Evidence of Truth and without forsaking his Old Principles to justifie the Church of England from all imputation of Heresie or Schism and the Religion thereof as it stood by Law established from the like imputation of Novelty Wherein he professes to lay open the inmost thoughts of his heart in this sad business before God and the World I might shew by particular Instances from my present Adversaries that to defend their own practices they are driven to maintain such Principles as by evident consequences from them do overthrow the Justice and Equity of the Reformation but I leave those things to be observed in their proper places Yet I do not question the Sincerity of many Mens Zeal against Popery who out of too eager a desire of upholding some particular Fancies of their own may give too great advantage to our Common Enemies Three ways Bishop Sanderson observes our Dissenting Brethren though not intentionally and purposely yet really and eventually have been the great Promoters of the Roman Interest among us 1. By putting to their helping hand to the pulling down of Episcopacy And saith he it is very well known to many what rejoycing that Vote brought to the Romish Party How even in Rome it self they Sung their Jo-â—aeans upon the Tidings thereof and said Triumphantly Now the day is ours Now is the Fatal-Blow given to the Protestant Religion in England 2 By opposing the Interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason 3 By frequent mistaking the Question but especially through the necessity of some false Principle or other which having once imbibed they think themselves bound to maintain whatever becomes of the Common Cause of our Reformation Which may at last suffer as much through some Mens folly and indiscretion who pretend to be the most Zealous Protestants as by all the Arts and Designs of our open Enemies For as the same Learned and Iudicious Bishop hath said in this case Many a Man when he thought most to make it sure hath quite marred a good business by over-doing it Thus when the Papists of late years have not been able to hinder the taking many things into consideration against their interest it hath been observed that their Instruments have been for the most violent Counsels knowing that either they would be wholly ineffectual or if they were pursued they might in the end bring more advantage than prejudice to their Cause And it is to be feared they may still hope to do their business as Divines observe the Devil doth who when he finds one extreme will not do he tries whether he can compass his end by the other And no doubt they will extremely rejoyce if they can make some Mens Fears of Popery prove at last an effectual means to bring it about As some of the Jews of old out of a rash and violent zeal for the preservation of the purity of their Religion as they pretended by opposing the Sacrifices offer'd by Strangers and denying the use of the lawful Customs of their Country brought the Roman Power upon them and so hasten'd the destruction both of their Religion and Countrey too I do not mention this as though we could take too great care by good and wholsom Laws to strengthen the Protestant Interest and by that means to keep out Popery but only to shew what mighty prejudice an indiscreet Zeal at this time may bring upon us if Men suffer themselves to be transported so far as to think that overthrowing the Constitution of this Church will be any means to secure the Protestant Religion among us For What is it which the Papists have more envied and maligned than the Church of England What is it they have more wished to see broken in pieces As the late Cardinal Barberini said in the hearing of a Gentleman who told it me He could be contented there were no Priests in England so there were no Bishops for then he supposed their Work would do it self What is it they have used more Arts and Instruments to destroy than the Constitution and Government of this Church Did not Cranmer and Ridley and Hooper and Farrar and Latimer all Bishops of this Church suffer Martyrdom by their Means Had not they the same kind of Episcopacy which is now among us and which some now are so busie in seeking to destroy by publishing one Book after another on purpose to represent it as unlawful and inconsistent with the Primitive Institution Is all this done for the honor of our Reformation Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us to fill Mens Minds with such Prejudices against the first settlement of it as to go about to make the World believe that the Church-Government then established was repugnant to the Institution of Christ and that our Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches But Whither will not Mens Indiscreet Zeal and love of their own Fancies carry them especially after 40 years prescription I do not say such Men are set on by the Jesuits but I say they do their Work as effectually in blasting the credit of the Reformation as if they were And yet after all these pains and Forty years Meditations I do not question but I shall make it appear that our present Episcopacy is agreeable to the Institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Establishment Were not the same Ceremonies then appointed the same Liturgy in Substance then used concerning which Dr. Taylor who then suffered Martyrdom publickly declared That the whole Church-Service was set forth in King Edward ' s days with great deliberation by the Advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorised by the whole Parliament and Received and Published gladly through the whole Realm which Book was never Reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was so fully perfected according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained I mean saith he of that Book Reformed Yet this is that Book whose constant use is now pleaded by some together with our Ceremonies as a ground for the necessity of Separation from our Churches Communion But if we trace the Footsteps of this Separation as far as we can we may find strong probabilities that the Jesuitical Party had a great influence on the very first beginnings of it For which we must consider that when the Church of England was restored in Queen Elizabeth's Reign there was no open Separation from the Communion of it for several years neither by Papists nor Non-conformists At last the more Zealous Party of the Foreign Priests and Jesuits finding this Compliance would in the end utterly destroy the Popish Interest in England they began to draw off the secret Papists from all Conformity with our Church which the old Queen Mary's Priests allowed them in this raised some heat among themselves
a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black These are now the Ceremonies about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church and any sober considering Man free from Passion and Prejudice would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church and is at this day about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask is Why were these few retained by our Reformers which were then distastful to some Protestants and were like to prove the occasion of future Contentions I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Retain or to Apoint these Ceremonies and then proceed 1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the Innocent Rites and Practises which were observed in the Church before And What could more harden the Papists then to see Men put no difference betwen these It is an unspeakable Advantage which those do give to the Papists who are for Reforming 1600 years backward and when they are pinch'd with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity working in the Apostles times as though every thing which they disliked were a part of it Next to the taking up Arms for Religion which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France especially among Learned and Moderate Men as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church For the time was when many Great Men there were very inclinable to a Reformation but when they saw the Reformers oppose the undoubted Practises of Antiquity equally with the Modern Corruptions they cast them off as Men guilty of an unreasonable humor of Innovation as may be seen in Thuanus and Fran. Baldwins Ecclesiastical Commentaries and his Answers to Calvin and Beza But our Reformers although 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 that were sound in Religion and therefore they retained these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church II. To manifest the Iustice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see they did not Break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were subtle and learned Men as Gardiner Heath Tonstall c. and nothing would have rejoyced them more than to have seen our Reformers boggle at such Ceremonies as these and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the People Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers scrupling the Episcopal Vestments Peter Martyr tells him plainly That such needless scrupulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation For saith he since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary if we once declare things indifferent to be unlawful they will have no patience to hear us any longer And withall hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches and those Ancient Churches which have hitherto to been in great esteem III. To shew their Consent with other Protestant Churches which did allow and practice the same or more Ceremonies as the Lutheran Churches generally did And even Calvin himself in his Epistle to Sadolet declared That he was for restoring the Face of the Antient Church and in his Book of the true way of Reformation he saith He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for Decency but those that are Symbolical Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament as indifferent Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable Since therefore so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful our first Reformers for this and the foregoing Reasons thought it fit to retain them as long as they were so few so easie both to be practised and understood Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad did not wear off at their Return home in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign For they reteined a secret dislike of many things in our Church but the Act of Vniformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoyned I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it no not by the Dissenting Brethren that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva Knox was forbidden to Preach here because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen but Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of Preferment and Imployment in the Church The Bishops at first shewed kindness to them on the account of their forward and zealous Preaching which at that time was very needful and therefore many of them were placed in London Where having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies and a desire of farther Reformation of our Liturgy but finding that they had gained ground they never ceased till by inveighing against the Livery of Antichrist as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies they had inflamed the People to that degree that Gilby himself insinuates That if they had been let alone a little longer they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church This was the first occasion of pressing Vniformity with any rigor and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others But as kindness made them presumptuous so this severity made them clamorous and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva Beza after much importunity undertook to give an Answer to them which being of great consequence to our present business I shall here give a fuller account of it We are then to understand that about this time the Dissenting Party being Exasperated by the Silencing some of their most busie Preachers began to have Separate Meetings This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London and it appears by an Examination taken before him 20th of Iune 1567. of certain persons who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches but for gathering together and making Assemblies using Prayers and Preachings and Ministring Sacraments among themselves and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding for that Purpose The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences and then told them That in this Severing
but at last the way of Separation prevailed as the more pure and perfect way But this was not thought sufficient by these busie Factors for the Church of Rome unless they could under the same pretence of purity and perfection draw off Protestants from the Communion of this Church too To this purpose Persons were imployed under the disguise of more Zealous Protestants to set up the way of more Spiritual Prayer and greater Purity of Worship than was observed in the Church of England that so the People under these Pretences might be drawn into Separate Meetings Of this we have a Considerable Evidence lately offer'd to the World in the Examination of a Priest so imploy'd at the Council-Table A. D. 1567. being the 9th of Q. Elizabeth which is published from the Lord Burleighs Papers which were in the hands of Arch-Bishop Usher and from him came to Sir James Ware whose Son brought them into England and lately caused them to be Printed Two years after one Heath a Jesuit was Summon'd before the Bishop of Rochester on a like account for disparaging the Prayers of the Church and setting up Spiritual Prayers above them and he declared to the Bishop That he had been six years in England and that he had laboured to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer When he was seized on a Letter was found about him from a Jesuit in Spain wherein he takes notice how he was admired by his Flock and tells him they looked on this way of dividing Protestants as the most effectual to bring them all back to the Church of Rome and in his Chamber they found a Bull from Pius V. to follow the Instructions of the Society for dividing the Protestants in England and the License from his Fraternity There is one thing in the Jesuits Letter deserves our farther consideration which the Publisher of it did not understand which is that Hallingham Coleman and Benson are there mentioned as Persons imploy'd to sow a Faction among the German Hereticks which he takes to be spoken of the Sects in Germany but by the German Hereticks the English Protestants are meant i.e. Lutherans and these very Men are mentioned by our Historians without knowing of this Letter as the most active and busie in the beginning of the Separation Of these saith Fuller Coleman Button Hallingham and Benson were the chief At which time saith Heylin Benson Button Hallingham and Coleman and others taking upon them to be of more ardent Zeal than others c. That time is 1568 which agrees exactly with the Date of that Letter at Madrid October 26. 1568. And both these had it from a much better Author than either of them Camden I mean who saith That while Harding Sanders and others attacked our Church on one side Coleman Button Hallingham Benson and others were as busie on the other who under pretence of a purer Reformation opposed the Discipline Liturgy and Calling of our Bishops as approaching too near to the Church of Rome And he makes these the Beginners of those Quarrels which afterwards brake out with great violence Now that there is no improbability in the thing will appear by the suitableness of these Pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practices of the Jesuits For they are professed despisers of the Cathedral Service and are excused from their attendance on it by the Constitutions of their Order and are as great admirers of Spiritual Prayer and an Enthusiastick way of Preaching as appears by the History of the first Institution of their Order by Orlandinus and Maffeius They who are acquainted with their Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer will find that which is admired and set up here as so much above Set-Forms to be one of the lowest of three sorts among them That Gift of Prayer which Men have but requires the Exercise of their own Gifts to stir it up they call Oratio acquisita acquired Prayer although they say the Principle of it is infused The Second is by a special immediate influence of the Holy Ghost upon the Mind with the concurrence of infused habits The Third is far above either of these which they call the Prayer of Contemplation and is never given by way of habit to any but lies in immediate and unexpressible unions All these I â—ould easily shew to be the Doctrine received and magnified in the Roman Church especially by those who pretend to greater Purity and Spirituality than others But this is sufficient to my purpose to prove that there is no improbability that they should be the first setters up of this way in England And it is observable that it was never known here or in any other Reformed Church before this time and therefore the beginning of it is unjustly father'd by some on T. C. But by whomsoever it was begun it met with such great success in the zeal and warmth of devotion which appeared in it that no Charm hath been more effectual to draw injudicious People into a contempt of our Liturgy and admiring the Way of Separation When by such Arts the People were possessed with an Opinion of a more pure and Spiritual Way of Worship than was used in our Church they were easily drawn into the admiration of those who found fault with the Liturgy and Ceremonies that were used among us and so the Divisions wonderfully increased in a very short time And the Papists could not but please themselves to see that other Men did their VVork so effectually for them For the Authors of the Admonition 14 Elizab. declared They would have neither Papists nor others constrained to Communicate which although as Arch-Bishop Whitgift saith they intended as a Plea for their own Separation from the Church yet saith he the Papists could not have met with better Proctors And elsewhere he tells them That they did the Pope very good service and that he would not miss them for any thing For what is his desire but to have this Church of England which he hath Accused utterly defaced and discredited to have it by any means overthrown if not by Forrein Enemies yet by Domestical Dissention And What fitter and apter Instruments could he have had for that purpose than you who under pretence of zeal overthrow that which other Men have builded under color of Purity seek to bring in Deformity and under the Cloke of Equality and Humility would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over your Parishes as ever the Pope did over the whole Church And in another place he saith They were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave whereby they intend to overthrow this Church by our own Folly which they cannot compass by all their Policy Arch-Bishop Grindal as I find a Letter of his expressed his great fear of two things Atheism and Popery and both arising out of our needless Divisions and Differences fomented he doubts not by
