CHILLINGWORTH'S Safe Way p. 180. VVHen we shall come tio the Question of Schism I persuade my self that I shall plainly shew that the most vehement Accusers are the greatest Offenders and that they are indeed at this time the greatest Schismaticks who make the way to Salvation narrower the Yoke of Christ heavier the difference of Faith greater the Conditions of Ecclesiastical Government harder and straiter than they were made at the beginning by Christ and his Apostles they who talk of Unity but aim at Tyranny and will have Peace with none but with their Slaves and Vassals Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S Iren. p. 110. LEt Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms of the things so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience A REPLY To the Reverend Dean of St. PAULS's Reflections ON THE RECTOR OF SUTTON c. WHEREIN The Principles and Practices of the Non-conformists are not only vindicated by Scripture but by Dr. Stilling fleet 's Rational Account as well as his Irenicum as also by the Writings of the Lord Faulkland Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth c. By the same Hand To which is added St. Paul's Work Promoted OR Proper Materials drawn from The true and only way of Concord and Pleas for Peace and other late Writings of Mr. Richard Baxter for uniting Protestant Dissenters and repairing a Divided Church LONDON Printed by I. D. to be Sold by Richard Ianeway in Queens-Head Alley in Pater-noster-Row 1681. A REPLY To the Reverend DEAN of St. PAULS's REFLECTIONS ON THE RECTOR OF SUTTON c. NOw thanks Sir for your Token I would have said New-Years-Gift had it come about a Fortnight sooner Some told me lately an Answer was coming forth to my Notes upon the Doctor 's Sermon but I could not imagin how I should have a fair and just Answer from him without his putting forth another Edition of his Irenicum and it must be Another indeed quite different from the former or else giving us an Index Expurgatorius to the former that we may know what he would have expunged or which would have been most satisfactory and not unreasonable his publishing a Book of Retractations shewing in what Particulars and upon what Grounds and Reasons his Mind is since changed Upon the perusal of this Voluminous Writing of his which must pass for a Confutation of his Five Answerers I can find so little or nothing said to me that were it not for Three Conclusions he lays down in his Preface p. 72 73. and Three Letters which for my sake upon account of what I had said as it seems Preface pag. 76. he annexeth as an Appendix at the End of his Book I should not have thought my self concerned to make any Reply I cannot find that ever he vouchsafes to take notice of so much as one of my Twelve Queries which though I remember they were written in great haste yet some of them I think are pinching My First Query to name no more wise impartial Men think it would have been an Act of Iustice and Honesty as well as of Charity Ingenuity Self-denial for him to have well considered and to have given a serious and satisfactory Answer unto How knoweth he but some yea many may have that to say to him Si Error est quod credo a te deceptus sum If I be in an Error you have led me into it or have helpt to conhrm me in it I thought I had demonstrated to the Doctor that he was besides his Text That the Word the Scripture-Rule is that same Rule the Apostle would have Christians walk by Phil 3. 16. And that the Establisht Rule the Doctor would have it applyed to is such a Rule as he himself hath told the World the Apostles and Primo-Primitive Christians had not And if they had no such Rule nor would ever have establisht such a Rule then it certainly follows the Apostle should not be supposed there to press Chriâ—ians to walk by such a Rule which was no Rule with him viz. Rector of Sutton p. 10 11 17 f. 18. Yet I observe where he pretends to lear the Text from all Objections pag. 163 to 176. he says not one word to this Material Objection And so he waves what Mr. Baxter says Answer pag. 29. What he replieth to others I suppose they will consider Here I conceive he cannot well say as pag. 333. I decline nothing that looks like Argument And pag. 393. I have not concealed the Force and Strength I saw in any of them There I thought it sufficient to argue from the Doctor 's former Concessions or rather his plain Assertions taking the Matter to be so clear and evident that no sober Man and much less he would deny But if he had put me to prove that the Apostles did not neither would ever establish such a Rule nor could have established it as Apostles as commissionated by Christ as infallible Guides and Governours of the Church I should have counted it an easie Task especially when he hath done it so well to my hand from Act. 15. 28 c. This one hint may suffice at present the Aposâ—le Peter was to be blamed for that by his Example only he would have drawn the Gentile-Believers at Antioch to Conformity to the Jewish Ceremonies Gal. 2. 11 14. Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Iews The Apostle Paul who thus reproved him yet says himself 1 Cor. 9. 20. Vnto the Iews I became as a Iew. And those Ceremonies he conformed to among the Jewes as at Ierusalem were in themselves as lawful and innocent as the Ceremonies imposed among us But he would not have the Gentiles compell'd to more than was necessary He that was so moved and offended to see but an Example leading that way how much more would he have withstood any one or more that were for establishing such a Rule Yet the Doctor tells us he is certain he did not mistake the sence of his Text Preface pag. 63. But let such things pass as the Doctor hath pleased to do And if he had let all pass that hath been said that the Controversies he hath raised might have been laid asleep or had used other Methods and Measures than he hath taken I should have been better satisfied than I can be with his present Answer I am sorry we did not all put him in mind of that Praestat motos componere fluctus However Sir I must acknowledg your Kindness in sending me this Impartial Account c. as it is called and that you have since furnished me with his Rational Account also wherein you have greatly pleasured me Many Years since I looked into it
Though Magistrates may regulate us in the Circumstances of those Duties which the Law of Nature or Gospel doth command yet if on such Pretence they violate or contradict either the Law of Nature or the Gospel and dedstroy the Duty it self or its End whether we are bound in such Cases to obey them Or whether it be not enough that we patiently suffer First Plea for P. p. 104. Q. 6. Whether the Kings of Israel had Power to forbid the Priests exercising their Office according to God's Law Or whether they could change or abrogate their Office ibid. p. 20. Of Solomon's puting out Abiathar see p. 21. Whether might they then have put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office Or might they have put any one in his Place that had not Right from God or that was unqualified Or might they have forbidden the Priests the Work appointed them by God ibid. p. 22. Q. 7. Whether such as Christ's Laws empower to ordain others to the Work of the Ministry have Power from Christ to hinder the Ordination of such as Christ's Laws admit into the Ministry ibid. p. 25. Q. 8. Whether the Magistrate besides the Power of the Temples and Tithes and publick Maintenance and Liberty also hath the Power of Ordination or Degradation that no Man may be a true Minister without or contrary to his Consent Sacrileg Desert p. 11. Whether were not many of the Non-conformist's true Pastors of their several Flocks before they were silenced and cast out ibid. And whether did the ejecting them from the Temples and Tithes degrade them or make them no Pastors to their Flocks Though Prudence may require Minister and People to consent to a Dissolution of such a Relation when they cannot hold it without greater hurt than benefit ibid. Q. 9. Though Princes or Patrons may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just Cause for their Interposition 2. And may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intolerable Men. 3. And when a Peoples Ignorance Wilfulness Faction or Division makes them refuse all that are truely fit for them may urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples Duty to consent Yet whether Christ and his Apostles have not settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of consenting in the People First Plea for P. p. 33. And whether any Man can be the Pastor of a Church de jure or truly de facto against the Church or Peoples Will or without their Consent ibid. p. 25. As the Saying of Cyprian is well known that the People have the greatest Power both to chuse a worthy Priest and to refuse or forsake the unworthy ibid. p. 77 And when in England it belongeth 1. To the Patron to present 2. To the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. To the People Iure Divino to be free Consenters 4. And to the Magistrate to protect and judg who shall be protected or tolerated under him if these four Parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several Men and cannot agree in one Whether the culpable Dissenters will not be the Causes of Schism ibid. p. 50. Q. 10. Whether the Churches and Councils were in the right or no which for 700 yea 1000 Years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent And if Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and Conformists and make themselves our Pastors against our Wills what would the Bishops think of such Would they hold it unlawful to separate from such agreeing with them in Doctrine and Worship Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 27. Q. 11. If a lawful Magistrate or Prince put in place of Pastors Persons of untried and suspected parts of Fidelity Whether will his Imposition make such the true Pastors of that Church before and without the Peoples Consent Fiâ—st Plea for P. p. 55. If so then whether might not one Roman Emperour have undone all the Churches and Souls in the Empire in a great Degree by imposing on them insufficient heretical or malignant Pastors ibid. p. 56. If People were as much under Princes for chusing Guides for their Souls as a Daughter in her Fathers House is under her Father for the choice of an Husband which yet we have not seen proved yet as he can be no Husband to her without her Consent though She culpably deny Consent Query Whether it be not so here that they can be no Pastors to People till they consent Way of Concord p. 209. § 18. But whether hath God authorized the Magistrate to chuse what Persons every Man in his Dominions shall entrust his Soul to as the Pastor whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey Ans. to Dr. Still Serm p. 14. Whether shall the People have any Judgment of discerning or not If yea must not the Bounds of it be shewed without denying the thing as if that would