatry and not for Ceremonies alone Ans. 2. When we had separated from their Church on such weighty Accounts we were not to retain any thing that they had corrupted the Worship of God by to please them neither could we retain those to shun breaking with them having already broken with them on other accounts Ans. 3. The Dr. taketh it for granted which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question between him and us to wit That the Ceremonies are meer indifferent things If he prove this he must carry the day What Advantage the Popish Bishops for all their Subtilty and Learning that he talketh of could have made of rejecting of these as well as the rest of humane Ceremonies I know not they had a large Field to expatiate in with the People by holding forth to them How many Usages of the ancient Church the Reformers had rejected that were in the Dr's sence meer indifferent things as Holy Water Cream Salt Spittle c. How little addition could the rejecting the Cross Surplice c. with the rest have made to their strength What he citeth out of P. Martyr is abundantly answered Sect. 10. for he speaketh not of Vestments used in but out of Worship about which he would not have such Contentions made at such a time but have them removed afterward The Dr. citeth his words Indefinitely Other Reformed Churches but the Author's words are Per multas Ecclesias nâ—n ab evangelio alienas I suppose he meaneth the Lutheran or rathe Greek Churches for P. Martyr well knew That in the rest of the Reformed Churches no such Vestments were used Sect. 28. Let us now hear his Third Reason to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches and he instanceth in the Lutheran Church Ans. 1. This Reason could not be used by the English Reformers because they would surely rather have imitated the Calvinist Churches with whom they agreed in Doctrine than the Lutheran Churches from whom they differ'd in considerable points of Doctrine if they had designed to symbolize with other Churches and had been influenced in their determination of this matter by that design sure they would have symbolized with the soundest Churches Ans. 2. Neither could this Reason have had any weight if they had used it seeing there were mâ—re Protestant Churches of a contrary Practice and therefore the Protestant Churches would have carried the rejection of the Ceremonies whether the notes had been ponderanda or numeranda Ans. 3. If our Reformers had design'd a Consent in Ceremonies with the Lutheran Churches why did they retain these and not the rest used among them which are most of them as little liable to Exception as those retained and are not by their multitude such a burden as those of the Papists I hope the Dr. when he considereth better will retract this Argument for there is no Reformed Church on earth that the Church of England sheweth any Consent with in her Ceremonies Ans. 4. I have elsewhere shewed from good Authority That the Lutheran Churches at first had no humane Ceremonies but what they now have crept into those Churches afterward as other Evils did which Luther did not authorise Sect. 29. He will not only have Lutherans but the chief among the Calvinists to be of his Opinion He citeth Calv. Ep. ad Sadol That he was for restoring the Ancient Face of the Church His words which I found not easily in that long Ep. are Vt instauretur vetusta illa ecclesiae facies quae primo ab hominibus indoctis non optimis deformata foedata postea a pontifice Romano ejus factione flagitio se lacerata prope deleta est It is evident that he is not speaking of Ceremonies only but mainly of the Doctrine of the Church that was in Controversie between him and the Cardinal Also that it is the Apostolick Church that he speaketh of whose Face he acknowledgeth to have been deformed before Antichrist came to an height He citeth also Calvin de vera Eccles. Reformatione ch 16. which Book I find not in the Catalogue of Calvin's Works only among his Tractatus Theolog. I find a Supplex exhortatio to the Emperour and Diet at Spire De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae which I have diligently lookt into and find no such Passage in it but much contending against Humane Ceremonies And he apologizeth for their casting them out by shewing Quod nihil vel primo digito attigimus nisiquod christus pro nihilo ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traditionibus pronunciat Wherefore if Calvin owne Symbolical Ceremonies as the Dr. alledgeth we must understand him of those of Divine Institution or charge him with Inconsistency with himself Oecolampadius saith he lookt on the Gesture in the Sacrament as indifferent so do we therefore we think Kneeling ought not to be imposed And when it is so imposed it loseth its Indifferency having a shew of Adoration of the Bread. I have not Bucer's Book and therefore say nothing to the citation out of him but that his Authority will not prove the Opinion of the Calvinist Churches that we debate about Sect. 31. Our Author after this Digression returneth to the Historical part of his discourse Sect. 6. He telleth us that in the beginning of Queâ—n Eliz. Reign the Exiles returned from abroad with secret dislike of the Ceremonies but the Act of Conformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoined there was no Separation some of them accepted of Preferment in
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
but held it for an Antichristian Sociâ—ty and therefore not to be communicated with Aâ—d that of the Independents who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches but thought it unlawful to join with them because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints that was among them Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists and that of the second by the Assembly of Divines and other Presbyteriâ—ns Both these were active separation chosen by the separating Parties and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church that aâ—e indefensible But our Separation if it may be so called is passâ—ve we are driven away we seek the Communion of our Brethren we are willing to bear wiâ—h many things that are a Burden to us and which we wish to be reformed rather than have Separate Meetings We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ the Petition for Peace is a publick and authentick witness of all this but our Brethren will have no Communion with us unless we will own the Ceremonies that they without any warrant from Scripture impose on us which we cannot do without sinning against God and wounding our Consciences and we can and do give good Reâ—son and Scripture-warrant for this our Scruple Let then any Indifferent Person judge Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the publick Worship of the Church by the Authority of them who condemned these fore-mentioned Separations But occaâ—â—on will be given to discourse this Matter further wherefore I now forbâ—ar Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi running through the whole Texture of it and that it doth not tâ—uch the Question in hand but I shall take a more particular yet transient view of it He saith Sect. 8. at the beginning The Separation being now bâ—gâ—n the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemenâ—y against it If the Dr. would prove any thing against us he must shew That there was no forbearing of publick Ordinances on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists before this the contrary of which I have shewed Also That it was Separation on that account and no other that they wrote against the contrary of which is most evident He may know that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation and can make it appear that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice It seemeth by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker that the Separation was charged on him as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles just as it is now with us If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride the two Characters given by Parker to the Separatists let the Guilty bear their blame But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with import no such thing and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general is not Brotherly dealing We love not to recriminate Sect. 9. He alledgeth p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood against the Separation Three of them were taken out of the Admonition given in by the Non-conformists to the Parliament He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were as very ridiculous men who laid down Reasons for Separation and yet were so much against other mens practising what they gave Reason for If he think them such men why would he bind us to their Authority which is the tendency of this long Discourse But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter His Mistake is In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances to be redressed not as Grounds of Separation His Misrepresentation is These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry Government and Worship as wholly unlawful antichristian and false for they owned the Ministry and Worship whatever thoughts they had of the Government as right for the substance tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them which they desired to be removed It is true Gilford saith they make a vile Schism rending themselves from the Church of England but doth he not add And condemning by their Assertioâ—s the whole visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time Which sheweth that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with but nullifying of Churches because of some Corruptions in them Gilford's words that follow p. 29. we are not concerned in We know that many were the sad effects of that Separation diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion to Janglings And it is not without this effect on some where the oppressed Party is Innocent as to the main but that proveth not that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies to shun this Evil but that they should not be imposed on us As to Gilford's blaming them for not coming to the Book-Prayers this he spake without Book either in the heat of Disputation in which many do over-reach or it was his Opinion but is not ours I agree with Gilford That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian not we who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship That Gilford was a Non-conformist the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove That all Non-conformists are fallible men and some of them mistaken in some things we willingly grant We also close with what his next Author saith p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church where he is by Providence placed and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church only with this Exception Unless that Church require me to sin and if I will not do so exclude me Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention that not belonging to the thing then controverâ—ed It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases not yet thought on may afford The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard and the Confutation of the Errours of the Separatists dâ—ne in name of the Non-conformists so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor 's is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 10. He thinketh Sect. 9. to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies with the Separation of the Brownists for if that be not desigâ—ed I know not what his Discourse tendâ—th to by setting down the concessions of these Separatists to wit That the Doctrine of the Church of England is sound and saving that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church So far we agree But they pleaded saith he that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such as overthrew the
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