are built Sect. 19. The advantages of National Churches above Independent Congregations Sect. 20. Mr. B's Quaeries about National Churches answered The Notion of the Church of England explained Sect. 21. What necessity of one Constitutive Regent part of a National Church Sect. 22. What Consent is necessary to the Union of a National Church Sect. 23. Other Objections answered Sect. 24. Of the Peoples power of choosing their own Pastors Not founded in Scripture Sect. 25. The testimony of Antiquity concerning it fully inquired into The great disturbances of popular Elections the Ganons against them The Christian Princes interposing The ancient Rights of Nomination and Presentation The practice of foreign Protestant Churches No reason to take away the Rights of Patronage to put the choice into the peoples hands Objections answered Sect. 26. No unlawfulness in the Terms of our Communion Of substantial parts of Worship The things agreed on both sides Sect. 27. The way of finding the difference between their Ceremonies and parts of Divine Worship cleared Sect. 28. The difference of the Popish Doctrine from ours as to Ceremonies Sect. 29. The Sign of the Cross a Rule of Admission into our Church and no part of Divine Worship Sect. 30 No new Sacrament Mr. B's Objections answered Sect. 31. His great mistakes about the Papist's Doctrine concerning the Moral Casuality of Sacraments Sect. 32. Of the Customs observed in our Church though not strictly required Sect. 33. Of the Censures of the Church against Opposers of Ceremonies and the force of Excommunication ipso facto Sect. 34. Of the Plea of an erroneous Conscience in the case of Separation Sect. 35. Of scruples of Conscience still remaining Sect. 36. Of the use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism Sect. 37. No ground of Separation because more Ceremonies may be introduced Sect. 38. No Parity of Reason as to the Dissenters Pleas for separating from our Church and our Separation from the Church of Rome An Appendix containing several Letters of Eminent Protestant Divines abroad shewing the unreasonableness of the present Separation from the Church of England Letter of Monsieur le Moyn p. 395 Of Monsieur le Angle p. 412 Of Monsieur Claude p. 427 Errata in the Preface Page 14. marg r. Church History l. 9 p. 81. p. 17. l. 24. after find insert in p. 34. l. 18. for S. Paul r. the Apostle p. 36. l. 5. r. follows p. 53. l. 21. for our r. one In the Book p. 59. l. 5. for 1 r. 3 p. 71. l. 27. r. secession p. 72. l 8. r. as will l. 28. r. for which l. ult r. Cameron p. 101 l 12. dele for before say they p. 102. l. 11. r. their teachers p. 378. l. 2. dele whether AN Historical Account OF THE RISE and PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Separation PART I. Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controversie it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things 1. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation 2. That when Separation began it was most vehemently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked many things in our Church and wished for a farther Reformation And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then it will appear that the Principles owned by them do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us In the making out of these I shall give a full account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie about Separation from the Communion of our Church I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation By Separation we mean nothing else but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on by those who pretend to justifie these Practises and those are such as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful And not one of all those which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation For our Church stands on the same Grounds useth the same Ceremonies only fewer prescribes the same Liturgy only more corrected hath the same constitution and frame of Government the same defect of Discipline the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers and at least as effectual means of Edification as there were when the Reformation was first established And what advantage there is in our present circumstances as to the Number Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies and the Explication of the meaning of others as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation do all make it much more unreasonable now than it had been then Sect. II. It cannot be denied that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Reformation but they were such things as are the least scrupled now Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap and Tippet c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits but he submitted afterwards to the use of them Bucer and some others disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth which were Corrected in the Second So that upon the Review of the Liturgy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church at least as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separation For we read of none who refused the constant use of the Liturgy or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained as the Cross in Baptism and Kneeling at the Communion which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such a dreadful manner of the Mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insupportable Ceremonies Now we are told That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion By Whom At what Time In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion or alter'd the Old Ones No the same Author saith It is perpetuating the old Conditions and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom wherein it must certainly miscâ—rry Not to insist on his way of Expression in calling the Reformation An Old Worm-eaten Bottom which ill beâ—omes them that would now be held the most
find cause or at lest think they have found cause just enough to separate one from another I never heard saith he of any instance to the contrary either in England or Holland The substance of this I had objected before in the Preface to my Sermon To which Mr. A. Replies after this manner That though some petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies some little trouble may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds yet this is no Reason why they should enslave their Iudgments or Consciences to others And Is this all the Antidote against the Mischief of Separation Is it a Sin to break the Churches Communion or Is it not If it be a Sin in some cases but not in others Why do you not shew us what those cases are and that it is a sinful Separation in other cases but not in them But to talk of small inconveniencies by the levity of Peoples minds is Childish trifling and not Answering Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty inconvenience Is this an Answer becoming a Christian To swell every small imposition into a huge insupportable Mountain and to make themselves lie groaning under the weight of a Ceremony or two as though their very heart-strings were cracking and as if Nero had begun a fresh Persecution and at the same time to lessen the guilt of Division and Separation as though it were nothing but a little wantonness in the Lambs of their Flocks frisking up and down from one Pasture to another some small and inconsiderable inconveniencies may happen by it but not worth speaking of and it is pity they should be deprived of their pleasure for it What a rare Advocate had this Man been for the Novatians Donatiâ—ts Luciferians or what Schismaticks soever rent the Church in pieces in former times And supposing St. Cyprian and St. Augustine and other great opposers of the antient Schisms to be met together we may gather from these words and the Principles of Separation which he lays down after what manner he would accost them Alass saith he What do you mean Cyprian and Austin and other Reverend Fathers to talk with so much severity and sharpness against separation from the communion of the Church as though it were such a damnable sin such a sacrilegious impiety such a horrid wickedness Will you make no allowance to the levity and volubility of Mens Minds What! you would have Men enslave their Iudgments and consciences to others would you you would have us be meer Brutes to be managed by your Bit and Bridle If the Novatians do think your Discipline too loose Why should not they joyn together for stricter If Felicissimus and his Brethren dislike some things in the Church of Carthage Why may not they go to the Mountains for separate Meetings If the good People were imposed upon against their Wills in the choice of Cornelius Why may not they choose Novatian for their Pastor What a stir do you Cyprian make in your Epistles about keeping the Peace of the Church and submitting to your Rules of Discipline As though there were not more mischief in your imposing than in the Peoples separating And as for you Augustin Who can with patience read your long and fierce Declamations against the sober Donatists For there were mad hare-brained Fanaticks called Circumcellians who were troubled with more than ordinary levity and volubility running from place to place and taking away other Mens lives and their own too out of pure zeal These I grant have an extraordinary Worm which ought to be picked out in time but for the rest of the Brethren that only separate on the account of impurity which they apprehend in your Church Why should you be so severe against them Why do you so often cry out of the sacrilegiousness of this Schism we know no other sacriledge but the sacrilegious desertion of our Ministery in obedience to the Laws this is a Sacriledge we often talk of and tell the People it is far worse than robbing Church-Plate considering what precious Gifts we have But for the Sacriledge of Schism that we can never understand although I perceive you have it over and over besides many other hard words wherein you would seem to make it the greatest of all Wickedness and you say That God punished it more severely than Idolatry since those who were guilty of the latter were to be destroyed by the Sword but Schismaticks were swallowed up of the Earth as Corah and his Company Whereas we that have greater light look upon Separation but as an effect of the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and though some little trouble may come to the Church by it yet it is far better than submission to others impositions And is not this an intolerable imposition for you to force these honest Donatists to Communicate in a corrupt and impure Church as they do believe yours to be When the Cause was strictly examined at Carthage What was it their Party pleaded for but Purity of Discipline and that the Church was defiled for want of it and therefore they were forced to Separate for greater Purity of Ordinances And Is this the Damnable Devillish Sacrilegious Schism you talk of Methinks you should consider better the Mischief of your Impositions when you require Communion so strictly with you or else they must presently be Separatists and Schismaticks I pray Sirs have a little patience with me if I do not fetch off my good friends the Donatists in this matter we will all be content to be called Schismaticks as well as they For if our Principles do clear our selves I am sure they will do as good a turn for them Now the main Principles of our present Separation are these 1 That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to choose its own Pastor and every particular Christian the same Power to choose his own Church I say not to mischoose do you mark me but a power to choose not to choose any but one that may best advance their own Edification at lest that no Pastor be forced upon a Church no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent Now I pray consider Why might not Lucilla and Donatus and Botrus and Celeustus with their Party among the People at Carthage choose Majorinus for their Pastor although the rest had chosen Caecilian For they were not well satisfied with Mensurius his Predecessor whom they suspected for a Traditor but when they had their liberty to choose Why should they be debarred of their inherent right of choosing their own Pastor Why should Caecilian be obtruded upon them Why should not they choose one who would best advance their Edification For Caecilian was at lest under suspicion of compliance in time of Persecution and therefore for my part upon our Principles I think the Donatists very free from the charge of Schism 2. That it is
the party of the Church of Rome I judged quite otherwise of them they have particular Maxims and act by other interests But for those that have no tye to Rome it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extream as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith which all the Protestant World has so highly approved and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford and the great Iewell deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England And if it had not been as it were his work he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner The success that it has had ought to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate and it 's having triumphed over so many obstacles should make all the World acknowledge that God has declared himself in favour of it and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word to which in effect it owes its birth and original It is the same at present as it was when it was made and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time And how then can it be imagined that it has changed its use And can there be any thing more unjust than to say that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people for the consolation of so many good men for the salvation of so many believers is now become a destructive and pernicious thing If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent your Divine Service is so too for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry You adore nothing but God alone in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature And if there be some Ceremonies there which one shall not meet with in some other places this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity to put off all Charity not to know much what souls are worth not to understand the nature of things indifferent to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally that are willing to submit themselves unto them It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any For where has it been ever seen that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline and things that regard but the out-side and order of the Church and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth Can these things cause death and distill poyson into a soul Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths and as there is nothing but these that can save so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation For the Episcopal Government what is there in it that is dangerous and may reasonably alarm mens consciences And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory and shutting the Gates of Heaven who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government If it were contrary to the truth and the attainment of eternal happiness is it credible that God had so highly approved it and permitted his Church to be tyrannized over by it for so many Ages For who was it that did govern it Who was it that did make up its Councils as well General as particular Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted Was it not the Bishops And is it not to their wise conduct to which next under God his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was inveloped Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe In truth I think they might make the same use of this as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place but then his courage his zeal his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Hereticks that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it he would have to bear the name of Anastasia because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth and cleared it from the error that lay upon it and by his continual cares had caused it as it were to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection It is this too that the Bishops of England have done they saw not only one truth but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them than it was any where else The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design the enemies without and those within as terrible as they seem do not fright them they undertake this great work and do not leave it till they had brought it about and raised up the truth and placed it again upon the Throne in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection But if their Churches have not that title the thing it self belongs unto them and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these but lectures and praises of the pure truth Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it but to look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church Thus all the Protestants of France do those of Geneva those of Switzerland and German and those of Holland too for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort and shewed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England And from whence does it then come that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present and