bring in all Confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown must not Subjects judg which is the true King and defend his Right Will any say if the People be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King When they are but Discerners of that which is before their Duty and have no Right to err or alter the Law and Right can any dreadful Consâ—â—uence be proved to follow on it Or if it be otherwise must they not be ruled as Brutes and so must not â—udg so much as whom they are to obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the People be made Judges First Plea for P. p. 70 71. Q. 12. Whether the Ministerial Office be taken up upon Tryal or for a time or during Life with a Capacity to perform the work If the latter be granted then whether it be any less than 1. Horrid Sacriledg 2. Perfidious Covenant-breaking 3. Disobedience to God 4. Cruelty to Souls 5. And unthankfulness for great Mercies if any of us shall desert our undertaken Office yea tho a silencing Diocesan should forbid us the exercise of it unjustly Sacriledg Desert p. 25 30. Q. 13. If Rulers may silence the faithful Ministers of Christ who knoweth where to bound his Obedience to such Silencers If a 1000 or 2000 faithful Ministers must cease Preaching when so forbidden why not 3000 why not 4000 If half a Kingdom can you satisfy the Consciences of the other half that they must not do so too and so all Christian Kingdoms conform to Muscovy when the Prince commandeth it And if a 1000 or 2000 or 3000 Parishes must chuse the apparent hazard of their Souls and refuse such helps as Experience certifieth us they greatly need in Obedience to Man why must not the rest of the Parishes do so
whether are any bound to obey them at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions Way of Concord p. 111. § 15. And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority and impose them on the World in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks be not a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies ibid. § 16. Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship be not a Church Form of Divine Institution First Plea c. p. 8. And whether any Proof hath ever been produced that many Churches of this first Rank must of Duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association as Diocesan National c. and that God hath instituted any such Form Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions ib. p. 12 13. Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a political Sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the Power of teaching them ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-keys and leading them in publick Worship ibid. p. 13. And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less of many scores or hundreds such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or Bishop of Bishops had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion and mutual Assistance at due Seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes whose Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their Conversation and as a single Congregation may prudently in Persecution or foul Weather meet oft-times in several Houses so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses when they had no Temples and yet be capable of personal Communion as before described ibid. p. 13 14. And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith The Church of the Living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ c. doth he not here suppose as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino when they become but parts of a Bishops Church And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church ibid. p. 5 6. And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it as certain that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place ibid. p. 17. And see Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 75. or 69. Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved that God hath instituted any other than Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion whether must it not follow that none of the rest instituted by Man have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit or disoblige them from any of this Duty by just Authority Way of Concord p. 111. § 13. Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province into one only Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys or all essential to their Office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince First Plea c. p. 52. Or whether hath God made such proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws or whether God should be worshipped and Souls saved or his own Institution of Churches be observed Ibid. p. 53. Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches and Inferiour Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or Consent of the People or inferiour Pastors and these Bishops shall by Laws or Mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws or Mandates as such ibid. p. 80. Bishop Bilson of Subject p. 399. grants The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor ibid. p. 79. And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence and so a Duty to consent yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches till they do consent ibid. p. 80. Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God And doth not Dr. Blondel de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl. beyond Exception prove it with more ib. p. 81. Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command as such Or whether is it Schism to disobey it ibid. p. 82. Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses That he who separateth from a Parish-Church separates from no Church Sacril Desert p. 24. Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks if we renounced Communion with all other Churches except Parochial and Conformists And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism Whether ouâ—s that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us that
Cases wherein Moderation ought to be shewn And is not that very agreeable to the Christian-temper And what may others say now of your Icenicum If what I transcribed thence seem to you not agreeable to the Christian temper then was you not under some great Distemper either at the writing of this latter or that former Book In the Christian-temper I have Occasion p. 370. to borrow something from Bishop Downam what he noteth to have always been the Hypocrit Guise I there say is the genius of false Zeal Sâ—il To neglect the greater Duâ—â—es and to affect the Observation of the less to prefer Circumstances before thâ—â—obstance and Ceremonies before the Works either of Piety or Charity to place the heigâ—th of their Religion either in observing or urging Ceremonies or Controversies in inveighing against them And I say further p. 371. You would not take him for a wise and careful Builder that laid the greatest Weight on the weakest part of the Wall And is that true Zeal for God Or rather is it not a selfish Zeal which is for ones own Opinions or own Party neglecting those things which make most for the Honour of God and wherein the main Interest of Religion lieth If I could see any thing there or in that Book which chanceth to bear the Name of the Rector of Sutton that is not agreeable to the Christian-temper and to the Truth and Doctrine of Christ I hope I should be ready to retract the same Ibid. For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with in a Book written twenty Years sinc with great tenderness towards Dissenters before the Laws were establish'd And have you repented of that your former Kindness and Tenderness towards them since the Laws were against them But Solomon tels us A Friend loveth at all times and a Brother is born for Adversity Which I observed 〈◊〉 agreeable to the Christian-temper p. 219. And you cannot deny that which you told us twenty Years since of the Magistrates Power being bounded He hath Power of determining things undetermined by the Word 〈◊〉 they be agreeable to the Word His Laws must be regulated by the general Rules of the Divine Law Rector of Sutton p. 12. That no Laws of Men can hinder but what was Truth will be Truth still and what was Duty will be Duty still In what followeth you more humbly as it would seem than truely confess in Mr. Cotton's words the weakness or unwariness of those Expressions which I have gathered out of your Irenicum That Book was your First-born And the First-born was the chief of their Strength Psal. 105. 36. But it seems you are for reading Gen. 49. 3. Principium doloris rather than Principium roboris The beginning of your Strength is now become the beginning of your Grief Thus you now let the World know indeed that whereas you had written much favouring the Cause of Dissenters your Thoughts at last are changed as to those Things and Persons too Next you fall hotly on me And have you not very well required the Author of that Book for the Tenderness and Pitty he had for you and the Concernment he then expressed to have brought you upon easier Terms c. Reverend Sir I hope you will give me leave to speak when I am thus spoken to I suppose you expect my Answer when you put Questions so close to me First then I thank you for your good pains taken in that Book and for your truly Christian Design in it so agreeable to the Christian-temper though it hath been unsuccesful I doubt not yet but that Book will stand as a Witness before God and the World against many who can never answer that Strength of Reason in it an Evidence of Truth against unnâ—cessary rigorous mischievous Impositions and yet were for pressing and are still for continuing them upon us But it is no ill Requital of the Author that I have an esteem of his Work And if you can reconcile the Scope of your Sermon with what I cite out of your former Writings do your self that Right Or if you can refute those Collections otherwise such as meet with them may be tempted to think you self-condemned When you say you wrote in Tenderness c. I hope you did not only play the Orator make a flourish meerly with Words or plead our Cause against your own Judgment nor acted the part of Politician as hoping to engage a Party but wrote your Judgment as a sober and indeed well studied Divine Will you say you wrote partially then as swayed with your Pitty and Tenderness towards Dissenters How then shall we be satisfied and assured that you have not written partially of late out of overmuch Fondnâ—ss on Conformity If you wrote impartially your Judgment and Reason deserves to be regarded till you or some other for you bring greater Strâ—â—gth of Reason to prove you was then in an Error You pleaded welâ— for 〈◊〉 â—â—ms and what can you say now what have you thought of since to justify Mens imposing harder Terms How can you answer your own Interrogatories What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same Terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apost es And whether do they consult the Churches Peace and Vnity who suspend it upon such things as you know what How far doth the Example of our Saviour or his Apostles warrant such rigorous Impositions Rector of Sutton pag. 7 8. You express your having been concerned to have brought us in But were not many of us in both in the Church and in the Ministry before we were put out by the late Impositionsâ— By this expression of yours it would seem your Church is a new Church lately erected standing upon new Terms which I shall have occasion again to take notice of But were we not true Ministers before had we not a valid Ordination Deny it if you can And if we were true Ministers before then it is a great Question whether we are not so still unless you can prove we were justly degraded And consequently whether we are not obliged to the exercise of our Ministry as we may have opportunity Preface p. 72. And hath he now deserved this at your hands to have them all thrown down in his â—ace and to be thus upbraided with his former Kindness Is this your Ingenuity your Gratitude your Christian-temper Now are not these pretty sharp Reflections If you can justly charge me with any Bitterness and Rancor c. I shall acknowledg such things not agreeable to the Christian-temper and would be ashamed of them If you are ashamed to own your former Principles many will judg it is without Cause It may prove you fallen from those sober Principles but it will not prove those Principles false When you speak of my throwing them in your Face my Design was not to cast Dirt upon so worthy a Person What I alledged I took to be matter of