reckoned among them Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy at his pleasure we can bear it In this we are Murus Aheneus in the Poets Seâ—se Sect. 13. He telleth us p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson the Foâ—nder as he maketh him of the Independent way who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer He should have told us who these are It is true they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too by denying us all Church Privileges for not submitting to the Impositions and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances where we can have them in his way but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice This Discourse against the Independent Separation I meddle not with and therefore pass over all that he saith from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages What Mr. Câ—n saith p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation is so far True that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies doth inferr on them who act conscientiously that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church than own the one or use the other And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions a Word the Dr. is very angry with because unordained men were not suffered to Preach when and where they listed is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions when they are Excluded the Church for not using Humane Ceremonies In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture no imposing in the other That is imposed to be done which is without warrant yea condemned in Scripture Such mean â—rtifices the Dr. reacheth at that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill in the VVorship of God. p. 58 he saith Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience Who ever said otherwise or can say otherwise unless they would first burn their Bibles We never made Conscience the Rule it must be guided and ruled by Scripture What he saith of Popular Government let them answer it who are concerned He saith Humorous and Factious People will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions This Title of Mr. A's Book is a great Eye-sore to him but he should consider that on the other hand an Imperious Superstitious Clergy that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance in dispite of the Apostles Words will always be Imposing and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious He saith the Principles of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead men into Confusion Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions are more like to lead Divines into Confusion in managing their polemick Discourses Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience Hath Conscience no use but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will or what the Act of Parliament saith We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience as the Dr. is but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience is liker to lead Men into Atheism than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion Let Conscience then have Liberty where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion where they that profess Conscience are otherwise sober and peaceable and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience It is a more innocent thing where it is rightly dealt with than the Dr. taketh it to be and we think it is more to be regarded than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising It is false that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants as to the pretence of Conscience nor they the Anabaptists For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes because of their Conscience Sect. 14. He telleth us Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren with being the occasion of an inundation of Error by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience I am far from justifying that Toleration which the Independants pleaded for and which by their means some say was used in our late times of Distraction Then there was no King in our Israel All Error should be opposed Gross Error punished and restrained by force But will it hence follow that we must not have leave to Dissent even from those things that the Church imposeth without Warrant from the Lord All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth p. 59 60 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration The Vniformity in Religion that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of is not to be understood of Words in Prayers and Humane Ceremonies for would they not then have first setled that way at home but of Doctrine and Discipline and Worship so far as commanded by Christ. Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates that were between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship but what was commanded They left the Church for supposed Corruptions which were none of their personal fault nor were they put under a necessity of approving them VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin if we should do them But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates p. 73 74. The 1st is That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look on Separation from it as Sin notwithstanding its Corruptions This he thinketh he hath so proved that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed and with what measure of clearness let others judge also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters hath been shewed The 2d Conclusion is That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church to go so far as they were able So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful is
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
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
Proximate Right that one hath and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic nunc to join with and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church is that which doth actually make him a Member of it And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission whether it be the Dr's Crossing or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end for these are but the external declarative Signs not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation and therefore these are but the Tokens not the Foundation of Actual Membership But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned is ones being so Circumstantiated that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances here rather than elsewhere which is determined by his place of residence not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine but a Civil Constitution yet it hath its use for shunning confusion And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted is his being a Visible Believer Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions and his right may also be superseded and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances by his contradicting his profession by Heresie or Scandal Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists willful Deserters of the Church Atheists c. So every one that liveth in a Parish is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion which that Church doth sinfully require To clear this a little further consider that to make Actually and Compleatly a Member of a particular Church beside his residence there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person and that either Explicite or Implicite The Implicite consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person Word Sacraments Discipline The Implicite consent of the Person lyeth in ordinary using of or submission to these Now where the Church is willing and the Person is not and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause the Person may be charged with sinful Separation where the Person is willing but the Church is not And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal or by refusal unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions the Person is no Separatist but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation In this last case which is our case the Person is a Member affectu but not effectu This is to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand we are Members of the Church of England affectu i. e. Being by providence fixed in England where Christ's Truth is professed and his Ordinances administred we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under to join in the Ordinances without submitting to sinful Terms And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinanâ—es we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies for the present distress where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administred and there we are effectu Members where we thus ordinarily meet And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu for we declare a readiâ—ess whenever these unlawful barrs from Communion with her shall be removed that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast If after all this the Dr. or his Party will charge us as he doth with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles and Prevarication in manageing of them we must bear that injustice Sect. 10. He dealeth p. 105 106 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful I have â—o fully set down my opinion in this and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things tho' many of them may word them better that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth I will not defend He taketh up part of p. 107 108 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies to be Members of the Church nor excuse them from Separation I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs For it is not Occasional Communion alone but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her and so maketh us Members so far as we can and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholick principles This he highly derideth and laboriously refuseth p. 110 111 112 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch It is not their saith he Obligation to Peace and Vnity with the Church as Members of it that moveth but a certain Romantick fancy of Catholick Vnity Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations And therefore by the fault of the Imposers we have no other way to shew our owning the Church as a true Church but this Occasional Communion Let him call it a Romantick Fancy or what he will we separate from no true Church and much less frâ—m that where we live but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again he argueth from a supposition That if we were at Jerusalem where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and one should ask us what Church we were Members of If we should Answer we are fixed Members of no Church but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches Would they take such a Man for a Christian Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer as he feigneth for us for his own advantage I should in that case join my self to the purest Church that I could there meet with being at Liberty to choose and not prelimitted by my habitation if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion And then should Answer to the Question I am here free to join with you or any tolerable Church but do Actually join with you as the purest during my abode here When I
am at home I would join with the Publick Assembly in the True Protestant Church of England but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart and in that Assembly I am a Member till I can find a sinless access to the Publick Assembly where I desire to be a Member I suppose the Eastern Christians such as are sober and serious of them and are duly informed of the State of our Debates would not think me no Christian for this Answer nor deny me Occasional Communion for it I am sure if they did they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is p. 111. We were baptized in the Church of England and received as Members of it If then we communicate with it only occasionally we renounce our membership Ans. Whereever one be baptized that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholick Church If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France and have his Child there baptized in the English way or in the French way Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England and there have Education and continue The Dr. had not it seems when his Book had come this length hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission as a Member of the Church of England Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion though not by our being baptized in this Church yet by our residence in it and owning the same â—aith with it and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin and therefore we do not renounce our Membership but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion and it is no wonder for his Party forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing desire none of our communion as appeareth in excluding us by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless and we judge unlawful But whatever he think of it it is all that we can do We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion p. 111 112. is pure Trifling unworthy of so learned an Author That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church For a man may occasionally have Communion in publick when he cannot have it in private and that often And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church which we would not do in a false Church but rather be without the Ordinances for that time Again