The Vnreasonableness of Separation OR An Impartial Account OF THE History Nature and Pleas OF THE Present Separation FROM THE Communion of the Church of ENGLAND To which Several late LETTERS are Annexed of Eminent Protestant Divines Abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the Way to Compose Them By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to HIS MAJESTY LONDON Printed by T. N. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul ' s Church-yard MDCLXXXI THE PREFACE IT is reported by Persons of unquestionable credit that after all the Service B. Jewel had done against the Papists upon his Preaching a Sermon at St. Paul's Cross in Defence of the Orders of this Church and of Obedience to them he was so Ungratefully and Spitefully used by the Dissenters of that Time that for his own Vindication he made a Solemn Protestation on his Death-bed That what he then said was neither to please some nor to displease others but to Promote Peace and Unity among Brethren I am far from the vanity of thinking any thing I have been able to do in the same Cause fit to be compared with the Excellent Labors of that Great Light and Ornament of this Church whose Memory is preserved to this day with due Veneration in all the Protestant Churches but the hard Usage I have met with upon the like occasion hath made such an Example more observable to me especially when I can make the same Protestation with the same sincerity as he did For however it hath been Maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that I was put upon that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise a fresh persecution against Dissenting Protestants I was so far from any thought tending that way that the only Motive I had to undertake it was my just Apprehension that the Destruction of the Church of England under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the most likely ways to bring it in And I have hitherto seen no cause and I believe I shall not to alter my opinion in this matter which was not rashly taken up but formed in my Mind from many years Observation of the Proceedings of that Restless Party I mean the Papists among us which hath always Aimed at the Ruine of this Church as one of the Most Probable Means if others failed to compass their Ends. As to their Secret and more Compendious ways of doing Mischief they lie too far out of our View till the Providence of God at the same time discovers and disappoints them but this was more open and visible and although it seemed the farther way about yet they promised themselves no small success by it Many Instruments and Engines they made use of in this design many ways and times they set about it and although they met with several disappointments yet they never gave it over but Would it not be very strange that when they can appear no longer in it others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry on the Work for them This seems to be a great Paradox to unthinking People who are carried away with meer Noise and Pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most Passion and with least Understanding against it whereas no persons do really give them greater advantages than these do For where they meet only with intemperate Railings and gross Misunderstandings of the State of the Controversies between them and us which commonly go together the more subtle Priests let such alone to spend their Rage and Fury and when the heat is over they will calmly endevour to let them see how grosly they have been deceived in some things and so will more easily make them believe they are as much deceived in all the rest And thus the East and West may meet at last and the most furious Antagonists may become some of the easiest Converts This I do really fear will be the case of many Thousands among us who now pass for most zealous Protestants if ever which God forbid that Religion should come to be Vppermost in England It is therefore of mighty consequence for preventing the Return of Popery that Men rightly understand what it is For when they are as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony as of real Idolatry and think they can Worship Images and Adore the Host on the same grounds that they may use the Sign of the Cross or Kneel at the Communion when they are brought to see their mistake in one case they will suspect themselves deceived in the other also For they who took that to be Popery which is not will be apt to think Popery it self not so bad as it was represented and so from want of right understanding the Differences between us may be easily carried from one Extreme to the other For when they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can Trace it so very near the Apostles times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves For it will be very hard to perswade any considering Men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally as it must do if Episcopal Government and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostacy Will it not seem strange to them that when some Human Polities have preserved their First Constitution so long without any considerable Alteration that the Government instituted by Christ and setled by his Apostles should so soon after be changed into another kind and that so easily so insensibly that all the Christian Churches believed they had still the very same Government which the Apostles left them Which is a matter so incredible that those who can believe such a part of Popery could prevail so soon in the Christian Church may be brought upon the like grounds to believe that many others did So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Churches Enemies bring upon the Cause of the Reformation And those who foregoe the Testimony of Antiquity as all the Opposers of the Church of England must do must unavoidably run into insuperable difficulties in dealing with the Papists which the Principles of our Church do lead us through For we can justly charge Popery as an unreasonable Innovation when we allow the undoubted Practices and Government of the Ancient Church for many Ages after Christ. But it is observed by Bishop Sanderson That those who reject the Usages of our Church as Popish and Antichristian when Assaulted by Papists will be apt to conclude Popery to be the old Religion which in the purest and Primitive Times was Professed in all Christian Churches throughout the World Whereas the sober English Protestant is able by the Grace of God with much
Satan the Enemy of Mankind and the Pope the Enemy of Christendom By these differences the Enemies of our Religion gain this That nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion whose every part is opposed by one or other of her own Professors so that things continuing loose and confused the Papists have their opportunity to urge their way which is attended with Order and Government and our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided some vile wretches lay hold of the Arguments on one side to confute the other and so hope at last to destroy all Dr. Sutcliffe said long ago That Wise Men apprehended these unhappy Questions about Indifferent things to be managed by the subtle Jesuits thereby to disturb the Peace and Settlement of our Church until at last they enjoy their long expected opportunity to set up themselves and restore the exploded Tyranny and Idolatry of the Church of Rome Among Mr. Selden's MSS. there is mentionâ—d an odd Prophecy That Popery should decay about 1500 and be restored about 1700 which is there said to be most likely by means of our Divisions which threaten the Reformation upon the Interest of Religion and open advantages to the Enemies of it and nothing is there said to be so likely to prevent it as a firm establishment of sound Doctrine Discipline and Worship in this Church Among the Iesuit Contzens directions for reducing Popery into a Country the most considerable are 1. That it be done under a pretence of ease to tender Consciences which will gain a reputation to the Prince and not seem to be done from his own Inclination but out of kindness to his People 2. That when Liberty is granted then the Parties be forbid to contend with each other for that will make way the more easily for one side to prevail and the Prince will be commended for his love of Peace 3 That those who suspect the Design and Preach against it be traduced as Men that Preaâ—h very unseasonable Doctrine that theâ—â— are Proud Self-opiniators and Enemies to Peace and Union But the special Advice he gives to a Catholick Prince is 4. To make as much use of the Divisions of his Enemies as of the Agreement of his Friends How much the Popish Party here hath followed these Counsels will easily appear by reflection upon their behaviour these last Twenty years But that which more particularly reaches to our own case is the Letter of Advice given to F. Young by Seignior Ballarini concerning the best way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon His Majesties Restauration wherein are several very remarkable things This Letter was found in F. Young's Study after his death and was translated out of Italian and printed in the Collection before mention'd The First Advice is To make the Obstruction of Settlement their great design especially upon the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom whereunto if things should fall they would be more firm than ever 2. The next thing is To remove the jealousies raised by Prin Baxter c. of their design upon the late Factions and to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops 3. To make it appear under-hand how near the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of the Church of England comes to us at how little distance their Common-Prayer is from our Mass and that the wisest and ablest Men of that way are so moderate that they would willingly come over to us or at least meet us half way hereby the more stayed Men will become more odious and others will run out of all Religion for fear of Popery 4. Let there be an Indulgence promoted by the Factious and seconded by you 5. That the Trade and Treasure of the Nation may be engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties 6. That the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England be Aspersed as either Worldly and Careless on the one hand or so Factious on the other that it were well they were removed These are some of those excellent Advices then given and how well they have been followed we all know For according to this Counsel when they could not hinder the Settlement then The great thing they aimed at for many years was the breaking in pieces the Constitution of this Church by a General Toleration This Coleman owned at his Trial and after Sentence Declared That possibly he might be of an Opinion that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted The Author of the Two Conferences between L'Chese and the Four Jesuits owns the Declaration of Indulgence 1671 2 to be of the Papists procuring but he saith the Presbyterians presently suspected the Kindness and like wise Men closed with the Conformists and refused the Bait however specious it seemed when they saw the Hook that lay under it It was so far from this that when one of the furious Dissenters suspected the kindness and made Queries upon the Declaration wherein he represented it as a Stratagem to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government one of the more moderate Party among them Wrote a Publick Vindication of their accepting the Licences wherein he declared to the World in their Name That they were not concerned what the Secret Design might be so long as the thing was good And why saith he do you insinuate Jealousies Have not we Publick and the Papists only Private Allowance In fine we are thankful for the Honor put upon us to be Publick in our Meetings Was this the Suspicion they had of the Kindness and their Wisdom in joyning with the Conformists If such bold and notorious Vntruths are published now when every one that can remember but 8 years backward can disprove them What account may we expect will be given to Posterity of the Passages of these Times if others do not take care to set them right And I am so far from believing that they then closed with the Conformists that I date the Presbyterian Separation chiefly from that time For Did not they take out Indulgences Build Meeting Places and keep up Separate Congregations ever since And did not those who before seem'd most inclinable to hold Communion with our Churches then undertake in Print to defend the lawfulness of these Separate Meetings upon such Principles as will justifie any Separation Vpon this many of those who frequented our Churches before withdrew themselves and since they have formed and continued Separate Bodies and upon the death of one Minister have chosen another in his room And What is a Formal Separation if this be not Then the Ejected Ministers resorted to Cities and Corporations not to supply the necessities of those who wanted them but to gather Churches among them For a very credible Person informs us That in the City he lived in where there were not above 30 or 40 that ordinarily refused the Publick and met Privately before the Indulgence there were Ten Non-conformist Ministers that