one is bound to submit to the Determination of such what ever his private Judgment be 1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God 2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency 3. And wholly as to the Form of Government This I think you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters and how material to give them Satisfaction will appear by examining the several Parts But first it is worth nothing that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Implying that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers such as are not lawful Governours of the Church Then so far you and they may be agreed that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch c. in England Men were not bound to submit to their Determination till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman p. 305. and others and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations as lawful Governours of the Church those who neverwere chosen or approved by the People is another Question But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine you tell us 1. Every one is bound to submit to their Determination As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God Here 1. You should have told us whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches or only such Ancient Churches as those of the fourth or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal and got the upper Ground In Defence of the Right of Kings p. 398. where the Cardinal arguing that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years was not to be condemned His Majesty replied In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession that in the first five hundred Years the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith nor approved by Practice VVherein to my understanding the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit for the Church in the time of the Apostles their Disciples was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge than at any time since in any succeeding Age in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant whether all or only some of them And if but some whether those that only took the Scripture as their Rule in reforming or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches together with it 2. What are those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God besides matters of meer Order and Decency and what relates to Form of Government 3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule When you grant the Church may err and general Councils may err may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word that are not sâ— left Chillingworth grants there may be just and necâ—ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cathâ—lick Church p. 298. And you say partly the same in your Rational Account pag. 331 332. Those Errors in practice in the Judgment of the Church may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word when yet others are not bound to submit to them You tell us Rational Account p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by it is most senslâ—ss pleading Prescription till you have particularly examined how far such Prescription is allowed by him So then it is not enough to say in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law and the Church hath Power to determine them But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on p. 628. It may be you will tell me that in this Case Prescription interprets Law and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side since you run your self into new Briars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the Practice here I must say by the Iudgment of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived 4. Is this a plain or rather is it not an Impossible Rule If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches as to those things We should think it well if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty but according to what you have here laid down this should not be sufficient but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law Or will you say that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches they must believe without more adoe Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours till such time as they can be satisfied that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches Will you give them time till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches 5. Is this a golden rather is it not a leaden Rule May it not be turned contrary ways Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving Were
not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches And were they for our English Ceremonies Do not the Lutheran Churches hold some things lawful and indifferent which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable As things indifferent and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches I do profess plainly says Chillingworth p. 376. that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only the Bible I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. 6. Is this Rule of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule Do you find the one agreeable to the other Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies which they yet held undetermined by God's Word Was it their Judgment that each Nation or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things Do you find this within the first five hundred years Can you gainsay those Words of yours cited Rector of Sutton p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I sâ—arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs which might be an Argument of Moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23. the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters and yet live in Peace And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters and yet communicate one with another The Primitive Christians retained câ—ntrary Observations and yet as Irenaeus said held fast the bond of Love and Vnity Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church or the best reformed Churches have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters Here comes to my Mind that which you say Vnreas of Separat p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of râ—verence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery Yet with King Iames Defence of the right of Kings p. 47c the Christian Religion reformed is as to say purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs And p. 17. Altho they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors c. Agreeable to Chillingworth p. 287. â— 82. But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it from Arch-Bishop Whitgift I cannot tell However T. C. latter part of his second Reply p. 172. could not discern it to have any Solidity but called it a single solid Argument seeing Transforming may be in part as well as Reforming And you have not improved it at all But what a strange Assertion is that of yours p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church but the same wich our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days And will you stand to this that they died Mâ—rtyrs for Ceremonies and for such Impositions as have thrust out so many Ministers that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth for which indeed they laid down their Lives I had thought that I. Rogers the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution had been a Non-conformist As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered And can you make the World believe that they suffered for Conformity And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause whether Conformists or Non-conformists Indeed they agreed well in Red in Blood and Flames who before had differed in Black and White But as you will have it p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds c. And p. 4. I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us c. I say you would persuade us that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers who were for Reforming according to the Scripture rejecting all things repugnant thereto only they would have the Church reduced as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors p. 17. Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function and other Church-Members into Communion observed in those Antient Churches or one as near as could be to it and further to make it good that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule Or if you cannot do this you must then grant that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers that is the Scripture and those Primitive Churches and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire neque Domini est voluntas neque purioris Ecclesiae mâ—s 7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule If never so many Councils if all the Churches upon Earth determined that they had such Power that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law we could not submit to such Determination while we believe the Scripture which tells us so plainly that they have no Power for Destruction but for Edification I subscribe to that of Panormitan Magis Laico esse credendum si ex scripturis loquatur quam Papae si absque verbo Dei agat Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over Godâ—s Heritage And tho the Laity or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there yet no doubt by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome he gives this for one good Reason Because they usurp more Power than the Apâ—stle Paul accounted belonging to him 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith Quibus verbis testatur fidem nâ—mini subjectam