We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church in any of Her corruptions we should alwaies abstain from and reprove those as he speaketh These things being considered the difficult Case of Conscience that he fansies hath an easie resolution That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined to shun the sinful Impositions that are in publick we should wait on them there rather than elsewhere but when that occasion is not offered we may join with a Church in some things corrupted in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it Sect. 14. His next Argument is That here are no Bounds to the peoples Fancies of purer Administrations and less defective ways of Worship so that there can be no stop to separation in this way This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs more than with solid Reasons which he but undeservedly most severely had taxed Mr. A. for he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over and going to Anabaptists and thence to the Quakers and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church unless they be secure that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fansy any defect in it Noâ—hing here that hath a shadow of Argument but it is already objected and answered but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions I answer It is not only for purer Administrations that we withdraw but to shun sinful Impositions which I am sure neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly alledge Neither is it the glaring visibility but the real Scripture-warrant for our way that condemneth them for departing from us Nor will Fansied Defects in our way excuse them but real sinful Terms in our Communion But that some will without cause separate from us is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you Such a way of reasoning from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this had forgotten it seems what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for It is incident even to wise men Dum vitant vitia that in contraria currunt it is downright for us and against himself What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions as to practice What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelesly divide the Church if he intended it against any others let him answer it The sad effects of R. William's Separation in New-England do not concern us further than to lament them unless the Dr. can prove that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection that he had made I insist not on save that I observe his usual way here also his representing his Adversaries as if they held That Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces We think the less defective that Worship be it is the better but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion a sufficient ground of Separation Far less do we think that the Peoples apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture or found Reason And least of all do we think that such
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
make a part of these Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers and frequent clashings of them in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies And tho' I am far from the opinion of them who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author whom I now dispute with yet in this particular it not only may but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government This being no essential part of Church-Government nor instituted but a Circumstance of it determinable by necessity and conveniency On the same Score where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with it might act Independently and be blameless 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily yet is not this meeting together but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers that maketh one particular Church For 1. One Congregation may encrease to that number that one place cannot contain them and yet continue one Congregation till they be regularly divided Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large as all the People cannot always travel to one place the Pastor or Pastors of the Church may well have places more convenient for some of them where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them sometimes as in Chapels of Ease and yet they all continue one particular Church 3. It is a frequent case with Families that but a part of them at one time can leave the House to wait on publick Ordinances and the rest at another time yet are they one Congregation 4. In a time of Persecution where the Flock is but small and might easily be contained in one House the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such as it may be needful that but a part of them should come together at once and that by turns as we are necessitated at this time to do This doth not make divers Congregations All this considered we are little concerned whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Chuâ—ch in a City or more Whether those called Churches did meet in one place or not as long as the one Party cannot prove that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by it self nor the other that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one and over their Presbyters Sect. 7. Before I part with this dâ—scourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches I take notice of his confident Asserting p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government so suddenly from its first institution even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon yet this change could not be The same thing he had asserted before and I have answered it Praef. Sâ—ct 9. His further considerations to enforce what he had said are not weighty to wit That Government is so nice and tender a Point thâ—t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it would certainly have complained This he enlargeâ—h upon But I answer 1. It may be they did that they did not is not proved by the silenâ—e of History A Negative Argument here is not concludent especially considering the Lameâ—ess of the History of the first Centuries and what we have of it is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation 2. He doth not consider that Men might Sleep while others were robbing them as Christ foretold Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church which then was no Lordly Dominion but a painful Ministery or Serviâ—e and made unpleasant by the cross Humors of them that needed it most was not then so â—ice and tender a Point to honest and well-meaning Presbyters as it is now to our aspiring Church-men they were Men of another stamp they were willing to lie by if the work were done and they might think that others might do it better than they this is not to justifie them but to take off mens wonder at this and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily by degrees wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves who were not so fore-seeing as they should have been nor so tinctured with Ambition as they though other ways good and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this when we consider that this thing was not done suddenly but by insensible steps in the space of three or four Hundred Years Cyprian whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter lived in the third Century even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was setled What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters shall be answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Section where it is more proper Also what he here saith against popular Election is to be considered in its place because I would not confound Subjects so divers SECT III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful THE Second Plea for Separation that the Learned Dr. considereth is the Vnlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be 1. Primitive 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ 3. That its Discipline as exercised in England doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches All this he manageth Sect. 8 c. I might shun this whole Debate having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation except in so far as we are required to own it But because we look on this Episcopacy as unlawful to be used or owned I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Auther of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops c. and the defence of that Piece under the Title of Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times which might supersede all that I have to say and shall make me say the less referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books yet lest there should be an hiatus in this Disâ—ourse I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Doctoâ— Sâ—ct 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government which the Dr. disproveth p. 242 243. being singular himself can best defend it wherefore I leave it and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned first asserting a few things that may clear our way 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church as distinguished from her Servants the Deacons Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues those are the Magistrates
Apostles Others that it is wholly indifferent and may be received or not as is thought most expedient in several times and places and some of these say this is to be determined by the Church Others by the Magistrate This Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum asserteth but is very uncertain whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter One of the most Learned of our Adversaries Dr. Hammond holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion to wit that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church appointed by Christ or ordained by the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament and their Office but a device of Men or a constitution of the Church This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England the owning of which is required of us that we may judge aright of it we must have a true Idea of it and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ practised in the primitive Church with general approbation or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it First The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to and distinct Office from other Presbyters as appeareth not only from the power he hath and they have not and acts of Church-power reserved only to him but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter And yet further because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates or Curates and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters People and Flocks in the Diocess Secondly The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters Thirdly He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters Fourthly He may delegate this Power to whom he will whether Men Ordained to the Ministry or any of the people so that by this Delegation a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People Fifthly This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly They are not chosen to this Office by the Church but by the Magistrate and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a Bâ—shop as this in Scripture or Antiquity all that they say from either for an Episcopacy is short of the thing in question and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy unless they prove this Episcopacy Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered and I think never shall and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it The first shall be ad hominem against our learned Author By this Author's Doctrine there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters was Instituted Allowed or Exercised in the Church Ergo according to him it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it The Antithesis I prove If such a ground there be it must lie in one of these three if any asserters of it can add a fourth we shall quit this Argument either Christs appointing it in Scripture or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office or the practice of the Church shewing us what was Christs allowance But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter For the first he denyeth such an Institution asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel this is the basis of his Irenicum The second he never had the confidence to assert neither is the least hint in all the Scripture that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power For the third he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times or any way allowed Sect. 8. Our second Argument is There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church that are mentioned in the Bible neither in their Name nor Office nor Power nor Work nor Qualifications nor Respect or Obedience due to them nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered whence I thus Argue If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church he would have hinted some thing about this distinction but this he hath not done Ergo c. The first proposition I prove first Because this was needful for these distinct Officers that each might know his work And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters all these belonging to the Bishop 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church in their Names Qualifications Work and Office as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2 9. Also between Preaching Elders and those that are only Ruling Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters let them do it I hope none of them will say that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he either by affording him more respect or maintenance I suppose our Bishops will rather