up to a persecution of them There had been some color for this if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon and never intend to read it and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it They resolved to condemn it and therefore would see nothing that might have alter'd their Sentence It is enough it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters Noâ—e are so incapable of Conviction as those who presently determine what a thing must be without considering what it is Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before great Generals Which is just as reasonable as to suppose that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon it self for their own satisfaction But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present It seems they soon heard enough of it by the Noise and Clamor they made about it Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists for us to quarrel among our selves Would to God this advantage had never been given them And Woe be to them by whom these offences come And what must we do Must we stand still with open Arms and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us Must we suffer our selves to be run down with a Popular fury raised by Reviling Books and Pamphlets and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication lest the Papists should overhear us Which is as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny for fear the Enemy should take notice and make some advantage of it But which will be the greater advantage to him to see it spread and increase or care taken in time to suppress it If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active and busie than formerly if they had not both by publick Writings and secret Insinuations gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church and the Members of it so disingenuously as they have done there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon But when those things were notorious to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then or now to defend it is in effect to tell us they may say and do what they will against us at all seasons but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable Which under favor seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side for it is like setting us in the Pillory for them to throw dirt at us without allowing us any means to defend our Selves But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it But Wherein doth it lie Not in raking into old Sores or looking back to the proceedings of former times Not in exposing the particular faults of some Men and laying them to the charge of the whole Party Not in sharp and provoking reflections on Mens Persons All these I purposely and with care declined My design being not to exasperate any but to perswade and argue them into a better disposition to Union by laying open the common danger we are in and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists by another that indeed I do not bespeak for them Gibbets Whipping-posts and Dungeons nor directly any thing grievous to their flesh but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them in respect of their Everlasting State God forbid that I should Iudge any one among them as to their present sincerity or final condition to their own Master they must stand or fall but my business was to consider the nature and tendency of their Actions My Iudgment being that a causless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it and herein having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern Would they have had me represented that as no sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it or Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessen'd their sense of it No I had seen too much of this already and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men otherwise scrupulous and conscientious that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin as if there neither were nor could be any such thing unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation Which is so mean so jejune so narrow a Notion of Schism so much short of that Care of the Churches Peace which Châ—ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfy'd with it unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings And that I confess is a shrew'd temptation But so far as I can judge as far as the Obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism â—each and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace which is as far as is possible and as much as lies in us Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it is directly the Sin of Schism or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church And this is not to be determined by Mens fancies and present apprehensions which they call the Dictates of Conscience but upon plain and evident grounds manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion than joyn in the practice of such things We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome than they have against ours and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them if we had no better grounds to proceed upon than they
this tast let the Reader Iudge what Ingenuity I am to expect from this Man The Last who appeared against my Sermon is called the Author of the Christian Temper I was glad to find an Adversary pretending to that having found so little of it in the Answers of Mr. B. and Mr. A. His business is To commit the Rector of Sutton with the Dean of St. Paul's which was enough to make the Common People imagine this was some busie Justice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian Temper which the Author pretends to For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with in a Book written twenty years since with great tenderness towards the Dissenters before the Law 's were Establish'd As though as Mr Cotton once answered in a like case there were no weighty Argument to be found but what might be gather'd from the weakness or unwariness of my Expressions And Have you not very well requited the Author of that Book for the tenderness and pitty he had for you and the concernment he then expressed to have brought you iâ— upon easier terms than were since required And Hath he now deserved this at your hands to have them all thrown in his face and to be thus upbraided with his former kindness Is this your Ingenuity your Gratitude your Christian Temper Are you afraid of having too many Friends that you thus use those whom you once took to be such Methinks herein you appear very Self-denying but I cannot take you to be any of the Wisest Men upon Earth When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and farther consideration those Divines of the Assembly who then opposed Separation should change their Opinions Will you not allow one single Person who happen'd to Write about these matters when he was very young in twenty years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his life to see reason to alter his Iudgment But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the Point of Separation which is the present business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon Which will appear by these particulars in it 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such practises which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are New Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from that form they separate from 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undeterâ—in'd by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governors of the Church Allow but these Three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Why then do you make such a stir about other passages in that Book and take so little notice of these which are most pertinent and material Was it not possible for you to espy them when you ransacked every Corner of that Book to find out some thing which might seem to make to your purpose And yet the very first passage you quote is within two Leaves of these and Two passages more you soon after quote are within a Page of them and another in the very same Page and so many up and down so very near them that it is impossible you should not see and consider them Yes he hath at last found something very near them for he quotes the very Pages where they are And he saith he will do me no wrong for I do distinguish he confesses between Non-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practises in a Church and entering into distinct Societies for Worship This is doing me some right however although he doth not fully set down my meaning But he urges another passage in the same place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But Will not this equally hold against our Church if it Excommunicates those who cannot conform I Answer 1. Our Church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites For it allows them to Communicate in other parts of Worship as appeared by all the Non-conformists of former times who constantly joyned in Prayers and other Acts of Worship although they scrupled some particular Ceremonies 2. The case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others Separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of this Church For that is all which can be inferred from the Canons For in the former case it is not a lesser Excommunication denounced as it is only in our case against Publick and scandalous Offenders which is no more than is allowed in all Churches and is generally supposed to lay no obligation till it be duly executed though it be latae sententiae ipso facto but in the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema so as to pronounce us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to and continue in their Communion and this was it which that Author meant by being wholly cast out of Communion i. e. with the greatest and highest Church Censure 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Although therefore he might allow a scrupulous forbearance of some Acts of Communion as to some suspected Rites yet upon the Principles there asserted he could never allow Mens proceedings to a Positive Separation from the Communion of our Church And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Pauls But if any thing in the following Treatise be found different from the sense of that Book I do intreat them to allow me that which I heartily wish to them viz. that in Twenty years time we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts as to see reason to change our opinion of some things and I wish I had not Cause to add of some Persons too There is one thing more which this Author
as to the Sign of the Cross as it is used in our Church notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament and I know not what but of this at large in the following Treatise 2 I see no ground for the Peoples separation from other Acts of Communion on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act as the Cross in Baptism is not and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper as is in the Rubrick after the Communion 3 Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a freedom in joyning in full Communion with us which may be done either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross or if that may give offence to others by confining the use of it to the publick administration of Baptism or by leaving it indifferent as the Parents desire it As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper since some Posture is necessary and many devout People scruple any other and the Primitive Church did in antient times receive it in the Posture of Adoration there is no Reason to take this away even in Parochial Churches provided that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it with the least offence to others and rather standing than sitting because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other And as to Cathedral Churches there is no necessity of alteration But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism viz. the Use of God-fathers and God-mothers excluding the Parents Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples either by permitting the Parents to joyn with the Sponsors or by the Parents publickly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism or which seems most agreeable to Reason that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part representing the Child and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors These things being allowed I see no obstruction remaining as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us in all Acts of Divine Worship and Christian Communion as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful 2. But because there are many of those who are become zealous Protestants and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine although they cannot joyn with us in Worship because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies and the right constitution of our Churches their case deserves some consideration whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us To their Case I answer First That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us and in the end Popery as I have shewed already and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration Secondly If any present Favours be granted to such in consideration of our circumstances and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists for a general Toleration for if ever the Papists obtain it it must be under their Name if I say such favour be thought fit to be shewed them it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches by their declaring that our Churches are no true Churches that our Manner of Worship is unlawful and that our Church-Government is Antichristian and that on these accounts they separate from us and worship God by themselves But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted I humbly offer these things to consideration 1. That none be permitted to enjoy the priviledge of it who do not declare that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations 2. That all who enjoy it besides taking the Test against Popery do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith because the pretence of this Liberty is joyning with us in Points of Faith and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them 3. That all such as enjoy it must declare the particular Congregations they are of and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose that so this may be no pretence for idle loose and profane persons never going to any Church at all 4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties if they use any bitter or reproachful words either in Sermons or Writings against the established Constitution of our Churches because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences and the using this liberty will discover it is not Conscience but a turbulent factions humour which makes them separate from our Communion 5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches lest meer covetousness tempt Men to run among them and no persons so indulged be capable of any publick Office It not being reasonable that such should be trusted with Government who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful 6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which ought to be duly collected for the Vse of the Poor and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it 7. That the Bishops as Visitors appointed by Law have an exact Account given to them of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations with their Qualities and Places of Abode and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion by giving satisfaction to their scruples This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law 8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they
Zealous Protestants 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 do as this Author saith Create a Necessity of Separation how then it came to pass that in all King Edward's dayes there was no such thing as Division in our Church about them And even Dr. Ames who searched as carefully as any into this matter can bring no other Instances of any differences then but those of Rogers and Hooper he adds indeed That Ridley and others agreed with Hooper Wherein What in opposing our Ceremonies when Hooper himself yielded in that which he at first scrupled No but there was a perfect reconciliation between them before they suffered And what then Is there any the least colour of Evidence that before that Reconciliation either Hooper or Rogers held Separate Assemblies from the Conformists or that Ridley ever receded from his stedfast adhering to the Orders of this Church This is then a very mean Artifice and disingenuous Insinuation For although Ridley in his Letter to Hooper out of his great Modesty and Humility seems to take the blame upon himself by attributing the greater Wisdom to Hooper in that difference yet he doth not Retract his Opinion but only declares the hearty love that he bore to him for his constancy in the Truth Neither do we find that ever Hooper repented of his Submâ—ssion to which he was so earnestly perswaded both by Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr in his Letter to Bucer condemns his frowardness and saith That his cause was by no means approved by the Wiser and Better sort of Men. But Ames saith Mr. Bradford might have been added who calleth Forked Caps and Tippets Antichristian Pelf and Baggage Suppose this were true it proves no more than that a good man had an unreasonable Scruple and such as is thought so by our Brethren themselves at this day But did he ever divide the Church on such an account as this Did he set up separate Congregations because a square Cap and a Tippet would not go down with him No he was a far better man than to do so But if the whole words had been set down the seeming force of these words had been taken away for they are these The cognizaâ—ce of the Lord standeth not in forked Caps Tippets shaven Crowns or such other Baggage and Artichristian pelf but in suffering for the Lords sake i.e. it is more a Mark of Gods Service to suffer Martyrdom as a Protestant than to be at ease as a Romish Priest for he puts them altogether Caps Tippets and shaven Crowns And what is this to the Impositions of our Church or Separation on the account of them Dr. Ames knew too much to pretend to any thing like that in those times For there was no such thing as Separation from our Church then heard of on the account of these dividing Impositions Some furious Anabaptists it may be or Secret Papists then had separate Meetings of which Ridley bids Enquiry to be made in his Articles of Visitation but no Protestants none that joyned in the Articles of our Faitâ— and Substantials of Religion with our Church as Dr. O. speaks did then apâ—â—ehend any 〈◊〉 of Separation from it not for 〈◊〉 of the Aâ—â—â— Sign of the Cross nor Kneeling at the Communion nor the Religious Observation of Holy-days nor the constant use of the Liturgy nor any one of all the particulars mentioned by Dr. O. which he saith makes our Communion unlawful and separation from it to be necessary How come these Terms of Communion to be so unlawful now which were then approved by such holy learned and excellent men as our first Reformers Were they not arrived to that measure of attainments or comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel that men in our Age are come to Is it credible that men of so great integrity such indefatigable industry such profound judgment as Cranmer and Ridley who were the Heads of the Reformation should discern no such sinfulness in these things which now every dissenting Artificer can cry out upon as unlawful Is it possible that men that sifted every thing with so much care themselves and made use of the best help from others and beggâ—d the Divine Assistance should so fatally miscarry in a matter of such might importance to the Souls of Men Could not Latimer or Bradford or such holy and mortified men as they discern so much as a Mote of unlawfulness in those times which others espy such Beams in now What makes this wonderful difference of eye-sight Were they under a cloudy and dark and Iewish Dispensation and all the clear Gospel Light of Division and Separation reserved for our times Did they want warmth and zeal for Religion who burnt at the Stake for it Doth God reveal his Will to the meek the humble the inquisitive the resolute Minds And would he conceal such weighty things from those who were so desirous to find the Truth and so resolved to adhere to it If Diocesan Episcopacy and the Constitution of our Church were such an unlawful thing as some now make it it is strange such men should have no suspition of it no not when they went to suffer For as H. Iacob the old Nonconformist saith in answer to Iohnson the Separatist Did not M. Cranmer hold himself for Arch-Bishop still and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it Did he ever repent of holding that Office to his death Also did not Ridley stand upon his Right to the Bishoprick of London though ready to die Latimer though he renounced his Bishoprick yet he kept his Ministery and never repented him of it Philpoâ— never disliked his Archdeaconry yea when he refused bloody Bonner yet he appealed to his Ordinary the Bishop of Winchester The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar And generally whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelats Ordination they never renounced it though they died Martyrs Johnson indeed quotes some passages of Bradford Hooper and Bale against the Hierarchy But he notoriously misapplies the words of Bradford which are The time was when the Pope was out of England but not all Popery which he would have understood of the times of Reformation under Edward VI. whereas he speaks them expresly of King Henry's days And it is not credible Hooper should think the Hierarchy unlawful who as it is generally believed had the Administration of two Bishopricks at once Bale's words were spoken in Henry VIII his time and could not be meant of a Protestant Hierarchy for he was after a Bishop himself But H. Iacob answers to them all That supposing these men disliked the Hierarchy it made the stronger against the Principles of Separation Seeing for all that they did not refuse to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians And
Reformation he declares That he did mightily approve a Certain Form from which Men ought not to vary both to prevent the inconveniencies which some Mens folly would betray them to in the free way of Praying and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be shewing some new things Let Mr. Br. now Judge Whether it were likely that the Controversie then at Frankford was as he saith between them that were for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free way of Praying when Calvin to whom the Dissenters appealed was so much in his Judgment against the latter And it appears by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done and he expresses his satisfaction that the matter was so composed among them when by Dr. Cox his means the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before he mentions Lights as required by the Book which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth So that either they deceived him who sent him the Abstract or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself the matter being ended contrary to his expectation For although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter the Order of Geneva had like to have been presently voted in yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service they were fain to compromise the matter and to make use of a Mixt Form for the present But Dr. Cox and others coming thither from England and misliking these Alterations declared That they were for having the Face of an English Church there and so they began the Letany next Sunday which put Knox into so great a Rage that in stead of pursuing his Text which was directly contrary he made it his business to lay open the nakedness of our Church as far as his Wit and Ill Will would carry him He charged the Service-Book with Superstition Impurity and Imperfection and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation want of Discipline with the business of Hooper allowing Pluralities all the ill things he could think on When Cox and his Party with whom at this time was our excellent Iewel were admitted among them they presently forbad Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor in a Book by him Published he was forced to leave the City and to retire to Geneva whither most of his Party followed him And thus saith Grindal in his Letter to Bishop Ridley The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox and others which met there for that purpose Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works that this Controversie was not carried with them out of England but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time as particularly Hooper who lived many years in Switzerland brought home with them a great liking of the Churches Model where they had lived which being such as their Country would bear they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplicity being far enough from any thing of Pomp or Ceremony which created in them an aversion to the Ornaments and Vestments here used So now upon this new Persecution those who had Friendship at Geneva as Knox and Whittingham or were otherwise much obliged by those of that way as the other English were who came first to Frankford were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Divine Service than of our own And when Men are once engaged in Parties and several Interests it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in especially when they have great Abettors and such whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them This is the True Foundation of those Unhappy Differences which have so long continued among us about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church For when Calvin and some others found that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation our Bishops proceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rules they did not cease by Letters and other wayes to insinuate that our Reformation was imperfect as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained So they called the Vse of those Ceremonies which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church Calvin in his Letter to the Protector Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation To go as far from Popery as they could and therefore what Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Popery were to be removed lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby but at last he yields to this moderation in the case That such Ceremonies might be reteined as were easie and fitted to the Capacities of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery Now by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed for it took away all those Ceremonies which were of late invention As in Baptism of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church it reserved in the Second Liturgy only the Cross after Baptism which was not so used in the Roman Church for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism and the Anointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it in stead of these our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism being of Uncontroulable Antiquity and not used till the Child is Baptized In the Eucharist in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome our Church hath only appointed Kneeling I say appointed for although Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventures time or after the fashion of Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation lest it should seem to recede from the Practise of Antiquity which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants In stead of the great number of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church it only retained a plain Linnen Garment which was unquestionably used in the times of St. Hierome and St. Augustin And lastly As to the Episcopal Habits they are retained only as
themselves from the Society of other Christians they not only Condemned them but also the whole State of the Church Reformed in King Edward's dayes which was well Reformed according to the word of God yea and many Good Men have shed their Blood for the same which your doings Condemn Have ye not saith he the Gospel truly Preached and the Sacraments Ministred accordingly and good order kept although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies and in indifferent things which lie in the Princes Power to Command for Order sake To which one of them Answered That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached and the Sacraments Administred without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it they never assembled together in Houses but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Non-conformity they be thought themselves what was best for them to do and calling to mind that there was a Congregation there in the dayes of Queen Mary which followed the Order of Geneva they took up that and this Book and Order saith he we hold Another Answered That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it and set them up before it so that no Man may Preach or Minister the Sacraments without them Things being come to this height and Separation beginnâ—ng to break out the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther till they had Consulted their Oracle at Geneva Beza being often solicited by them with doleful Complaints of their hard usage and the different Opinions among themselves what they were to do at last resolves to Answer but first he declares How unwilling he was to interpose in the Differences of another Church especially when but one Party was heard and he was afraid this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more rather than Cure this evil which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured but Precibus Patientiâ by Prayers and Patience After this General Advice Beza freely declares his own judgment as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers and the Peoples Separation he expresses his Mind in that manner that the Dissenters at this day would have published their Invectives against him one upon the back of another For 1. As to the Silenced Ministers he saith That if the Pressing Subscription continued he perswades them rather to live privately than to yield to it For they must either act against their Consciences or they must quit their Imployments for saith he the Third thing that may be supposed viz. That they should exercise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops we Tremble at the Thoughts of it for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them What! Is Beza for Silencing and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful and able Ministers and at such a time when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it when St. Antholins St. Peters St. Bartholomews at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was were like to be left destitute of such Men Would Beza even Beza at such a time as that be for Silencing so many Preachers i. e. for their sitting quiet when the Law had done it And would not he suffer them to Preach when they ought to have done it though against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries but that he was of the contrary it appears plainly by this That before he Perswades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe and that he expresses no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws 2 As to the case of the People his Advice was As long as the Doctrine was sound that they should diligently attend upon it and receive the Sacraments devoutly and to joyn Amendment of Life with their Prayers that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation So that nothing can be more express against Sâ—paration than what is here said by Beza for even as to the Ministers he saith Though he did not approve the Ceremonies yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves he doth not think them of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them or that the People should forsake the Ordinances rather than hear those who did Conform Than which words nothing can be plainer against Separation And it further appears by Beza ' s Resolution of a case concerning a Schism in the French Church then in London That he looked on it as a Sin for any one to Separate from a Church wherein Sound Doctrine and a Holy Life and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up And by Separation he saith he means Not meerly going from one Church to another but the Discontinuing Communion with the Publick Assemblies as though one were no Member of them Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissenting Brethren at that time seems to have put an effectual Stop to the Course of Separation which they were many of them then inclined to But he was not alone among the Foreign Divines who about that time expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used For Gualter a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talke of the Difference then about these things and he extremely blames the Morose humor of those who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely 1572. he tells him How much they had disswaded them from making such a stir in the Church about Matters of no moment and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church which they had sent Men on purpose to possess them with both at Geneva and other places Zanchy upon great Sollicitation wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies but withal he sent another to Bishop Iewel to perswade the Non-conformists if the Queen could not be moved not to leave their Churches on such accounts which for his part he did not understand how any could lawfully do as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments although they were forced to do something therein which did not please them as long as the things were of that kind which in themselves were neither good nor evil And the same Reason will much more hold against the Peoples Sâ—paration Sect. 7. But about this time the dissenting party much increasing and most of the old and peaceable Non-conformists