esse â—isi verbo Dei And then it would be seriously enquired whether to require Assent and Consent to another Book besides the Bible a Book in Folio and to all things contained in it be not to have Dominion over Mens Faith Many are in doubt here whose doubts you have not so far as I can perceive yet resolved You your self must grant that the Churches of God have or should have no such Custom to tyrannize over the Faith and Consciences of Men that is Lording it indeed As here Vnreas of Separat p. 184. You cite M. Claude allowing or maintaining Tyranny over Mens Consciences to be a justifiable Reason of Sâ—paration And Le Blanc p. 185. And the Confession of Strasburg p. 188. That they look on no human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men. And Ioâ— Crocius ib. Ceremonies forbidden break the Churches Unity yet its Communion is not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. And Bishop Davenâ—nt p. 189 190. Who grants that Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences would be a sâ—fficient Reason to hinder Communion As he says Sentent D. Dav. p. 6. If some one Church will so have Dominion over the Faith of others that she acknowledgeth none for Brethren or admits none into Communion with her nisi credendâ— ac loquendi legem ab eadem prius accipiant the Holy Scripture forbids us thus to make our selves the Slaves of any Mortals whosoever they are our one only Master Christ forbids Quae hâc lege in Communionem alterius Ecclesiae recipitur non pacem inde acquirit sed iniquissimae servitutis pactionem Here I set down a little more than you cite as indeed it was not for your purpose To these you agree P. 221. Not but that I think there may be a Separation without Sin from a Society retaining the Essentials of a Church but then I say the Reason of such Separation is some heinous Error in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some Tyranny over the Consciences of Men c. This Tyranny over Conscience with you is an imposing of unlawful things Which I infer from those Words p. 208. A prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation With Bishop Davenant it is credendi ac loquendi legem dicere Now if this be the Case of Non-conformist Ministers that others would tyrannize over their Consciences will it not justify their Separation which is but a Separation secundum quid And if you deny this to be their Case be pleased to give a sound and solid Answer to those few Pages of the second Plea for Peace towards the end p. 116 c. Qui tyrannidem in Christianissimum vel usurpat vel invehit ille Christum quantum potest ê solio dejicit c. Amyrald in Thes. Salmur p. 435. §22 8. Will you say every Man is bound for Peace-sake to submit to the Determination of Church-Governours whatever his private Iudgment may be When his Judgment may be that such a Determination is against the Word tho never so many Churches and Councils judg otherwise And when his Judgment may be that submission to such Determination of Men would be real Disobedience and acting contrary to the Will of God If his Conscience be rightly informed then he opposeth the Authority of Scripture and the Iudgment of God to the Iudgment of Men as Chillingworth says p. 309. which is certainly allowable If his Conscience and Judgment be erroneous yet he must suspend the act of Submission to such Determination till he can be better informed or acting here against his Iudgment and Conscience tho erroneous he would greatly sin As suppose the Governours of the Church to have determined that we shall all declare our Assent unto that in Preface before the Book of Ordination That it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several Officers You could not have submitted to such Determination while your Judgment was the same as when you wrote your Irenicum This is evident from what I noted thence Rector of Sutton p. 41 66. Nothing can be more evident than that it rose not from any divine Institution c. Could you have dissembled with God and Man for Peace-sake But more of this afterwards But I am thinking you may possibly object That you speak of things supposed to be left undetermin'd whereas I Instance here in a matter that the Word determines Yet I hope this may be more convincing Let us for this once suppose that you could now prove from Scripture that the Bishops Office is distinct from that of Presbyters yet I hope you will grant me that you could not have submitted to such Determination of the Church while you believed no such thing And then I have what I would have Every Man cannot lawfully submit to the Churches Determination though it be according to the Scripture that is so long as his Judgment is the Determination is without and against Scripture then must not the same be said of such Determination as is besides the Scripture I know you will not say the Churches Word is above God's So you see how this part of your Rule falls short of what you aim at One thing you have under this Rule Irenic p. 124. I should take a little notice of some-where and let me do it here There must be a Difference made say you between the Liberty and Freedom of a Man 's own Judgment and the Authority of it So by being under Governours a Man parts with the Authority of his Iudgment but you would not have him deprived of the Liberty and Freedom of his Judgment otherwise to what purpose is this distinction brought Now I would not be so uncharitable as to think that by the Liberty of a Man 's own Iudgment you could mean a Liberty of professing and declaring contrary to his own Judgment in Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours for the Churches Peace And therefore I say your Rule here is short and reacheth not to our Case 2. You say in this last Conclusion that in Mâ—tters of meer Order and Decency every one for the Churches Peace is bound to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Here 1. This is readily granted if by Matters of meer Order and Decency you understand Matters of meer Order and Decency As you seemed to understand no more when you wrote your Iren. For there you distinguish betwixt Ceremonies and Matters of meer Decency and Order for Order-sake And you further say that Matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for Actions significative their Lawfulness may with better Ground
be scrupled Noted Rector of Sutton pag. 16. And thus far if you please you and I are agreed That Rules of Order not contrary to the end of Order should be submitted unto and that not only for the Churches Peace but also in Obedience to God's Command Let all things be done decently and in order And to such orderly Determinations what Camero says pag. 314. col 1. may in some sort be applied Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae at Leges respectu Dei nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia Deus impâ—ravit 2. But I observe that in other Writings since your mind is changed and you have learned now to confound what before you would have distinguished that is your Rites and Ceremonies and Matters of Order and Decency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. So you say in your New Account or Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 393. We declare that they are appointed only for Order and Decency And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you Of which there hath been and is so great dispute Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them upon such Determination I intend not to say much upon these Questions supposing they may fall in others Way And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion so much hath been written upon these Points that might excuse us from saying more till what hath been published be fairly answered Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 1. You say and declare they are appointed only for Order and Decency But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. whereupon it follows that you must hold them vainly appointed or that the contrary might as well have been appointed and so teach or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies whereby many are deprived of their Ministers and of some of God's Ordinances which may seem very harsh if they are only for Order and Decency and that in so low a Degree that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed without them Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause than their meer Wills 2. Do you well accord here with Mr. R. Hooker who says Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit we that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual You seemed Answer to several Treatises p. 268. unwilling that any should urge you with that Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship was not not in it self altogether so decent and fitâ— But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature that the contrary implieth no Indecency then you cannot say that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them Wherein you and Mr. Hooker appear to be of different Minds And kneeling at Communions with him l. 5. § 68. p. 366. is a Gesture of Piety which is something more than meer Decency 3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church You declare our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God by some notable and special Signification whereby he might be edified Will you say such things are only for Order and Decency which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God and for his Edification One would think that such things should be good in themselves and not as you say of an indifferent Nature in themselves Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency whose contrary are as decent to be the same or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty whereby he may be edified then is it not made medium excitans which you say Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 354. our Church utterly denies Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies which you can by no means allow pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation to say they are only Matters of Order and Decency and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept Let all things be done decently and in Order tho they are things of a quite different Nature Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere but it would be no Transgression of that Command though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed or used in the Worship of God nor any others like them Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies Here 1. You say pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual Effects it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship And then the Question is whether these are no spiritual Effects if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for Men ' s Edification And as Dr. Field says they are adhibited to exercise great Fervour and Devotion And Hooker Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence Devotion and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite If you makâ— them unprofitable idle Indifferents are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment and if others make them profitable edifying Ceremonies have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such 2. If Church-Governours have Power that is lawful Power or Authority from Christ to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission or prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say Rational Account p. 103. Is it in that Place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded And a little before it what hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Surely you cannot think the Church hath any such Power In all kind of