part with the Patrimony of this Text then with their Titles Grandeur and Revenues Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture and we can shew an identity in them And first for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus Bishops It is a groundless fancy of some that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia for this is said without any shew of proof to serve a turn Besides that they are called the Elders of the Church not Churches as even in the prelatical Stile Diocesan districts should be called And it is called the Flock not Flocks and the Church of God not the Churches of God that they were to take heed to and the haste that the Apostle then was in considering the short time and long journey that he had before him was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters Also it is most clear Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications for a Bâ—shop must be Blameless if they were not one this reason should have neither force nor sence which were Blasphemy to averr it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning Sect. 10. In the next place Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them how consistently with their other principles I enquire not and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture Thirdly for their power if Bishops ordained so did Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops they must prove it If Bishops had rule over the people were over them so were Presbyters 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people admonish them and watch for their Souls I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers and are over them Fourthly Their Work is the same as is clear both from the places last cited and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Where taking heed to feeding and over-seeing in the Greek acting the part of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church are set down by themselves 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly for Obedience Reverence Maintenance or any thing else that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered a Man must then put force upon his reason or be strangely swaâ—ed by prejudice who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament that is above the Presbyters of the Church or hath jurisdiction over them Sect. 11. Argument third The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the gospel-Gospel-Church without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced Ergo no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church The consequence I prove first Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ and not tell us of them all Let our brethren if they can give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this Secondly The consequence can yet less be questioned if we considâ—r that not only an Officer is left out and the Church left without a hint concerning him but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend He who can believe this his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop some say they are reducible to Apostles With what face can wise men alledge this Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary and temporary appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel and planting Churches and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer Diocesans have their limitted charges Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles not as being absolutely such but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostlâ—s but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church Secondly They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office as should be afterward thought convenient What may not men devise in the Church that take on them thus to add to or diminish from Christs Institutions and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops and this with as little ground as the former though some learned Men have so dreamed as Estius and Doctor Hammon Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant but the absurdity of this fancy will appear First If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters which is an indecency unâ—uitable to the Apostles Exactness if my Lord Bishop weâ—e here meant I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles and are extraordinary Officers because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles which Argument will as well hold here Secondly The work of the Bishop that we speak of which discriminateth him from the Presbyter is not to Teach but to Rule Therefore others as Calvin by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers and instructeth them and others in the truth and defendeth it against Heresies such as are Divinity Professors in Universities others understand Catechists But it is evident that it cannot with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps 1
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
the Government of Churches we deny not tho' we deny that they had that Office or any part of it but then the question is whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them had that Government by themselves or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters unless the Dr. prove the former he speaketh not to the point None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself Iren. p. 308. to wit That not Bishops alone but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian Ierom and Ignatius Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters as some alledge And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted or was read in the Ancient Church We do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop and in other things to be observed in our progess In order to makeing out what he alledgeth he proposeth two things to be enquired into Sect. 12. First What power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops have â—ver them For the first he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church and that because they have a place in the convocation where rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and forms of Service are determined How small a matter this is tho' the Dr. aggravateth it I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbyassed and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation it consisteth of two Houses in the upper House are only Bishops and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing they can reject it that is 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel have no more power then any other 25 of near 9000 so many Churchs are reckoned in England take to themselves as much power as all these Then for the lower House of the Convocation it is made up of Presbyters indeed as the Dr. saith but many if not most of them such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have as Deans Arch-deacons and other Cathedral Officers here also the Presbyters are bereaved of that party of power that is their due besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted often not above two or four in a Diocess If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops and their Creatures in the Convocation let any judge He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination or giving Orders as he calleth it to wit That by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to asist the Bishop and are to examine the persons to be ordained or the Bishop in their presence and to join the Imposition of hands Here also their power is swallowed up for all the rest have equal power with these four yea with the Bishop himself which is wholly taken out of their hands and managed at the Bishops pleasure who chuseth these four beside that this is really if ever practised the person is usually examined or said to be so by the Bishops Chaplain and the Bishop layeth his hands on him Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topicks The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter to wit Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency saith the Dr. had both these been if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop A goodly Argument some think it a great Impertinency and Boldness too in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction as to any part of Church Power between a Presbyter and a Bishop His next topick is the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office and greatness of the Charge calleth them Pastors that they are to Teach Premonish and Feed and provide for the Lords Family c. This indeed implyeth their Preaching Power but there is not a word of Ruling Power which the Lord joyned with it but the Bishops do separate them and for all this saying over their cold â—esson at the Solemnity the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by vertue of this Ordination without License so that their Ruleing Power is taken away and their Preaching Power restraineâ— at the Bishops pleasure This is a crossing of Christs Institution who made them equal neither is it any more wonder that the Bishops practice should cross his own Exhortation then that he should cross the Scripture read on that occasion His third Topick is the ordained Persons Oath to miâ—ister Word and Sacraments and Discipline as this Realm hath received the same Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned but the following words shew the meaning for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers into whose hands he put it but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less then I say when he saith That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop I hope the Reader will by this time see that the Presbyters in the Church of England have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government than that which Christ Instituted or the purer primitive times knew Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth is Sect. 13. to shew what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration which he placeth in Government Ordination and Censures and he saith the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind that she did believe so I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it but the contrary I have proved above wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves and therefore there was no Bishop but Bishâ—ps and Presbyters were one but as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be setled in the several Churchs whom the Apostles setled some sooner some later if which saith he we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus And by this he would reconcile the
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