being dead or unfit for business the management of their affairs fell into the hands of younger and fiercer Men. Who thought their Predecessors too cold in these matters insomuch that honest Iohn Fox complained of the Factious and Turbulent Spirit which had then possessed that Party although himself a Moderate Non-conformist and he saith They despised him because he could not Rail against Bishops and Archbishops as they did but if he could be as mad as they they would be kinder to him And therefore he soberly adviseth the Governors of the Church to look well after this sort of Men for saith he if they prevail it is not to be imagin'd what Mischief and Disturbance they will bring whose Hypocrisie is more subtle and pernicious then that of the old Monks for under a Pretence of Greater Purity they will never give over till they have brought Men under a Iewish Slavery These New Men full of bitter zeal despised the old trifling Controversie about Garments and Ceremonies they complained That all was out of order in the Church and nothing but a New and Thorough Reformation would please them For in the Admonition presented to the Parliament 14 Eliz. they complain for want of a Right Ministry a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures without which they say there could be no right Religion The Liturgy they deride as câ—lled and picked out of the Popish Dunghill the Portuise and Mass-Book the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops and Bishops they call Devillish and Antichristian and Condemn the Vocation of the Clergy as Popish and Vnlawful and add That the Sacraments are mangled and profaned that Baptism is full of Childish and Superstitious Toys All which and many more expressions of a like Nature are extant in the First and Second Admonitions Which Bold and Groundless Assertions being so Openly Avowed to the World by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party gave the true Occasion to the following practise of Separation For when these things were not only published in the name of the Party being the Pleas for Peace at that time but stifly maintained with greater Heat than Learning It is easie to imagine what Impressions such things would make on the common sort of People who have still a good Inclination to find fault with their Governors especially in the Church and to Admire those that Oppose them And these they Courted most having their Opinions so suited to Vulgar capacities that they apprehended their Interest carried on together with that of Purity of Reformation Hence they pleaded then as others do at this day for the Peoples right to choose their Bishops and Pastors against the Vsurpations as they accounted them of Princes and Patrons hence they railed against the Pomp and Greatness of the Clergy which is always a Popular Theme and so would the exposing the inequality of Mens Estates be if Men durst undertake it with as great hopes of impunity Besides it was not a Little Pleasant to the People to think what a share they should come to in the New Seigniory as they called it or Presbytery to be erected in every Parish and what Authority they should Exercise over their Neighbours and over their Minister too by their double Votes By such Arts as these they complied with the Natural Humors of the People and so gained a mighty Interest amongst them as the Anabaptists in Germany and Switzerland at first did upon the like Grounds Which made Bullinger in an Epistle to Robert Bishop of Winchester parallel the Proceedings of this Party here with that of the Anabaptists with them in those Countries For saith he we had a sort of People here to whom nothing seemed pure enough in our Reformation from whence they brake out into Separation and had their Conventicles among us upon which followed Sects and Schisms which made great entertainment to our Common Enemies the Papists Just thus it happened here these hot Reformers designed no Separation at present which they knew would unavoidably bring confusion along with it for that was laying the Reins on the Peoples neâ—ks and they would run whither they pleased without any possibility of being well managed by them but since these Men would Refine upon the present Constitution of our Church there soon arose another sort of Men who thought it as fit to Refine upon them They acknowledged they had good Principles among them but they did not practise according to them If our Church were so bad as they said that there was neither right Ministery nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline What follows say they from hence but that we ought to separate from the Communion of so corrupt a Church and joyn together to make up new Churches for the pure administration of all Gospel Ordinances The Leaders of the Non-conformists finding this Party growing up under them were quickly apprehensive of the danger of them because the Consequence seemed so Natural from their own Principles and the People were so ready to believe that nothing but Worldly considerations of Interest and Safety kept them from practising according to them Which was a mighty prejudice against them in the Minds of the Separatists as appears by Robinsons Preface to his Book of Communion Sect. 8. II. The Separation being now begun the Non-conformists set themselves against it with the Greatest Vehemency Which is the second thing I am to make out As for those of the Separation saith Parker a Noted Non-conformist Who have Confuted them more than we or Who have Written more against them And in a Letter of his he expresseth the greatest Detestation of them Now it grieved me not a little at this time saith he that Satan should be so impudent as to fling the dung of that Sect into my Face which with all my Power I had so vehemently resisted during the whole course of my Ministery in England I think no other but that many of them love the Lord and fear his Name howbeit their Error being Enemy to that Breast of Charity wherewith Cyprian covered his Qui ab Ecclesiâ nunquam recessit as Augustin speaketh they cannot stand before his Tribunal but by the Intercession of our blessed Saviour Father forgive them for they know not what they do Think not these words are applyed to their Sect amiss for in effect What doth it less than even persecute the Lord Jesus in his Host which it revileth in his Ordinances which it dishonoreth and in his Servants last of all whose Graces it blasphemeth whose footsteps it slandereth and whose Persons it despiseth And Two Characters he gives of the Men of that way viz. That their Spirits were bitter above measure and their hearts puffed up with the Leaven of Pride How far these Characters still agree to the Defenders of the present Separation I leave others to Judge When Brown and Harrison openly declared for Separation T. C. himself undertook to Answer them in a Letter to
Harrison His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown and the Defence of that Admonition When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament viz. Vnlawful Ministry Antichristian Government and False Worship Gifford a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex undertook to Answer them in several Treatises And it is observable that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile Notorious and Damnable Schism because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches and set up New Ones of their own Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks but saith They make a Vile Schism Rending themselves from the Church of England and condemning by their Assertions the Whole Visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time and he adds That the end of Brownism as it was then called is Infinite Schismes Heresies Atheism and Barbarism And the same Author in his Second Book reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People hath these remarkable words Now look also on the People where we may see very many who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues and Godly Duties as namely to be Meek to be Patient to be Lowlie to be full of Love and Mercy to deal Vprightly and Iustly to Guide their Families in the Fear of God with Wholsome Instructions and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them give themselves wholly to this even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion namely to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church against Bishops and Ministers and one against another on both sides Some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher but not to the Prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gone further and fallen into a Damnable Schism and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in these matters But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists appears by his Stating the Question in the same Preface For I shewed saith he in express words that I do not meddle at all in these Questions whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods Word whether they be many or few whether they be small or great but only thus far whether they be such or so great as make our Churches Antichristian Barrow saith That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist and he is joyned with Cartwright Hildersham Brightman and other Non-conformists by the Prefacer to the Desence of Bradshaw against Iohnson and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison Browns Colleague against Separation proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence through his being and placing in a particular Church and justly required of him by the Church or Spiritual Body through that same inforcing Law of the coherence and being together of the parts and members which is the express Ordinance of God So that saith he unless I hold the Congregation whereof I am now disanulled and become no Church of Christ for the not separating an unworthy Member I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises or yet depart away being come together without Breach of the Bond of Peace Sundring the Cement of Love empairing the growth of the Body of Christ and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere Richard Bernard calls it An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of But I need not mention more particular Aâ—thors since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists in the Name of the Non-conformists it is said That because we have a True Church conâ—â—ting of a Lawful Ministery and a Faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation they say We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate as long as they continue in this Schism Sect. 9. But for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie we must consider What things were agreed on both sides and where the Main Points of Difference lay 1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it In their Apology presented to King Iames thus they speak We testifie by these presents unto all Men and desire them to take knowledge hereof that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation between Iohnson and Iacob saith That the first Separatists never denied that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them to be true Christians and in the state of Salvation but always held professed and acknowledged the contrary Barrow saith That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs and deemed them saved notwithstanding the false Offices and great corruptions in the Worship exercised And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death he saith He had Reverend estimation of sundry and good hope of many hundred thousands in England though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church in the present Communion Ministry Worship Government and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies 2. The Separatists granted That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it Thus they express themselves in their Apology Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for blemishes and imperfections which every one according to his Calling should studiously seek to cure and to expect and further it until either there follow redress or the Disease be grown incurable And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith written by Iohnson and Ainsworth they have these words None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and Corruptions which may and so
long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men will fall out and arise among them even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof But in the case of our Church they pleaded that the Corruptions were so many and great as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church So Barrow saith They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election or from Christ but from being Members of a True Constituted Church On the other side the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary or lawful So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions 1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrew the being or constitution of it 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversie 1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it Barrow and his Brethren did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separation unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches For here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be Want of a right gathering our Churches at first False Worship Antichristian Ministery and Government These Reasons say they all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate especially when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied but resisted blasphemed persecuted These are the words of the First and Chiefest Separatists who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles We condemn not say they their Assemblies barely for a mixture of good and bad which will alwayes be but for want of an orderly gathering or constitution at first we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry but for having and reteining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government or Discipline but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections but because their Worship is Superstitious devised by Men Idolatrous according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book according unto which their Sacraments and whole Administration is performed and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well that nothing but such a Charge which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound could justifie their Separation not meer promiscuous Congregations nor mixt Communions not defect in the Exercise of Discipline not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church as they supposed Idolatrous Worship and an Antichristian Ministry to do If Mr. Giffard saith Barrow can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches then we would shew him how free we are from Schism The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames by Ainsworth Iohnson and the rest of them Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God ought not by any true Christian to be continued or Communicated with but must be forsaken and separated from and a true Church sought and ioyned unto c. But the Church of England is before proved not to be the true Church of Christ and of God therefore it ought to be separated from c. By which we see the Greatest Separatists that were then never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches if they were true On the other side those who opposed the Separation with greatest zeal thought nothing more was necessary for them to disprove the Separation then to prove our Churches to be true Churches R. Brown from whom the Party received their denomination thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright the Ringleader of the Non-conformists to prove the Necessity of Separation because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here he made our Church not to be a true Church and consequently that Separation was necessary T. C. Answers That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing as giveth an utter overthrow and turning upside down of the truth His meaning is wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church or Iustifie Separation from it For he addeth although besides Faith in the Son of God there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being and not simply to the being of the Church And in this respect saith he the Lutheran Churches which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies which beside the maym of Discipline which is common to our Churches are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God Was not Jerusalem saith he after the Return from Babylon the City of the Great King until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City To say therefore it is none of the Church because it hath not received this Discipline methinks is all one with this as if a Man would say It is no City because it hath no Wall or that it is no Vineyard because it hath neither Hedge nor Ditch It is not I grant so sightly a City or Vineyard nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church his Defender saith He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church with respect to Censures but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People Afterwards as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation their main Business was To Prove our Churches to be True Churches As in a Book Entituled Certain Positions hâ—ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of