Grants says Gurney Vind. of 2 d Com. 45. The want of an Affirmative is Negative sufficient Then may not Men question whether the Governours of the Church have such a Power from Christ till they can prove it If Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you doth not imply that the Governours of the Church may teach and command more than they have his Word and Warrant for I can think of no other Text more likely for the purpose than that 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order Upon which Mr. F. Masoâ— grounded The Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things indifferent printed 1607. But here you will fall short too For I suppose the Jews were as well bound to perform the Worship of God decently and in order yet that was no Warrant or Allowance for their bringing in other Rites and Ceremonies into God's Worship than what God himself had appointed And what if Church-Governours forbad the Use of such Ceremonies Would it be to sin against this Rule Cannot the Worship of God be performed decently and in ordâ—r without them Antecedently to any Determination of Christ's Governours Men are bound to worship God decently and in Order but none are so bound to use such Ceremonies in God's Worship as was hinted before And that these differ tâ—to genere from Matters of Order and Decency may appear in that if we suppose them approved of God they are Matters of an higher Nature than things meerly decent that is they are pious and religious not only finally but formally that a Man would do amiss that used them only as decent neglecting the spiritual Signification of them And then will it not follow that if they be not approved and allowed of God it is worse for Governours to appoint and command them than if they commanded some simple indecent thing in God's Worship As Superstition or false Worship caeteris paribus is worse than a meer Indecency 3. It would seem by what we reade Gal. 2. 11 14. that the Apostle Peter had no Authority to appoint the Observation of such things Yet his Power was as great as any Church-Governours now can pretend to with Reason 4. If Church-Governours have such a Power as you say of Men's separating upon account of their Scruples Vnreason of Separation pag. 379. which I answered before pag. 29. where can you stop them from appointing new Ceremonies And where will you fix as to the use of them And what Assurance can you give us that we shall see an End of them that they will never appoint more Notwithstanding what you say p. 388. by the same Power that the Church hath decreed these she may decree more Rites and Ceremonies as indifferent as these and how many who can tell And being once decreed you must think you are bound to submit to such Deterâ—ination who are to be Iudges whether such or such Ceremonies be rightly determined and appointed You well know what was said Commiss Account p. 71. Not Inferiours but Superiours must judg what is convenient and decent So if the Governours of the Church once judg all those Ancient Rites of the Christian Church we ever read of with many new ones of the Church of Rome as many as they could refine and purge from Popish Superstition to be all decent and convenient then must you not submit to them all Though it would be a Sign that Religion was far past the Meridian in the Church as T. Fuller says where she can hardly be seen for the length of her own Shadow As you plainly declare from another p. 184. that Separation is not warranted upon the Account of bare Ceremonies although many more were enjoyned so you must say that Submission to them is a thing not to be denied though many more were appointed And therefore I say suppose and grant that the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint such Ceremonies and you know not where they and you shall stop And this Power you grant in your subscribing to the 39 Articles For Art 20. saith The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Cerâ—monies without liâ—â—iting any Number Tho this Clause was not extant in the Articles of Edw. 6 and Q. Elizabeth Here now I fall upon those two Reasons you give Vnreâ—s of Separation p. 16 17. for the appointing of these Ceremonies 1 Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity Therefore they retained theâ—e few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church And yet you cannot deny but other Ceremonies more Ancient than some of these are laid aside and the most Ancient of these is so in use with you as it was not used at first and was so in use in the Antient Church as it is not in use with you Such is your Respect and Reverence here to the Ancient Church 2. To manifest the Justice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies the Papists see they did not break Communion with thâ—m for mâ—er indifferent Things As you have it before p. 14. Our Bishops proceeded in our Reformation more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer Opposition to Popery Now I would be satisfied whether it might not shew more Respect and Reverence to Antiquity if more Ceremonies were retained and the more Ancient rather than such as came up in latter times as Standing may be proved before the Ceremony of Kneeling And whether there are not many Ceremonies in use among the Papists capable of having a good signification put upon them and so as innocent and indifferent as these and therefore for the Reason you have given to be retained or entertained amongst us to shew our Iustice and Equity towards them that we proceed not in meer opposition to Popery that we break not with them about meer indifferent things And will you be for that peaceable Design for going as near to Rome as you can without Sin But thus upon your Principles the Church might be Reformed I will not call it but Transformed borrowing the Word from you and become as Ceremonious as was the Iewish Church under the Law And they that highly applaud such Ceremonies as mighty Helps to Devotion c. may next tell the World that the Iewish Church was priviledged above the Christian as having more such Helps unless they have a Face to say that the Ceremonies of Gods appointment were no such Helps as those of Man's Inventions And consequently that latter Churches which some take to have been less pure had some Helps which Christ and his Apostles were not mindful to supply the Primitive Church with 5. It would seem that if Christ had approved of the appointing of such things he would rather have appointed them himself in his Word which would have gained them more repute and esteem and might have ended the dispute about them There is the same Reason for all Churches to observe and practise them as for
ours 'T is impossible for you to assign any Reason for the Cross in Baptism c. à natura rei now but what would have been as pleadable even in the Apostles times and at all times since Then is it not most probable that Christ would have made an universal Law for them that should equally respect all Churches had it been his Mind to have such things in his Church Indeed we find Christ hath instituted what religious Rites and Ceremonies he would have observed in the Sacraments of the New Testament And where he hath determined the matter himself what have Men to do more than to submit to his Determination What can Men do that come after the King None are like to do his work better or know his Mind better than himself 6. If the exerting such a Power be found contrary to many express Commands in the Word how can we imagine such a Power conveyed to Church-Governours in any general Command there The Scripture is no where contrary to it self Consult Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 v. 17 to the end of the Chapter And Chap. 15. 1 2. Are there such plain Commands in Scripture for mutual Forbearance and against judging and despising one another for such things as God hath not commanded and against offending the weak or casting a stumbling-Block in others way and for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church and can we think it probable or a thing credible that Christ would have all such Commands set aside meerly for the sake of things called indifferent Ceremonies Or that the Commands or Determinations of Church-Governours about such Matters should be of Force against the standing Rules and Laws of Christ who is King of his Church Matters of Order and Decency are things of another Nature necessary in genere as I have said before and yet Men cannot oblige us to this or that particular Order when it is repugnant to that whereunto it should be subservient Then much less is it the Will of Christ that meer indifferent things if no worse should take place of great and necessary Duties Such indifferent things must either be made necessary or else you must say it cannot be avoided That the Churches Peace may be broken sound Ministers and Christians that scruple the lawfulness of them may be ejected and cast out of Communion or their Consciences may be ensâ—â—red unnecessarily And yet one that ever read his Bible might know so much that the Governours of the Church have other work to do And as the second Book of Homilies says p. 3. Better it were that the Arts of Painting Plaistering Carving Graving and Founding had never been found nor used than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious should by occasion of Image or Picture perish and be lost So indeed better it were that no such Ceremonies had ever been appointed by Men than one Soul should be ensnared by them â—r one Minister or Member of Christ suffer 7. I query If Christ had not appointed the Sacraments of the New-Testament whether it had been in the power of Church-Governours to have appointed washing with Water in token and to put us in mind of our being washed and cleansed by the Blood of Christ and by the sanctifying influence and operation of his Spirit and so likewise to have appointed the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine as signifying that our Souls are to feed upon Christ whose Body was broken and whose Blood was shed for us Had not these been of the same Nature and as lawful as the significant Ceremonies which the Church hath taken on her to appoint Then let the People understand the Power of the Church that if Christ had never instituted Baptism and the Lord's Supper she could yet have in part supplied that want with those significant Ceremonies that would have been something like them 8. If Church-Governours have power to appoint such a Ceremony as the Cross in Baptism for Instance then they have power to add to the thing which God hath commanded and to make new parts of Worship But Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. forbids that You grant p. 337. That for Men to make new parts of Divine Worship is unlawful For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no Fault c. The Cross in Baptism is an Addition Tho you seem to understand the prohibition of adding to the Word of things directly repugnant yet that is not so properly an Addition as an Abolition As one says Prohibetur hîc additio non tantùm contrarii quae non tam additio est quà m abolitio sed etiam diversi v. M. Poli. Synops. Crit. in Deut. 4. 