contained in express words The Papists are dull if they cannot out of this principle hammer out a Pope as well as the Doctor can frame a Bishop or Arch-Bishop This Inference as thus loosly set down is no way to be admitted because Christ hath not provided for the unity and preservation of his Church by leaving it to Mens will or wholly to their reason either but by his own Institutions to be wisely managed by the Officers that he hath appointed in his house Unity is then to be preserved Divisions and Heresies to be prevented by the painful and faithful preaching of the Gospel by Christs Ministers in their several particular Charges by private and publick Instructions and Admonitions By their joynt Concurrence in censuring and drawing out the Sword of Discipline against stubborn Offenders These are Christs Institutions and will be effectual when he is pleased to bless them and this blessing we are to expect on his own appointed means not on mens Devices But we deny that Unity in the Church is to be preserved in any way that men in their Wisdom think fit and particularly that it is to be preserved by setting up Arch-Bishops and Bishops in the Church These being none of Christ's means appointed for that end It is often seen that means thus devised of Men by Crossing of Christ's Institution either fail of their end or by mending one evil make a worse Peace and Unity is sometimâ—s and in the case in hand procured to the Church with the bearing down of Piety and shutting out of Purity Sect. 5. I dislike one Particle of that Definition that he giveth of the National Church of England diffusive p. 299. to wit he saith It is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of pastors and people agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm Had he put the word of God insteâ—d of the Laws of this Realm I should have fully assented to this description But against that Particle I have two Exceptions 1. The Civil Law is accidental to the Church and is neither a constituent part of its essence nor a necessary adjunct of it The Church hath been without it and I hope he will not say That if the Laws were taken away the Church is unchurched for that 2. This makeâ—h the Church of England a variable and mutable thing as the Laws of men are for if Presbytery if Anabaptism If Independency Popery Socinianism and what sort of Religion you can name either as to Faith or Worship or Government were established by Law They that are of that way should then be the Church of England which is not only absurd but a dangerous notion in such a critical time as this I hope the Doctor did not design a fair retreat by this if Popery which God forbid should come to be establiâ—hed by Law The Papists were the Church of England and all the Ties that men are under to the Church of England by theâ—r Oaths and Subscriptions should oblige them to be Papists and all the True Sons of the Church must turn with the Law as the Weather-cock doth with the Wind This is like to be pleasing Doctrin to many But I pâ—rceive the Doctors design by this fine new notion is To let men see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from Papists on the one side and Dissenters on the other which makes him wonder at them who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England If Men wondred much before they may wonder far more now what is meant by the Church of England when they see her painted in so changeable colours as that she may be one thing now and another next year and another the third year and so on The Scripture placeth the Moon under the Churches Feet and the Twelve Stars Apostolick Doctrine on her Head as her cognizance and Glory but the Doctor hath advanced the Moon to her Head that she must be known by it what he will do with the Twelve Stars I know not He is more favourable to the Papists and Dissenters they are to be known by their Conformity or Nonconformity to Scripture not to the Laws of the Land But if Papists or Dissenters should happen to get the Law on their side what will that party be that is now the Church of England It seems the Doctor is fond of this notion for he hath it up again p. 300. to the question how comes it to be one National Church He answereth because it was received by the Common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey these Laws And thus he cleareth our Mists about the Church of England He had debated much with Mr. B. owning a Christian Kingdom but not a National Church but here he homologateth all that Mr. B. had said for the Parliament owning the Faith maketh a Christian Kingdom but it is some other thing that maketh a National Church to wit the Collective Body of all the Congregations of a Nation agreeing in the same Faith and Worship and Government as it is held forth in the Word of God. If the Doctor say thiâ— leaveth room for every party to call themselves the Church for all pretend to have the Word on their side I answer This is not to be denied for till the Lord cure our Divisions about truth and about his Ordinances we are not like to come to a decision of that question Who is the Church For all Congregations are parts of the Church and these that are nearest to the Scripture rule are the truest part of the Church The Apostle decided that Controversie who is the Circumcision the Dialect of some in that time for who is the Church not by the Laws of men but by the truth of God that they owned Phil. 3. 3. The Doctor hath found out a new Mark of the Church that Bâ—llarmine hath not though he hath more than enough to wit They that have the Law on their side are the Church Sect. 6. He telleth us that the representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion This is saith not of the Convocation at Westminster but of the Consent of both Convocations Here I observe 1. That the Law of the Land is so constitutive of a Church to this Author that without it there is neither diffusive nor representative Church Then what becometh of the Apostolick Church and that of the first 300 years and of the Greek Churches under the Turk yea and of the Protestant Church of France where their Prince is not only Christian but most Christian And yet his Law does not favour that Church 2. I have shewed before that the Convocation can make no Church National representative The Presbyters and Churches of the Nation being
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
to themselves than thus to prelimit the people in that which so nearly concerns their Souls and to make that but an Accessory to wit the charge of Souls which should be the thing principally minded As now the Living is 2. The Magistrate or Patrons electing of a Minister may give him a Title to the Living but it can never make him the Pastor of such a people nor fix a Relation between him and them of Pastor and Flock For it is wholly Forreign to the Church as a Church it is a thing of Worldly concern and therefore can never found that Relation which is an Institution of Christ in his Church 3. We do not deny but when the people have chosen a Pastor and the Presbytery hath ordained him also the Magistrate may Imprison Banish or otherwise punish him so as he is consequentially restrained from the exercise of his Ministry among that people if the man be guilty of a civil crime of which the Magistrate is Judge but we deny that this Act doth dissolve the ministerial relation between that Pastor and People that cannot be done but by the Church 4. We do not so put Election into the hand of the multitude as either to exclude the Eldership that is among them or to exempt the people from their guidance in this The Eldership ought to regulate this Action yet so as it be not done without the consent of the generality 5. We are far from saying That the People by their Election doth make the Elected person a Minister that is done by Ordination which is in the Hands of the Presbytery 6. We do not say That this Elective power of the people is Arbitrary and independent they are to be bounded in it by the Rules of the Gospel that set forth the qualifications of Ministers and if they chuse contrary to these the Presbytery may reject the person and refuse to ordain him 7. We deny not but a part of a Church or the whole Church may forfeit this Right as to the present exercise of it by Ignorance Scandal Irreconcileable Contentions about the matter and such like in which case the power of Election devolveth into the hands of the Pastors of the Churches associated I mean the Presbytery Yet the peoples satisfaction should be endeavoured as much as is possible 8. It is the Right of the people which they ought not to be deprived of nor restrainâ—d from exercising ordinarily nor without singularly weighty cause to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 3. As to the Author of this Right in the people I maintain that it is neither from the Churches Determination nor from any grant from the Magistrate neither do I plead any Law of nature for it For by Divine Institution which is never contrary to the Law of Nature it was otherwise in the Jewish Church And though there be abundant reason for it it being the priviledge of Free Corporations and other Societies to chuse these that are to govern them and it being rational that a Corporation or person may chuse the Lawyer that they will intrust their Estates to and the Physician in whose hand they put their life so men should not be imposed upon to entrust the Conduct of their Souls to a person that they have not confidence in and whom they cannot chuse for that end Yet I say we do not lay the stress of the matter on Humane Reason but on Gospel Institution I affirm then that this is the Institution of Christ that it is the order that he hath appointed in the Gospel that people should have liberty to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 4. I am next to shew the grounds that we have to think so I shall prove this by shewing that it was the constant practice in the Church while the Apostles managed the Affairs of it that Church Officers were chosen by the suffrages of the people and I hope it will not be denied that such practice is declarative of Christ's Institution The first Argument for it is from Act. 14. 23. where though Ordination or appointing be expressed in our Translation yet the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ignifieth a chusing by Suffrages as the manner of the Grecians was by stretching out or lifting up the hand for that is the force of the Word to declare their Votes I deny not that this Word is sometimes used figuratively for potestative mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one person withot Suffrages as Act. 10. 14. yet it is very rare that the Word is so used And it is evident that the Word is most commonly usâ—d in this sence of all the Instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of this Word not one of them is to the contrary And it cannot be Instanced that ever this word is used for laying on of hands lifting up which is the force of the Word and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other Neither is it fit to seek for the Figurative signification of the Word when the proper signification may be admitted It is objected against this use of the Word here that they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them not to themselves that is the Apostles to the people ordained Elders Answ. It cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used indifferently for them or themselves and why it may not here be understood of themselves I see not so as that here is denoted the Action of appointing Elders for the people in which the people had a hand by Election as the Word here importeth and the Apostles had a hand by Ordination as can be proved by other Scriptures But if we should turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the sense may run plainly thus the Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the people upon their Electing them by Suffrages It is no strange thing in Scripture to see divers Actions expressed by the same Word where one is the consequent of the other as Is. 38. 17. Thou hast Loved my Soul out of the pit of corruption i.e. delivered it because thou loved it Also Act. 7. 9. The Patriarchs are said to sell Joseph to Egypt where both their Actions and the Actions of the Midianites who carried him to Egypt and there sold him are included in one Word Many Instances of this kind of Synthesis may be seen in Glâ—ss Philol. Sacr. lib. 3. tract 3. p. 229 It is also objected that these are said to Ordain who commended the people to the Lord that is the Apostles and that the Apostles are spoken of all along in the Nominative Case and not the people and therefore they must be the Actors meant by this word Answ. We deny not the Apostles to be Actors meant in this Word as the Patriarchs were in the Word Selling to Egypt Act. 7. 9. but we