the Gospel against those of the Separation which was part of that Book afterwards Published by W. R. and called A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists The Ground-work whereof as Mr. Ainsworth calls it is thus laid That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself Cutteth himself off from Christ. If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days those who live in ours ought well to consider it if they regard their Salvation And for this Assertion of theirs they bring Three Reasons 1. For that they Enjoy and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church i. e. Preaching of the Gospel and Administration of the Sacraments 2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith and Hold and Teach c. all Truths Fundamental So we put their Two Reasons into One because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith which say they is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church and admitted to the Priviledges thereof even by the Apostles themselves So the Church of Pergamus though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it yet because it kept the Faith of Christ was still called the Church of God 3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation the Position he laid down was this That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God Which he proved by this Argument Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation that is sufficient to make a Company of Men so gathered together to be a True Church But the whole Doctrine as it is Publickly Professed and Practised by Law in England is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation and our Publick Assemblies are therein gathered together Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assemblies True Churches And in the Defence of this Argument against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson that whole Disputation is spent And in latter times the Dispute between Ball and Can about the necessity of Separation runs into this Whether our Church be a True Church or not concerning which Ball thus delivers his Judgment True Doctrine in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith though mix't with Defects and Errors in other matters not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance though in the manner of Dispensation some things be not so well ordered as they might and ought are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church though somewhat crased in health and soundness by Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in Life and Manners The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on was Sect. 11. 2. That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it This will best appear by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery To which Giffard thus Answers The Church of England in the time of Popery was a Member of the Vniversal Church and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome nor took not her beginning of being a Church by Separating her self from that Romish Synagogue but having her Spirits revived and her Eyes opened by the Light of the Heavenly Word did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist with his Abominable Idolatry Heresies and False Worship and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith and True Service of God and so is a purer and more faithful Church than before Others add That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church and so to make a visible Church Neither were sufficient means wanting in our Case for the due Conviction of Mens Minds but then they add That the Question must not be Whether the Means used were the Right Means for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith but Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors whose Fellowship they had forsaken which they Iustifie by the Examples of Jehoshaphat and Josiah Asa and Hezekiah II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers using Popish Ceremonies c. To this they Answer 1. That it is evident by the Word That the Church hath used and might lawfully use in God's Worship and Prayer a stinted Form of Words and that not only upon Ordinary but Extraordinary Occasions which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit Nay they say They are so far from thinking them unlawful that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church they are many times more fit than those which are called Conceived Prayers 2. If Formes thus devised by Men be Lawful and Profitable What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church to Command that such Foâ—ms be used or for us that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them to use them unless they will say That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word Receive the Sacraments Believe the Trinity and all other Articles of Faith because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do Whereas indeed we ought the rather to do good things that are agreeable unto the Word when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate 3. It is true the Non-conformists say The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book but it followeth not thence that either it is or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil we cannot more credit the Man of Sin than to say That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichristian for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ to read the Scriptures to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book and yet be free from all fault and tincture from all shew and apperance of Evil though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass that both cannot possibly stand together Yea so many points saith
Bâ—ll are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery that it is not possible Popery should stand if they take place And saith he it is more proper to say the Mass was added to our Common Prayer than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World 4. As to the Fasts and Feasts and Ceremonies retained they Answer That what was Antichristian in them was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome which being taken away by the Reformation the things themselves are not Antichristian As namely saith Giffard the Remission of Sins and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross and such like things which the Papacy is full of but rejected by us III. That our Ministery was Antichristian To this they Answer 1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture not by his unlawful outward Calling or Office that he should exercise in the Church but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp to give Laws to Mens Consciences and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God Which two Marks of Antichrist as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised were faulty and unwarrantable by the Word yet you in your own Conscience know that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience neither is any thing among us urged to be done upon pain of Damnation but only the Word and Law of God 2. That the Office which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office which the Law alloweth is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently so by our Laws he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do and forbidden to Teach any thing as required of necessity to Salvation but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture yea it Commandeth him with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines that are contrary to Gods VVord Doth the VVord Authorise him to Administer the Sacraments So doth our Law Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach but also oversee and look to the Peoples Conversation Exhorting Admonishing Reproving Comforting them as well privately as publickly So doth our Law Lastly Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ our Law doth also command the same So that although many to whom the execution of these things appertain do grievously fail in the practice thereof yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister is the same in substance with that which the VVord layeth upon him Tell us not then That the same Name is given to our Office as to the Popish Sacrificers Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists And Shall the Holy Office and Calling which is so agreeable to the VVord be misliked because it is called a Priesthood considering that though it agree in Name yet it differeth in Nature and Suâ—stance as much from the Romish Priesthood as Light doth from Darkness IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church To which they Answer 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ which concern the Discipline of his Church and the outward calling of his Ministers is no such sin as can make either the Ministers or Governors of our Church Antichrist or our Church an Antichristian and False Church And Mr. H. adds That no one place of Scripture can be found wherein he is called an Antichrist or Antichristian who holding the Truth of Doctrine and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental as we do doth swerve either in Iudgment or Practice from that Rule which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture whose Doctrine is sound If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation through no other door than Christ How dare you that say you are Christ's refuse to be guided by them If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock How can you deny them to be True Churches 2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord and Administration of Sacraments as well as the Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor which say they by Law ought to be in all our Assemblies and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ which is most substantial do want the other and so exercise it not rightly that is to say not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed And farther they add That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table all such as are Vncatâ—chised and out of Charity or any otherwise publick offenders as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion and in that which is after Confirmation 3. That although it were granted That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign The Church of Corinth was a True Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they Condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline which we want be to the Beauty and Well-being or preservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a True Church may be without them
4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Consent of the Christian Magistrate and Governors of the Church Nay they declare that in so doing they should highly offend God Giffard saith That the Fetters and Chains can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience and the Fear of God from presuming to take upon them Publick Authority And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together and choose a Minister and Ordain him it would make him no more a Minister before God then if all the Apprentices in London taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor and Minister an Oath unto him should make him a Lord Mayor But of this more afterwards V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under as they speak an Antichristian Hierarchy To which they Answer First They deny that our Bishops can be called Antichristian since they do and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Fundamental yea some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks that have gainsay'd it some have not only by their Doctrine and Ministry Converted many to the Truth but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel Secondly Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke which they deny yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church or Miâ—istry under it Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches have frequently born such a Yoke and yet have been the True Churches of God still Thirdly That there is nothing unlawful or Antichristian in the Office of Bishops if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners to see that the Pastors do their Duties And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church to cast many particular Churches under one Provincial or Diocesan Government Yea Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this not only lawful but expedient to that degree that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches within his Dominions without it as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them this saith he doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do and by the Laws cought to do These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness from the Authors of best reputation on both sides that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation between the Old Non-conformists and the Separatists of that time Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie by those who were called Independents and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism or rigid Separation And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation or the Steps by which it was carried on and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way and what the True State of the Difference was between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren and how far the Reasons then used will hold against the present Separation When those who were called Brownists for the fâ—eer Exercise of their new Church way withdrew into the Low-Countreys they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves A. D. 1582. Robert Brown accompanied with Harrison a School-Master and about 50 or 60 Persons went over to Middleburgh and there they chose Harrison Pastor and Brown Teacher They had not been there Three Months but upon the falling out between Brown and Harriâ—on Brown forsakes them and returns for England and Subscribes promising to the Archbishop To live Obediently to his Commands Concerning whom Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause Mr. Brown hath cast us off and that with open manifest and notable Treacheries and if I should declare them you could not believe me Only this I testifie unto you that I am well able to prove That Cain dealt not so ill with his Brother Abel as he hath dealt with me Some of the words of Browns Subscription were these I do humbly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment whose Authority under Her Majesty I wâ—ll never resist or deprave by the Grace of God c. But being a Man of a Restless and Factious Temper no Promises or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered For although he promised to frequent our Churches and to come to Prayers and Sacraments yet living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years in all that time he never did it and when he was like to have been question'd for it he withdrew into another Parish Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons but that he accounted no act of Communion and declared to his Friends That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do Notwithstanding this he Preached in Private Meetings and that in the time of Publick Assemblies when he thought fit Which this Author though a Non-conformist and Friend of T. Cs calls a Cursed Conventicle who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings and Iesuitical Aequivocations in his Subscription By the Bishops Authority he said he meant only his Civil Authority by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God he understood the Church of his own setting up by frequenting our Assemblies according to Law he meant the Law of God and not of the Land he declared his Child was Baptized according to Law but then told his Followers it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton of New England hath this passage concerning Brown The first Inventor of that way which is called Brownism from whom the Sect took its Name fell back from his own way to take a Parsonage called Iâ—ourcâ— God so in a strange yet wise Providence ordering it that he who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England as no Church should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them and it called A Church But upon the Dissention at Middleborough between Brown and Harrison that Congregation soon broke to pieces Ainsworth cannot deny the early Dissentions between Brown and Harrison Brown and Barrow Barrow and Fr. Iohnson but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs notwithstanding as Dr. O. well observes We are to distinguish
and the necessity of Christ ' s Flock and Disciples must necessarily if truly followed lead on to and inforce a Separation Notwithstanding all this Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches but then he saith There is no Church Communion in Hearing but only in giving the Seals Mr. Williams urgeth That there is Communion in Doctrine and Fellowship of the Gospel Upon which Mr. Cotton grants That though a Man may joyn in Hearing and Prayer before and after Sermon yet not as in a Church-state Yet after all he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches But if they remain true Churches it appears from the former Discourse they can never justifie Separation from them upon the Principles of either Party So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate as to some of their Principles then the old rigid Separatists yet they do not consider that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable The Dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration to avoid the imputation of Brownism deliver this as their Judgment concerning our Parochial Churches And for our own Congregations viz. of England we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World that all that Conscience of the Defilements we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein did never work in us any other thought much less opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the True Churches and Body of Christ and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery much less did it ever enter into our hearts to Iudge them Antichristian we saw and cannot but see that by the same reason the Churches abroad in Scotland Holland c. though more Reformed yet for their Mixture must be in like manner Iudged no Churches also which to imagine or conceive is and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts Yea we have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually overspread with Defilements or in the greatest danger thereof and when our selves had least yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren but then the difficulty returns with greater force How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles all the Dispute had been about the truth or falshood of them but their truth being supposed the necessity of Separation followed whereas now upon altering the State of the Controversie by the Independents though their Principles seem more Moderate yet their Practice is more Unreasonable It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day to justifie the Separation That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches and that therein they differ from the old