2. Methinks we may know what it is to add if we understand what it is to diminish then as they might not diminish or take away from God's Worship one significant Ceremony which the Lord had instituted by a Parity of Reason it would seem to follow that they might not introduce or add one significant Ceremony to the Worship God had instituted The Cross in Baptism is made a new part of Worship For that which is used in God's Worship in such a manner and to such an end that there needeth nothing but Divine Institution or God's appointing it to be used in that manner and to that end to make it a part of the true Worship of God that is made a part of God's Worship tho falsly for want of Divine Institution Had Christ appointed the Cross in Baptism as the Church hath appointed it to be used in token that we should not be ashamed c. had Christ appointed it by that Badg to dedicate us to the Service of him that died upon the Cross no doubt it had thus become a part of God's true Worship Here you speak short p. 348. The Canon says It is an honourable Badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of c. And what is that but a Sign from Men to God to testify their Subjection Which by your own Confession there is an Act of Worship and yet you will have it no such thing P. 355. you say If Christ had instituted it with such Promises then no doubt c. And I say If Christ had instituted it only in token that we ought not to be ashamed to confess him which is less than that hereafter we shall not be ashamed had he appointed it only to signify our Duty it would yet no doubt have been made a part of Worship And I hope upon second thoughts you will say the same Some other Passages relating to this Matter I would have glanced at but it is time to hasten to an end of this Conclusion I have been so long upon Yet methinks your slighty Exposition of the second Câ—mmandment p. 141. calls for one glance here Can you find no more in the Affirmative part of it than a Command to worship God without
an Image What is there more And are not even Mystical Riâ—s and Ceremonies of God's Institution within that Command And does not Bishop Downham say It forbiddeth all Will-Worship and Superstition whereby Men worship God according to their own Inventions There is no doubt but that Law forbiddeth other Inventions of Men besides the worshipping of Images or of God by Images And whether the common Nature of the Inventions there forbidden will not be found agreeing to some of your Ceremonies I suppose will lye fair in others way to take notice of And so you may have a fuller Answer to that pag. 338. What is neither forbidden Directly nor by Consequence is lawful and may be practised in the Worship of God And it may seem a little strange that such learned Men as have written for the Cross and kneeling in the Act of Receiving c. should endeavour to prove them lawful by Consequence from that Text Let all things be done decently c. whence a more colourable Argument might be drawn against them As if we suppose such Ceremonies there included it would imply that the Worship of the Apostles and Primitive Christians was not so decent wanting these Ceremonies as that of our Church who observe them strange it is I say that they could not rather see them forbidden by plainer Consequence in the second Commandment and such other Texts as Deut. 4. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 â—xod 30. 32 33. Lev. 10. 1 2. Num. 15. 39 40. Ezek. 44. 2. Col. 2. 〈◊〉 21 22. Mar. 7. 5 6 7. Quest. 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to such Ceremonies being appointed and enjoyned by the Governours of the Church And here 1. I cannot yet find that you have taken off what you had said Irenic p. 64. cited Rector of Sutton p. 14. When the Generality of those who use them do not use them as indifferent but as necessary things it ought to be considered whether in this Case such an Use be allowable Now will you allow such Ministers to forbear the use of the Cross in baptizing till they can find their People better informed and brought off from any such Superstitious Conceit of that Ceremony For certain it is very many such as are ignorant and most backward to be instructed do conceit the crossing of their Children necessary as if Baptism could not be rightly administred without it What if a Minister be scrupulous and in doubt whether by the use of the Ceremony he be not guilty of confirming them in their Superstition Will you consider such to take off the Scruples you may have occasioned by this Passage 2. And what will you say to them who cannot believe but they are made necessary When they see them as strictly imposed and enâ—oyned as if they were Matters of the highest Necessity this does 〈…〉 the least inform or satisfy them that you account them for all that but indifferent things Would not that considerable Person you once speak of Philip Nye have said Quid verba audiam cum facta videam As he says Our Church-Governours questionless might have brought in one Rite or Ceremony with the same Liberty to Men's Consciences that they have done another Scil. The Cross and Surplice c. with the same Liberty as bowing to the East or Altar As he also cites A Petition of the House of Commons to King James An. 1610. Wherein is as follows Ministers being removed from their Ecclesiastical Livings for not conforming in some Points it is a great grief to your Majesties Subjects seeing the whole People that want Instruction are by this means punished Here I remember what you say of the Vow Corban p. 340. and how they thought their Tradition to over-rule the Law Then you can clear your Ceremonies as innocent and free from any such Crime And yet it hath sometimes been known when no Surplice no Service And Conformity to the Ceremonies is made so necessary that People must have no Ministers without it By which means many Souls are at great wants That you should hold it a thing more pleasing to God that the Ceremonies be used and kept up than that the Souls of Men in many places be relieved and taken care for And if the Worship of God must rather be omitted than the Ceremonies is not this to set up Men's Traditions above God's Law and Men's Inventions above Divine Institutions Many cannot be satisfied with that you tell them p. 346. That these Ceremonies are purged from Popish Superstition and Error And therefore all Opinion of Merit and spiritual Efficacy is taken from them which do make them to be Parts of Divine Worship They know not that an Opinion of Merit is necessary to any part of Divine Worship And if you would convince them that you look on them as no more than naked indifferent Ceremonies they could wish that as you disclaim the Opinion of their spiritual Efficacy and necessity in Word so they might see that you do it in deed that none may be deprived of the Means that God is wont to make effectual and are ordinarily necessary to Salvation for the sake of such Ceremonies which you will not say are effectual or necessary thereto And to go on one step further with you here to p. 347. either you must grant such Ceremonies are to be altered dispensed with in this Case or you must take them to be unalterable and then by your own Confession there you make them parts of Divine Worship For as you say this supposes an equal Necessity of them with that of Divine Institution And if Men must be without the Word and without Sacraments rather than without your Ceremonies as some have been and still ordinarily are then do you not make them of equal Necessity with Divine Institutions if the preaching of the Word and Administration of Sacraments be such And thus have you proved for us your Ceremonies to be made parts of Worship This Iosâ—â—s Nichols complained of long since Plea c. p. 120. That the Reverend Fathers accounting those things for which they contend but meer Trifles would yet prefer them before the Ministry And pag. 229. but mispaged And for not yielding to their Minds suspended deprived and imprisoned their learned and Godly Brethren and in the mean time preferred the trifling Ceremonies before the weighty work of Preaching So that as Mr. Calfill saith The People of God be sometimes oppressed with Traditions and Ceremonies and for outward Solemnities the inward true Service of God is neglected And they could not see all this while any one thing â—miss no not so much as the unlearned Ministry or Non-residency but defend all and maintain all to the utmost Now if thus it appears that the Ceremonies are made necessary in being preferred before the Ministry of the Word if Non-residency and a Non-preaching Ministry be counted more tolerable than Non-conformity and if as you sayâ— by making the Ceremonies of equal necessity with God's Ordinances they are