mind Also Augustine naming Eracius his Successor addeth this express caution si Ecclesia Consentiat and declareth hoc esse receptum provatumque jus consuetudine ut tota Ecclesia sibi elegat Episcopum aut in ipsum consentiat Hierom Ep. ad rustic Monachum Foll 292. cum ad perfectam aeâ—atem veneris si tamen vita comes fuerit â—e vel populis vel pontifâ—x Civitate Elegerint agito quae Clerici St. He supposeth it as the received practice that the People should elect Ambros. Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit a tota Ecclesia vere certo est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi Many more Citations might be added but these may suffice and abundance more may be seen append ad Catalog Test. veritat where this right of the People is deduced from the Days of the Apostles to the Eigth Century by Testimonies out of all sorts of Authors That Author taketh notice of this as an ordinary Clause in many of the Epistles which Tinemeras Archbishop of Rhemes in the Reign of Charlemain ab omnibus debet eligi cui debet ab omnibus obediri Sect. 9. I shall now attend to what the Learned Dr. hath to say in the contrary of this right of the People so divinely appointed so anciently universally and long approved He discourseth these three things to this purpose 1. What inherent Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficâ—ent Ground to resume it One would think that if this Power be from Christ his other two parts of his discourse mighâ— have been spared For who then could take it from them And they always had a Right to resume it being unjustly deprived of it As to the first of these his debate with Dr. O. about the Peoples Church-Power and the Government of the Church being Democriâ—al I medle not with we plead for this power in them not all Church-power But he cometh Sect. 25. to this power of Election for disproving of which he undertaketh to make out six things I shall examine them in order But I think it had been more to the purpose to have answered the Scriptures and Testimonies out of Antiquity alledged by the opposites which he hath not done The First of these is That the main ground of the Peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Ans. I have produced other grounds and not made this either the main or any ground of this Right of the People for indeed that passage of Scripture doth direct the Electors but doth not determine who should Elect. I deny not but some of the Ancients made use of that Scripture to this purpose but they made use of others also and having established the Truth on other Grounds they might well apply this place as spoken to the People to direct them how to manage that power of Elâ—ction that the Lord had given them This is a sorry Shift to shun the Dint of Arguments to pitch on that which is either no Argument or a weak one and to set up that as the only Argument and so by beating it down to Triumph Sect. 10. He bringeth a passage out of Clem. on which he taketh a great deal of pains to make it speak for him contrary to the manifest design of it The passage is The Apostles Preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint the first Fruites having made a Spiritual Tryal of them to be Bishops and Deacons The Apostles foresaw the Contentions that would be about the Name of Episcopacy i. e. saith the Dr. about the choice of Bishops therefore they appointed the Persons mentioned and left the Distribution of their Office with this Instruction that as some dyed other approved Men should be chosen into their Office These therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the Church being therewith all pleased discharging their Office with Humility cannot be justly put out of their Office. A Man of less learning than the Dr. might easily draw the quite contrary Conclusion from these words of Clement but it will require all his Skill and more too to conclude from them against popular Election But thus he argueth They were to be appointed by the Apostles therefore not of the Peoples choice Ans. Non sequitur The Deacons were appointed by the Apostles Act 6. 3. yet the People are to look out from among them i. e. to chuse and the Apostles to appoint them i. e. set them apart for their work Many other Instances may be given yet this Argumentation the Dr. useth again pag. 315. as if it were a mighty Argument He saith it seems some of the People were Contentious and endeavoured to throw out some of their Officers which occasioned this Ep. Ans. This Ep. is clear that the People may not cast out their Officers doing their Work in Humility but not a Word in it against their Electing of them but clearly to the contrary in these words the whole Church being therewith well pleased implyeth that it is not to be done without them and what Hand they can have in placing their Officers that doth not amount to Election I know not He saith they took this course of Purpose to avoid Contentions What course doth he mean It cannot be meant of Obtruding Officers on the Church for he saith they must be well pleased Therefore the Course must be appointing Officers Authoritatively by Ordination who being so appointed could not be ejected again quemdiu se bene gesserunt as appeareth by Clem. instancing the Blossoming of Arons Rod to put an end to the Emulation among the Tribes which was a Strife not about Election but about changing of the setled Officers of the Church He saith all that the People had to do was to give their Testimony Clem. saith they must be well pleased And it is clear that that excludeth obtruding â—astors on people either by Patrons or the Magistrate or Bishop He saith it seems probable to him that the reason of the Faction among them was that some represented it as a Grievance that those Officers were appointed by others not chosen by them Why this should seem to him I know not except that prejudice representeth things otherwise than they are as coloured Spectacles do It seemeth to me there could be no such thought among the People because Clement supposeth the Officers to have been chosen by themselves the whole Church being well pleased That these Factious Men had no Objection against the Presbyters themselves the Dr. Asserts but he doth not prove It is true Clem. supposeth there was no Ground for Objection and therefore they could not be cast out while they were humble quiet ready and blamless but for all that Factious Men will find fault and pick quarrels with the most innocent men Sect. 11. He next bringeth Cyprian to plead against popular Election that is to
that popular Elections should be taken away Gregorius Nazianzenus's wish to that purpose is unduly represented it was That the Election might be in the hands of the Clergy and the more holy part of the people and that not only but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefly This doth evince that he looketh on the right of Election to be in them and only wished that bad men might be deprived of the use of that priviledge and so do we when they abuse it So it be taken from them orderly The 3d. Instance is at Alexandria where Dioseurus was chosen and Proterius killed This is a gross mistake or misrepresentation It was not at the Election but long after yea Proterius's Murder was 5 or 6 years after beside it was done and the Sedition raised by Hereticks Shall not the Church chuse her Pastors now because Papists would oppose it if they be not curbed Of the 4th Instance I have already spoken to wit that at Rome about Damasus What he saith of Chrysostom Jerom and others complaining of peoples unfitness to Judge doth not prove his point For all these Men were for popular Election as I have shewed above Beside that the Pastor's fitness is to be judged by the Ordainers after the Electors have done their part Sect. 14. His third thing is p. 320. That to prevent these inconveniences many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the people and Canons were made for regulation of Elections For proof of this he telleth us that at Alexandria the Bishop was not only to be chosen out of the twelve Presbyters but by them and citeth for this Jerome Ep. ad Enagrium Severus and Almacintus and Hilarius the Deacon Answ. 1. It is no woâ—der the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters and by them for he was their Moderator and had no power over the people more than the rest had as hath been shewed above If he can prove that he was chosen to be Pastor of his particular Flock without their consent that were to the purpose 2. This can make nothing for Patronages or the Magistrate obtruding a pastor on the people or a single Bishop doing it 3. Jeromâ—'s words are Presbyteri unum ex selectum in excelciori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant he saith not unum a selectum Severus speaketh not a word of the Presbyters â—lecting alone What is said by Hilarius of the altering of the custom is not who should Elect but that he might be Elected either from among the Presbyters or from any place else What is all this against popular Elections We find saith he Bishops Consecrating others in the room of the deceased in several Churchâ—s without mention of choice made by the people and mentioneth several instances A. A negative Testimony in this case signifieth nothing The Election being the constant practise might well be supposed but needed not be mentioned That Severus of Milevis and Augustine named their Successors is no proof unless he prove that they were obtruded on the People without their consent No doubt any man more the Great Augustine may name a Minister to the People but this taketh not away the Peoples free consent or choice which the Dr. doth not deny to have been had in both these Cases Yea Augustine himself took it ill that Severus named his Successor without acquainting the People and therâ—fore in his own case did acquaintthem Sect. 15. What he alledgeth out of the Greek Canonists whom he doth not name and so cannot be examined that the Council of Nice took away the power of Election from the people is inconsistant with the Epistle of that same Synod above mentioned and therefore these Canonists are not to be believed He citeth Concil Antiâ—ch to shew that Bishops were sometimes consecrated without the consent of the People which that Council doth not approve but rather alloweth the people to reject such a one yet they will have him to retain the Honour and Office. The words are Si Episcopus ordinatus ad paraeciam minime cui est electus accesserit non suo vitio sed aut axuia cum populus volet hic honoris sic Ministerii particeps This seemeth to shew the Election of the people to be necessary to a Mans officiating as their Pastâ—r whether it go before Ordination or follow after it The same Council Can. 17. mentioneth the case of a Bishop consecrated and neglecting to go to his charge which the Dr. improveâ—h to shew that a Bishop was not always consecrated in his Church I deny not that such abuses were committed The Council doth not approve of such a thing nor doth it hence follow that it was ordinary but rather the contrary it is pitty to see the Dr. put to such shifts as to instance Gregorius being made Bishop of Alexandria before he went thither seeing this was done by the Arians and he took possession by military Force and it was disliked by the rest of the eminent Persons of the Churches But the main thing that maketh this instance to be inimitable is that Anastasius was in the place and by this means expelled The next Instance of Basil ordaining Euphronius before the peoples consent was irregular but that he behoved to have the peoples consent before he setled there maketh it wholly impertinent to the thing in hand Nothing can be less to the purpose than what followeth of the peoples pititioning the Metropolitan to Ordain their Bishop for this supposeth their Election of him and that the Metropolitan had power to refuse him is no more then we allow to the Presbytery who may reject an unqualified person tho' chosâ—n by the people The Dr. is not yet weary of Writing beside the purpose whâ—n he telleth us of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea that a Bishop chosen by the people taking possession without the Provincial Synod was to be turned out We say the same because the people may Elect but the Pastors must Ordain This doth not shew as he alledgeth that the business of Election was in the East brought into the Bishops power but only that the peoples Election was not sufficient without the Bishops and other Pastors Ordination Sect. 16. He next citeth Justinians Law that the Clergy and better sort of Citizens name three to the Metropolitan whence the Dr. inferreth that the common People were excluded from the Election Ans. 1. Justinians Law cannot make void the Law of God and they that have not given their Names to Erastus do think that Christ's Laws which are to be declared by his Church and not Justinians Laws should take place in the Church of God. 2. It is not said they must present Three but they might do it but they might also present two or but one 3. It is not said that the Clergy and better Citizens were to Elect but they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to draw up the Decrees as they were then called wherein the Election was contained 4. In another
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