made parts of Divine Worship you will excuse those that cannot submit to them unlâ—ss they could be proved of Divine Institution If they are things not 〈◊〉 by the Word according to what you have p. 116. they should not be 〈◊〉 they are not bound to use them No Church-Governours upon Faith havâ— suâ—h a Power to bind men to things not 〈◊〉 by the Word If their 〈◊〉 enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid as the making of any nâ—w part of Worship they are ipso facto null and void King Iamâ—s 〈…〉 Right of Kings p. 428. It is moreover granted If a King sâ—all command any thing dirâ—ctly contrary to God's Word and tending to the 〈◊〉 of the Church that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for thâ—ir Obedience but also expresly to forbid their Obedience For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King 's here and abâ—ve Christâ—â— And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col 2. may be appliâ—d hâ—re to Non-submission in such case as is spoken of to the Determination of Church-Governous Deirectatio autem illa Obedienâ—iae 〈◊〉 est in Obedientia nedum resiâ—tentia sed tantum Supremi Iuris 〈◊〉 quâ—d Magistratus sibi 〈◊〉 adrogat out userpat debita Recognitio It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours but rather a due Recogniâ—â—â—on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord. For haste I have here thrown things on heaps A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion 3. You say Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination Here I offer to your Consideration what follows 1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice that is live peaceably under it and obey Governours in Licitis Honestis so far as God's Law allows should be urged further to submit their Iudgment to the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy when determined by Governours whatever their private Iudgment may be Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination whose Judgment was That the Bishops and Priests were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as you cite his MS. Irenic p. 392. could such a Man as Dr. Holland and I need not tell you what he was who called Dr Laud a Schismatick for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy saying It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture c. who in effect says the contrary Thes. Salmur p. 8. § 33. Neque verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus c. And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops as of Bishops I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account whether you could submit to such Determination For there pag. 298. You speak of it as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts without any such Subordination or Dependance Here I would be satisfied how you would expound Homogeneal Parts and so you seem to expound them p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian Episcopatus unus appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church But then should not all that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them be supposed to be Bishops and no one Bishop above another otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them how is there Episcopatus unus And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts And thus will it not follow that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them which you here suppose to be with a Parity should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Manâ—or or Lordship in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake if not Diocesan Churches too 2. Whether you could submit and declare your Assent if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution and should require your Assent Would you then disown and discard such whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours For what you say Vnreasonableness of Separation Preface p. 89. we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them For there you tell us The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause They must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it that is for Union or the Churches Peace so as to condemn its Constitution c. Then you cannot say that wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of Governours whatever his private Judgment be Here I have put a Case wherein you could not submit 3. What if the whole Work of Government belonging to the Pastor's Office was quite taken out of their hand that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop and such Copy-holders as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision without doing any thing towards a Reformation Should they betrary the Churches Interest for the Churches Peace May they not endeavour any Alteration not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power and by humble Petition for Redress 4. Is every one bound to submit wholly as to the Form of Government to Governours Determination Then what if our Civil Governours and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments and Determinations I make no question but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren lately to be by God's
no such Matters but in Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost 14. Because Christ is pleased in this without the other and God accepteth such 15. Because such are approved of Men i. e. This Righteousness Peace and holy Joy without Agreement in such Ceremonies and By-matters beareth its own Testimony for Approbation to the Judgment of all impartial Men Humanity and Christianity teach us to love and honour such 16. From our common Obligation to live in Peace with all 17. From our Obligation to do all to the edifying of one another 18. Because God's Work else is destroyed by us 19. Because our own lawful Acts are turned into Sin when they hurt another and from the Obligation that lieth on us to deny our own Liberty in Meat c. to avoid the hurting of another that is weak 20. From the Damnation of such as are driven or drawn to act doubtingly 21. From the special Duty and Mercy of the Strong that should bear the Infirmities of the Weak 22. From the Example of Christ himself that pleased not himself and our great Obligation to imitate Christ. 23. From God's Patience to us 24. Because indeed this is the true way to Love and Vnity that with one Mind and one Mouth we may glorify God while we lay not our Concord on impossible Terms 25. Because Christ receiveth us and it is to God's Glory c. Whether do all these moral Arguments signify no more than this receive and tolerate such only till you make Laws against them ibid. p. 150 151 152. Query 2. Whether Men have any Authority to make Laws about God's Worship but what Christ hath given them Second Plea for Peace p. 28. § 36. And whether it be not against the Mind and Law of Christ declared Act. 15. 28. that unnecessary Laws and Burthens in Religion should be made for and laid upon the Churches ibid. p. 29. § 40. So whether that Determination and Decree of the holy Ghost by the Apostles be not obligatory to all Rulers and Churches upon Earth even to this day And whether all that think not themselves wiser should not confess that at least it is safe to follow it ibid. p. 169. § 74. If therefore the Pastors shall contrary to that Decree impose unnecessary things on the Church not only under the Obligation of Duty but as a necessary Condition of Church-Communion whether this be not a tyrannizing over God's Heritage and usurping a Power never given them ibid. p. 155. § 33. Q. 3. Whether what God hath left to human Prudence to determine concerning Churches and Church-affairs be not thus limited by his general Laws viz. That all things be done to Edification the Circumstances fitted to the end the Glory of God and the publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in order and decently and as may avoid Offence or Scandal to all both those without and those within First Plea for Peace p. 19. Then query 1. Whether they do well that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a Strait by needless Laws for Additions in Religion that the Consciences of Men fearing God must unavoidably be perplexed between a Fear of Treason and Disobedience against Christ and of Disobedience to their Prince or Pastors Second Plea c. p. 28. § 38. 2. Whether it be not more inexcusable to rack and divide the Church by unnecessary Additions in Religion ibid. § 39. 3. Whether it be not against the Will and Law of Christ to use things otherwise indifferent scandalously or temptingly to the ensnaring and endangering of Men's Souls and the Dishonour of Religion Rom. 14 15. 1 Cor. 8. And whether Men may make Laws about Religion enjoyning such an evil use of such things ibid. p. 29. § 41. 4. Whether to invent and command new publick-Worship-Ordinances either in God's Name or their own co-ordinate or of the same kind with God's own Worship-Ordinances which have no peculiar usefulness to one Age or People more than to another nor any new Reason for them but what was extant at the making of God's Laws whether this seemeth not to be an Accusation of Christ's Laws of Omission and Defectiveness and an Usurpation of his Legislative Power ibid. § 42. 5. Whether to forbid Baptism or to alter it or make a new Sacrament of Admission or a new consecrating or dedicating Symbol for the Solemnization of our Covenant with God and a new Symbol of the Christian Church or visible Badge of Christianity seem not an Usurpation and Accusation of God's Law as insufficient ibid. p. 30. § 46. 6. Whether to forbid Preaching or Prayer or Praise ordaining Homogeneal Means of our own seem not an Usurpation and unlawful ibid. p. 31. § 47. 7. Whether to add more Doctrines or Articles of Faith which God hath not revealed in Nature or Scripture and to require Belief or Proâ—â—â—â—â— of Belief of the same 〈…〉 religious End seem not an Usurpation and unjust Accusation of God's Word as insufficient ibid. p. 29. § 43. 8. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Church-members either forbidding those that Christ requires us to receive or receiving such as Christ forbiddeth us to receive be not to contradict his Laws by Usurpation whether Magistrates or Pastors do it ibid. p. 30. § 45. 9. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Christ's Ministers or the nature of their Office and invent new co-ordinate Officers seemeth not Usurpation ibid. p. 31. § 48. 10. Whether to overthrow or prohibit Christ's Church-Discipline or to set up another that is not meerly subordinate to it modally to promote it seem not an Usurpation ibid. § 51. 11. Whether to forbid Religious Assemblies or alter their Ends and principal Use be not to usurp and to contradict the Laws of Christ ibid. p. 29. § 44. Q. 4. Whether Rulers ought not to prefer Christ's Interest before their own and account that their own lieth in preferring His and should not value conscionable upright Men though Dissenters in tolerable Cases and not encourage their unconscionable Enemies Way of Concord 3d part p. 26. And whether the chief Work of Rulers be not to promote the keeping of God's Laws and the everlasting Good of Men and the temporal Good in order thereunto Second Plea for Peace p. 108. col 1. § 11. And whether Rulers may command any thing which will notably do more Harm than Good or make an unnecessary thing a Means or Occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God or preaching of his Gospel Judgment of Non-conformists in second Plea c. p. 76. § 59. And whether is it more to common Good and the Interest of Honesty and Conscience that all the Persons in a Nation be imprisoned banished or killed that dare not swear say and practise all that is imposed on them than that unnecessary Impositions be altered or forborn Way of Concord 3d Part p. 111 112. Q. 5.