as at other times Wherefore either this imposing must shut out all Prayer or it is a needless thing and so unlawful in the Church Argument 4. Imposing set Forms on the Ministers of the Gospel is a restraining if not making void the Charismata the Gifts of the Spirit that the Lord hath furnished his Ministers with for the benefit of the Church For clearing and confirming this Argument I offer these Considerations 1. The Lord hath furnished his Church with Gifts that are needful for her edification There was a large pouring out of the Spirit at first Act. 2. 1. and tho' that degree and manner and some of the uses of it be ceased yet the thing it self shall never cease Isa. 59. 21. for without the Gifts of the Spirit the Church could not subsist 1 Cor. 12. 3. It is by the Holy Ghost that we must profess Christ preach him pray in his Name c. Hence Christ sent the Spirit in his own room when he left off to manage the Affairs of the Church in his person as he had done on earth in the days of his humiliation and the Spirit is on this account called by the Ancients Vicarius Christs 2. The Gifts of the Spirit are particularly given to the Ministers of the Gospel for assisting them to manage their work for the Churches advantage For these Gifts are mentioned with reference to them and their work and the fruit of their work as is clear Eph. 4. 8 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with 1. having discussed of diversity of Gifts the Apostle there sheweth to whom especially they are given 3. The ordinary Ministers of the Gospel have their interest in these Gifts and a share of them tho' differently as well as the extraordinary For both sorts are mentioned in both the places last cited Sect. 6. 4. The Spirit is given to Ministers and people as for other supplies so to assist them in right managing the work of Prayer and that not only to assist as to the manner of praying or praying Graces and Affections but as to the matter of Prayer to furnish the mind with fit and pertinent Pâ—tions Rom. 8. 26. The Spirit not only helpeth our Infirmities by making intercession with Groans but on account that we know not what to Pray for as we ought The Spirit also giveth utterance Act. 2. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 5. 5. It is the will of Jesus Christ that his Ministers should make use of the Gifts that he hath given for their proper ends to wit the Edification of the Church that they should pray for them improve them and use them yea lean to the help of the Spirit not to the Book for helping their Infirmities This is clear from Rom. 12. 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ministers must give account to their Master of the Use and Improvement of their Gifts this is clear not only from the Parable Mat. 25. 19. Tho' Theologica Parabolica is said not to be Argumentativa yet none denyeth that an Argument may be brought from the Scope of a Parable which here is to shew that God will reckon with men about their using and improving what he entrusteth them with But the thing is evident of it self for this giving of Gifts to Men cannot be imagined to be that men may use them or not as they will or as other men will but for the ends they were given for 7. It is Christ's appointment that none should be in the Ministery but Gifted Men they must be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 2. That is fit for their work in all the parts of it 8. The Imposing of set Forms doth hinder the exercise of the Gifts that Ministers have received and so hindereth that Edification that the Church should receive by that means This cannot be denyed when ever they use set Forms there is no use of these Gifts All these put together may warrant us to conclude that imposing of set Forms on Ministers of the Gospel is a restraining yea in a great measure a making void of these Gifts that are given them to profit with all I conclude this with the opinion of Wickliff that to bind men to Set and Prescript Forms of Prayers doth derogate from that liberty that Christ hath given them Full. Ch. Hist. lib. 3. cent 14. Pag. 133. Sect. 7. The Proof of the second thing that I undertake to wit That it is unlawful for Ministers to submit to such a restraining of their Gifts by such Impositions as was mentioned It followeth from what hath been already discoursed all the Arguments for the former Assertion do also prove this for they ought not to worship God in a manner that is neither warranted by any necessity nor by Christ's allowance that were to worship God by the Prescript of Mans Will alone Neither is it lawful to serve God in the way that the Apostate used used but was never used by the Church in her best times Nor ought we to cross the design of Prayer by our way of praying nor to make void the Gifts given to profit the Church by All which this way of being Tied up to set â—orms hath been proved to be guilty of Sect. 8. The next thing to be proved is â—ur sixth Proposition to wit That it is unlawful to worship God by a Frame of Service that is not warranted in the word both as to its matter and manner This I prove 1. From Christ's condemning the Traditions of Men as vain Worship Mat. 15. 9. They taught these Traditions e. i. saith Lucas Burgensis in locum they followed them and taught others to follow them The same Author calleth these Mens Traditions that are so of men that they are not of God or are devised by Man ibid. So also Vatâ—blus Erasmus Maldonate Tirinus Piscator Calvin and Chemintius say here is meant whatever is brought into Religion without the Word Now it is maniâ—est that a Frame of Divine Service not warranted in the word falleth under this general head 2. The Lord condemneth all Worship offered up to him that he hath not commanded Jer. 7. 31. where not being commanded but devised by Men is made the Ground on which that practice though otherwise evil also is condemned And Jeroboam's Frame and way of Service is condemned because devised Heb. created of his own Heart 1 King. 12. 33. 3. Even Reason teacheth that God ought to chuse how He will be Honoured or Worshipped by his Creatures He best knoweth what will please him and His Soveraignty in all things must especially appear in this that Himself is so nearly concerned in This is a Principle so rooted in Nature that among the Heathens they that contrived their Liturgies or ways of Worship behoved to pretend Revelation from their Gods to guide them in this It was never heard of among the more religious Heathens that Religion or the manner of worshipping their Gods was injoined only by mans Authority and devised only by him Yea in the so much magnified
of what is represented by Christ's Sign viz. one part of the Covenant there sealed which is subjection to and owning of the Redeemer and put this their sign in the same Religious state with Christ's Sign so as there is no difference between them but the Authority by which they are instituted it may be warrantably said that they make a Sacramental Sign and that they make a new Sacrament as far as man can make it 8. That we may devise a Sign to represent the Duty in Baptism because the Duty is ours as God appointeth the Sign to represent the Grace because that is his is a strange assertion for that is to allow man an equal share with God in instituting a Sacrament in which both the Grace of God and the Duty of Man or his engagement to his Duty are sealed and represented If Ceremonies must have such Divinity to defend them I shall be less in love with them than before Sect. 19. He denyeth p. 349. that the Cross in Baptism is intended by the Church as a Sign of immediate Dedication to God but of Obligation on the person and laboureth to clear the thirtieth Canon asserting the contrary which saith that by it the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died on the Cross. VVhat he saith for vindicating this Canon is that Baptism is compleat before Crossing and so it is no part of Baptismal dedication and that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ but signeth with the Cross in the name of the Church who by that Rite receiveth the Infant into their number and thus understanding the use of the Cross he saith all the difficulties about dedicating covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Signs will appear to be of no force Answer 1. The Dr. would say something by mentioning Immediate Dâ—dication and if what he intendeth by it be to the purpose it must be that the Church may not institute a Sign whereby one is Immediately dedicated to God but they may institute one whereby he is Immediately dedicated to God Now if the Dr. had given any hint of a ground for this distinction or to shew that the one is more lawful than the other he would have obliged us but that not being done his implyed distinction is to be rejected as without all ground 2. A Sign of Obligation of the Person to dedicate himself to the Redeemer used in a piece of Gods solemn Worship and appropriated to that Worship is by its Signification its End its concomitant Circumstances so stated as the using of that Sign cannot but be a Religious Act and so a part of God's VVorship which as the Dr. himself confesseth needeth Divine Institution and cannot lawfully be appointed by the Church 3. I wonder why the Dr. should endeavour to vindicate that Canon that he citeth from meaning what it expresly saith viz. that by the sign of the Cross the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who Died on the Cross it is impossible to shun expounding this of a dedicating Sign without doing the greatest violence Imaginable to the plain words neither is there the least shadow of ground to think that Immediate dedication is not here meant seeing the Infant is said to be dedicated by this Sign without the least hint of any intervenient dedicating sign or cause between the sign and that which the Dr. will call Immediate Dedication 4. VVhen he saith the Crâ—ssing is no part of Baptismal dedication the meaning must be it is not a part of Dâ—dication by that Sign that Christ appointed viz. Baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost none doubteth of that but how doth this shew that it is no dedicating sign as the Canon saith or no immediate dedicating sign as the Dr. alledgeth It is a sign devised by men to dedicate the Infant added to the sign appointed by God for the same end Now our Question is VVhat warrant have men for making such an Addition to so great an Ordinance of God 5. The next thing for vindicating the Canon is that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ but Signeth in the Name of the Church is as little for his purpose for who gave the Church Power to Institute a dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in her name and set it up by Christ's dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in his Name This seemeth to be an addition to Christ's Ordinance and a reflection on it as imperfect as if the Child were not sufficiently dedicated to the Redeemer by Christ's Sign that he hath Instituted for that End. 6. It doth least of all vindicate the Canon which he addeth to wit that by it the sign of the Cross the Church receiveth the Infant into their number for this is a quite other thing than the Canon saith and to make that the meaning of the Canon is to take a liberty to impose what meaning upon it he pleaseth Let the Reader now judge whether by any thing that he hath said all the difficulties about Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental signs do appear to be of no force Sect. 20. He asketh page 350. Why may not the Church appoint such a rite of admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Answer The Church hath not appointed it as a rite of admission of a Member but a rite of dedicating the Person to Christ as hath been shewed And the reason why he may not do it is because Christ hath already done it sufficiently He hath appointed Baptism both for dedicating the Person to himself and for admitting him into his Church Therefore men ought not to contrive their signs for that end which he hath abundantly provided for by his own means Another reason why this may not be done is because this sign is so stated in the Word of God by being done in the Solemn Exercise of it for a Religious end and appropriated to this Religious Exercise that it cannot be otherwise lookt on than as a piece of Gods Worship He parallelleth this with holding up the hand in an Independent-Church presently after Baptism as a sign of admission into that particular Church Answer 1. I know no warrant for such an admitting rite Baptism is sufficient to make one a Member of Christs Church and that maketh one a Member of any particular Church where Providence casteth his lot 2. If Independents should state this admitting rite in the very Solemnity of Baptism before the complex action be finished they were to be blamed but they do not so they make an observable difference as to time and other circumstances between these two actions 3. Signing with the Cross is not a meer admitting sign into a particular Church as shall afterward be discoursed but also a dedicating sign as the Canon expresly saith and therefore this parallel is null Sect. 21. He next blameth Mr. B. for supposing that the Minister signing the Child speaketh in the Name of Christ or as his Officer and
and therefore much more than such a foolish Ceremony 3. If this Argument prove any thing it would make it our duty rather to bow to him when his name is mentioned in Blasphemy or Swearing Then such a Testimony is more needful than when all present are worshiping him Sect. 29. Argument 3. It is superstitious Worship not only on the account of its not being commanded but also because it is impossible to make that use of a name without ascribing more to it than is due to a word or any external sign I know our Brethren will deny all respect to the word and affirm that it is only the Person of the Redeemer that they reverence And I am obliged to believe that they make not the name the Objectum Terminans of any part of their Worship yet the setting such a mark of discrimination on that name from others and giving such Reverence on that occasion is such a violent presumption of some inward Respect to that word rather than to another of equal Excellency that a man ought not to believe himself when he denyeth it of himself much less are others obliged to believe him Especially the Church-Guides who impose this must either see some Reason for it or none if none it is Church-Tyranny to impose so arbitrarily in the Worship of God If they see a Reason that Reason cannot shun to be superstitious to wit a making a difference in this name from others where there is no such difference And if it were possible to free the mind of superstitious Conceits in this matter it is altogether impossible to free the action from aâ—candalous appearance of superstition for what other Construction can the Beholder put on bowing so many times at the recurrent mention of a word when no such thing is done at the mention of other words of the same signification May not one rationally think that it is not the thing signified but the sound of the word that moveth men when they see them bow at that word and not at another that expresseth the same thing If I see a man frighted at the hearing the word Eusis and not moved at hearing Gladius I have reason to think that it is not the apprehension of a Sword which is signified by both words that doth so move him but some Antipathy he hath at the sound of the word Eâ—sis This is easily applyed Sect. 30. Argument 4. It is impossible to observe this usage punctually without having the mind diverted from that attention to the other Acts of Religion that is fit Men may talk what they will but common Experience will convince the unbyassed that it is impossible to hear with serious attention toward the matter read or otherwise spoken to go along with it in the heart and at the same time to be ready at the sound of the word Jesus to catch it and to use the Reverence required I appeal to the Experience of them who do seriously mind this bowing whether their mind be not taken up with thoughts about the word waiting for it before they hear it so as they cannot at the same time mind what else is spoken as they ought Here we may apply that Adage Vides aliquem de vocibus solicitum scito animum in pusillis occupatum The mind cannot be intent on two things at once such as are one single word and the matter of a coherent Discourse Argument 5. It is an usage unknown to the Apostolick purest Primitive Times of the Church yea it is amongst the most novel Inventions of the later and more corrupted Times of the Church under the Anti-Christian Apostacy no mention of it till the middle of the 13th Century It was never injoined till Concil Lugdunens 1273. and Basiliens 1431. Argument 6th It hath been grosly abused to Superstition and Idolatry in the Popish Church and therefore being confessed to be an indifferent thing it ought to be abolished In a Council at Auspurg this bowing is injoined at the name of the body and blood of Christ of the Virgin Mary and several others of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Lugdun it is injoined chiefly in the Mass. It argueth a strange respect to that way thus to symbolize with them in their usages that have no warrant in the word and by so doing to differ from all Protestant Churches Sect. 31. I come now to attend the Doctor 's debate with Mr. A. about this matter where I am troubled to find the Dr. treating his Adversary with such Contempt and indecent Reflections on his learning which maketh him be honoured in the eyes of men as able to discern as they who despise him telleth us He had before defenced these things as required by the Church against Papists and Mr. A. borroweth their Weapons but doth not so well manage them We give the Author his due Praise for his learned Labours against the Papists but are not thereby obliged to be silent when he opposeth any of the Truths of God But I cannot understand how Mr. A. should borrow the Popish Weapons in this Controversy seeing the Papists and the Doctor are in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. A. doth oppose them both It is true a Non-conformist may say that Papists have as good reason for their Ceremonies as the Church of England for hers But this is not to use their Weapons for we think neither hath reason on their side Mr. A. blameth the Doctor in answering his Popish Adversary for saying That bowing at the name of Jesus is no more than going to Church at tolling of a Bell. To which Mr. A. replyeth That it is Motivum cultus at least and so more than the tolling of a Bell to call people to Church and he addeth that an Image may as well give warning to the eye to worship as a Bell to the ear Here Mr. A. is far from either pleading for Popish Tenets or using Popish Weapons but sheweth the absurdity of the Doctor 's opinion by a parallel opinion of the Papists which the Dr. condemneth which is a good way of reasoning ad hominem and needed not be so cryed out against The Dr. giveth some good Reasons why Images are not to be used in worship but he doth not touch the Point in hand between him and Mr. A. who never intended to parallel a Bell and Images any further than this that a Bell in the Act of Worship the sound of the word Jesus is in the same quality must be Motivum cultus and so is an Image Therefore if an Image not only on other accounts that the Dr. mentioneth but even on account of this lower use of it its being motivum cultus be evil so is the sound of the word Jesus Sect. 32. The Dr. exposeth Mr. A. as a crackt delirious man for saying that the Papists go too far in preserring an Image higher than to be motivum cultus but the question is whether they do not sin in applying
clear from what hath been said I have also shewed how irrational it is to parallel the Bell to call People together with a sign stated in Worship to stirr up or put in mind of it what Mr. A. objecteth that there is more need of this reverence in our ordinary converse I have touched before The Dr. maketh it a strange crossness to deny it in Worship and then plead for it in other cases But Mr. A. doth not plead for it in any case but useth this as a good reason to shew the folly of their imposition But enough of this Sect. 35. The rest of his debate with Mr. A. may soon be dispatched Mr. A. commendeth the moderation of the Canon 640. not imposing Worship toward the East or Altar but leaving it indifferent and pleadeth for the same Indulgence in other rites as little necessary in themselves as Crossing Kneeling c. according to the Apostles rule that differing parties should not judge nor censure one another Rom. 14. 3. The Dr. in his answer bringeth two reasons of this different practice one is the one sort of things were settled at the Reformation not so the other another is the one is settled by Law the other not It is strange the Dr. should lay weight on either or both of these reasons in opposition to the Apostles command of forbearance for the question still recurreth on the first setler of these either by Law or otherwise Why did they impose things so severely that the Apostle would have us bear with one another in And then it recoileth on the upholders of this unwarantable settlement Why do they continue such impositions as may be for-born and divide the Church by so doing We do prove these things unlawful as the Dr. requireth but tho' we should fail in that proof their counting them indifferent is enough to condemn such severe imposing of them He saith page 364. that Mr. A. thinketh the rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then Papists may come in for a share as to worshipping the Host Images c. Had Mr. A. talked at this rate the Dr. would as he doth on less ground have said his fancy had been disordered and all things were not right somewhere Did ever Mr. A. or any of us say this or words to that effect We say this of things indifferent not of things about which Christians differ and so I hope the Papists are sufficiently shut out Sect. 36. VVhen Mr. A. or any of us blame the leading Church-men for using these things that are not imposed we make this no grounds of Separation as the Dr. would insinuate VVhat Mr. A. saith of disagreeing in a circustantial part of VVorship is not the conclusion of his discourse to prove a disagreement in substantial parts of Worship but an Antithesis sufficiently proved to the Dr's assertion that all our difference was about circumstances of VVorship and he makes it appear that not only they with the Dissenters but they among themselves did so disagree while some of them Bow to the Altar others not If this be not a part of VVorship I see not how Bowing to an Image can be called such He further blameth Mr. A. page 365. at the end for making a sort of middle things able to justify Separation between Substantial parts of VVorship and meer Circumstantials And the Dr. doth most unjustly inferr from thence that Separation is justified by things that are neither Substantial nor Circumstantial parts of VVorship and no part of it at all For he will not consider that tho' Mr. A. doth not make the Ceremonies meer Circumstantials yet he maketh them Circumstantial parts of VVorship that is parts of VVorship without which all that VVorship that Christ hath instituted is confessed to be intire And if Mr. A. do also go about to prove that the Ceremonies are made by the Church-men Substantial parts of VVorship it is no incoherency in him but in them who talk so variously of these rites sometimes as the veriest trifles that can be sometimes as so much conducing to the Glory and Decency of Gospel-VVorship The truth is Substantial parts of VVorship is a term of the Drs. as Mr. A. telleth him none of ours and therefore if we do not apply it sometimes to his mind let him blame himself for not making it more intelligible to us by his explication of it SECT IX The other Pleas pretended for Separation VVE come now with the Dr. to the next Plea used for Separation to wit that the Dissenters are still unsatisfied in their Consciences about the Churches terms of Communion and the Church excommunicateth them and therefore they cannot join He is pleased to join these two tho' very distinct yet he prosecuteth them severally For the latter which he speaketh first of the Dissenters Plea that he is pleased to take off is the Excommunication ipso facto by the Canon 6. that we all lye under Before I consider his answer to this I must tell him of two things that have more weight to justify our Separation than that Canonical Excommunication 1. That many thousands of us are otherwise Excommunicated for our non-compliance with the Ceremonies even by the personal application and publishing of the sentence against us yea multitudes may not go to Church if they would being under the Writ de capiendo Excommunicato and daily watched for to be apprehended this putteth on us a forcible necessity of Non-communion and conscience of Worshipping God and waiting on the means of Grace engageth us to meet privately to enjoy these ordinances that we cannot have publickly The second thing is even they who are not under the sentence of Excommunication yet are materially Excommunicated by your Church if they will not comply with your Ceremonies for we can have none of the Sacraments without them and your Canon excludeth us out of the Church unless we Bow at the Name of Jesus So that we cannot if we never so fain would enjoy God's Ordinances among you without partaking your Ceremonies Wherefore all the blame that can be cast on us is not using the Ceremonies From which we have sufficiently cleared our selves in the eyes of unby-assed Men all that followeth on this is not to be charged on us but on the rigour of your Church which forceth us from among them Sect. 2. The Dr. answereth to the Plea from the Canonical Excommunion Sect. 33. page 367. that that Excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of the things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it and he blameth Mr. B. as misciting the words of the Canon Wherefore I shall set down the whole Canon it is the Can. 6. of the Convocation 1603. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law Established are wicked anti-christian or superstitious or such as being commanded