Saviour of the Church that came to take off heavy Burthens and intolerable Yokes will take it well to have Men come after him and as by his Authority to make his easy Yoke more strait and his light Burthen heavy and to cast or keep out thâ—se that he hath redeemed and doth receive and to deal cruelly with those that he hath so dearly bought and so tenderly loveth ibid. p. 120. § 6. When Christ says Mat. 18. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck c. Whether Bishops may curse such from Christ and excommunicate them and whether it be safe for them to do so ibid. p. 144. And seeing that spiritual Priviledges excell temporal whether it be not an aggravated Tyranny to deprive Christ's Servants of Benefits so precious and so dearly bought ibid. p. 120. § 9. Q. 40. Whether Christ be not the Institutor of the Church and hath not himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the Bond of their Unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath not he given Laws to regulate all Men's Laws that determine of needful undetermined Accidents And whether any Man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-Unity and Communion And whether the grand Schismaticks of the World are not the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing Terms and Conditions of Unity and Communion Answ. to Dr. Sill. Serm. p. 88 or 82. Q. 41. Whether it be not enough that we are united and agreed with those that differ from us in more than Circumstances and that we will hold Concord with all in Faith Love and Communion if they will admit us without our sinning upon the Terms set down by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles Acts 15. 28 And if no Men must be of the same Church or Kingdom that have any difference yea as great as can reasonably be supposed in the meer Non-conformists whether any two Men can be of the same Church or Kingdom except you will compose it of such as hold nothing unlawful and consequently nothing morally good which is no Church Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea for Peace p. 85 86. Q. 42. Whether the long and sad Experience of all the Christian Churches which have been divided by unnecessary human Impositions and the Voice of all wise Peace-makers in all times who have still called for Vnity in things necessary Liberty in things unnecessary and Charity in both do not leave those that yet will not be perswaded to these Terms as inexcusable Persons as almost any in the World worse than those Physicians that would use all those things as the only Remedies which have killed all that ever took them Second Plea for Peace p. 155. § 34. Q. 43. Whether they that confess that for the Communion of all the Churches there are no Terms like these now mentioned should be more cruel to their own at home turning them out of their Father's House for every Ceremonial Difference Whether a Pastor should not love his own Flock as well as the People of a Forreign Land Ib. p. 155 156. § 35. And whether it be not a Schismatical Opinion that tho Churches of many Kingdoms may charitably differ in Ceremonies and indifferent things yet none in the same Kingdom should be suffered so to differ Whether the Apostle Paul gave not the Pastors and People of the same Church of Rome those Precepts of forbearing and receiving Dissenters in things indifferent Way of Concord third Part p. 106. Q. 44. Whether Uniformity in Circumstantials and in External Polity be any more than a Carkass or Image of Unity without uniting Love which is its Soul Whether all Union in Evil or in unnecessary Circumstantials which is managed to the diminution of Christian Love are any more to the Church than as the Glory of adorned Cloathing or Monuments or Pictures to a Carkass Ib. p. 66. Q. 45. Whether Love and Unity which the most zealous for human Impositions cannot but commend would teach Men to tyrannize over Inferiors to contrive the treading down of others that they may rise and to keep them down to secure their own Domination to oppress the Poor Weak or Innocent to make Sâ—ares for other Mens Consciences or to lay Stumbling-blocks before them to occasion them to Sin or to drive them on to sin against Conscience and so to Hell to shew Mens Authority about things they call indifferent or in a thing of nought Way of Concord p. 36. Would not true â—ove end our greatest Differences if Men loved theâ— Neighbours without dissembling as themselves and did but as they would be done by Sâ—cond Plea for Peâ—â— p. 156. § 37. Yea if many of the Children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of Sin and Hell was the Cause whether a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case when his abating it hath no such danger lb. § â—6 Q. 46. Whether Unmerciful Pastors do not tempt the People to question whether they be sent of God Whether the People will not judg of Pastors as Solâ—mon of the true Mother of the Child that the Merciful and Loving is the true Pastor and the Hartful is the Usurper lb. p. 156 157. § 39. Q. 47. Whether they that can bear with such as understand not the Essentials of Christianity and with Drunkards Swearers Fornicators c. in their constant Congregations and Communion and yet will not bear with an honest godly Christian that differeth from their way of Worship in no greater matter than a Ceremony have not something more amiss within than a Ceremony Ib. p. 162. § 48. And whether the Souls of such as some call humorous peevish or wilful be not worth more than some of that they call their Liberty worth more than a needless Ceremony Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea p. 66. q. 5. Q. 48. Whether as every Hypocrite would be very Religious so far as he can subject the true common Religion to his own Interest and Lusts so every Enemy of Peace will not seem zealous for Peace so that his own Peace be made the Rule of the common Peace that all Men be brought to center in his Interests and take their Peace on his Terms from him Second Plea c. p. 149. Q. 49. Whether all the Arguments for Unity and Peace which are made use of against Toleration by Prelatists and all the mischiefs of division which they aggravate do not principally fall on themselves if it proves that they are the greatest causes of Division and hinderers of Church-Concord Ib. p. 180. § 88. Whether they do not condemn themselves who cry down Schism while they unavoidably cause it And whether overdoing Terms of Church-Union and Concord be not the certainest Engines of Schism Way of Concord p. 121. § 11.