Separatists It is true in that Opinion they do but in Separation they agree which is the more unjustifiable in them since they yield so much to our Churches And yet herein whatever they preâ—end they do not exceed their Independent Brethren whose Separation themselves Condemned But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren and thought it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism because 1. They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government Which they say is inconsistent with the Civil Peace as may be seen say they in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there 2. They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches as the Separatists did and think such a Confinement Unlawful 3. They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members as the Separatists did Whereby say they they confound the Visible and Invisible Church and make the same essential form of both 4. They renounce the Ordination received in our Church but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry is by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant with such a Man as their Pastor For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church after the New Model at Rotterdam Ward was chosen Pastor and Bridges Teacher but they both Renounced their Ordination in England and some say They ordained one another others That they had no other Ordination than what the Congregation gave them Sect. 13. And now new Congregations began to be set up in Holland upon these Principles but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former Simpson renouncing his Ordination was admitted a private member of the Church at Rotterdam but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members as to the exercise of Prophecying and so he and those who joyned with him complaining of the Mischief of Impositions were ready for a Separation if that restraint were not speedily removed Mr. Bridge yields to the thing but not as to the time viz. On the Lords Day after Sermon this gives no satisfaction for they must have their will in every thing or else they will never cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions And so Mr. Simpson and his Party set up a New Church of their own Which I. Goodwin doth not deny for Mr. Simpson saith he upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor might seek and make a departure from it But were these Churches quiet after this Separation made So far from it that the contentions and slanders were no less grievous saith Baylie than those of Amsterdam betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons followers But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness No but in stead of that they were so full of Bitterness Reproaches and hard Censures that Mr. Brâ—dge often declared If he had known at first what he met with afterwards he would never have come amongst them nor being amongst them have given them such scope and liberty as he had It seems at last he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions and the mischief of a Separating dividing humor But the People having the Power in their hands were resolved to shew that they held it not in vain for Mr. Ward had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregation by Preaching the same Sermons there which he had Preached before at Norwich this and some other frivolous things were thought Intolerable Impositions and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery This being a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren which occasion'd a
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
us From whence there are these things to be considered by us which may be of some use in our following Discourse 1. That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it This I have proved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse that those who deny it may with the help of the same Metaphysicks deny That the Sun shines 2. That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Vnion of the Church to go as far as they were able This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists but by the most rigid Separatists of former times and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful and thought so to be by the persons who Separate is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age but what new Reasons they have for it besides Noise and Clamour I am yet to seek 3. That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled provided that they have used the best means for a right information 4. That where occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them For say they to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn seemeth to be a most unjust Separation 5. That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and downright Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren Sect. 16. From all this it appears that the present practice of Separation can never be justified by the old Non-conformists Principles nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former is clear from undeniable Evidence and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries For although they endeavour all they can to blind the Readers Judgment with finding out the disparity of some circumstances which was never denied yet not one of them can deny that it was their Judgment That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was Vnlawful and Schismatical And this was the point for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon and it still stands good against them For their resolution of the case doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches which must have equal force at all times although there happen a great variety as to some circumstances For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded as to one circumstance or another the general case as to Separation is the same whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation on their Account it comes at last to the same point Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations as the Dissenting Brethren did because of some Scruples of Conscience in them and is it not equally unlawful in others who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead although they relate to different things I will put this case as plain as possible to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience one of them pleads that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy another saith His People do not scruple that but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross or Kneeling at the Communion a third saith If all these were away yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted as to matter and form they must have a Congregation of their own a fourth goes yet farther and saith Let their Congregation be constituted how it will if they allow Infant-Baptism they can never joyn with them nor saith a fifth can we as long as you allow Preaching by set forms and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses and such like Human Inventions Here are now very different scruples of Conscience but Doth the nature of the case vary according to the bare difference of the Scruples One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit is Separation on that account lawful No say all other Parties against the Quakers because their scruples are unreasonable But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism No say the Presbyterians and Independents that is an unreasonable Scruple Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship No saith the Presbyterians this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation and if they can joyn occasionally with us they are bound to do it constantly or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei and not from the meer error or mistake of Conscience But at last the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England and if they do not either they must desire a separate Congregation on the account of their Scruples as to the Ceremonies and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Vnreasonable as they do those of the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers Or else they declare They can joyn occasionally in Communion with our Church but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them with respect to our Church as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren with respect to themselves For no disparity as to other Circumstances can alter the nature of this Case viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what denomination soever the persons pass For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances but in the nature of the Act because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful As will fully appear by the following Discourse Those Men therefore speak most
II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
capable to receive the Inhabitants For this I find insisted on by almost all my Answerers Some Parishes saith one cannot receive a tenth part some not half the People belonging to them few can receive all The Parochial Teacher saith another is overlaid with a numerous throng of People The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City saith a third And yet not one of these but assignes such reasons for the necessity of Separate Congregations as would equally hold if there were never a Church in London but what would hold all the Inhabitants together This is therefore but a color and pretence and no real Cause Any one would think by Mr. Baxter's insisting so very much on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations this were his opinion that such Congregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes where they are helps to the Parochial Churches And no Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government where upon pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification the People are not drawn into Separation But is it possible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them and the Laws Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster because it is a very large Parish Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at Boston because there were but three Churches there to receive all the numerous Inhabitants If such a number of Churches could be built as were suitable to the greatness and extent of Parishes we should be so far from opposing it that we should be very thankful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work but in the mean time Is this just and reasonable to draw away the People who come to our Churches under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come For upon consideration we shall find 1. That this is Mr. Baxter's own case For if we observe him although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands that cannot come into the Temples many of which never heard a Sermon of many years and to this purpose he put so many Quaere 's to me concerning the largeness of Parishes and the necessity of more Assistants thereby to insinuate That what he did was only to Preach to such as could not come to our Churches yet when he is pinch'd with the point of Separation then he declares That his hearers are the same with ours at least 10 or 20 for one and that he knows not many if any who use to hear him that Separate from us If this be true as no doubt Mr. B. believes it then what such mighty help or assistance is this to our great Parishes What color or pretence is there from the largeness of them that he should Preach to the very same persons who come to our Churches And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Parishes where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches Then how come they to be lawful where few or none of those many thousands ever come at all but they are filled with the very same Persons who come to our Parish Churches These two pretences then are inconsistent with each other and one of them cannot hold For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches and scarce to any else iâ— any as Mr. B. supposes then all the pretence from the largeâ—ess of our Parishes and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches is vain and impertinent and to Speak Softly not becoming Mr. Baxter's sincerity 2. That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case viz. That he Preached only to such as could not come to our Churches it would be no defence of the general practice of Dissenters who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes As if it were necessary might be proved by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City and in the adjacent Parishes Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not if not Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them if they be Why doth he pâ—etend the greatness of Parishes to justifie Separate Mâ—etings when if they were never so small they would be lawful however This therefore must be set aside as a meeâ— color and pretence which he thought plausible for himself and invidious to us though the bounds of our Parishes were neâ—ther of our own making nor is it in our power to alter them And we shall find that Mr. B. doth justifie them upon other grounds which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes or capacity of Churches I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some duties at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties or at all times These things must be more particulary explained for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Separation Which proceeds not so openly and plainly as the old Separation did but hath such artificial windings and turnings in it that a Man thinks they are very near our Church when they are at a great distance from it If we charge them with following the steps of the old Separatists we utterly deny it for say they For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches they disowned your Ministery and Hierarchy as Antichristian and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous but we do none of these things and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation To which I Answer 1. There are many still especially of the People who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions and the Defence of it and elsewhere Where he complains of their Violence and Censoriousness their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors and forcing others to forsake their own judgments to comply with their humors And he saith A sinful humoring of rash Professors is as great a Temptation to them as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World In another place he saith The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them but they declare they would be gone from them if they do use them And he doth not dissemble that they do comply with them in these remarkable words Should the Ministers in London that have suffer'd so long but use any part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms though without
saith The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches nor the same rigid terms of Communion exacted i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them they can Communicate with them i. e. if they break their own Rules they can joyn with them Is not this an admirable way of Communicating with our Churches But if our Churches hold to their Rule and observe the Orders prescribed then it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Communion required by it they will have no Communion with them And Mr. A. delivers this not only as his own Opinion but as the Sense of the Party That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their Iudgments about the Lawfulness of Ioyning with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship or in any exclusive to their joyning with other Assemblies where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed they would flatly deny it And he goes yet further when he saith That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members and from those Pastors under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them to joyn ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches This is owning a plain and downright Separation in as clear and distinct words as ever Iohnson or Ainsworth did For 1. He makes it to be their general sense That it is unlawful to communicate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly or to be Members of our Churches Which is the same thing which they said 2. He ownes the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours For he owns other Pastors other People and a new Relation between these by the choice of the one and the conduct of the other This is no mincing the matter as Mr. B. often doth but he speaks it boldly and with great assurance and ushers it in with I have confidence contrary to his I think no Man doubts of his Confidence that ever looked into his Book but in this matter he is so brisk that he saith He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall as though all who gave their Votes there had owned these Principles of Separation for which many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers II. All the difference then that seems to be left is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion As to which these things are to be observed 1. That it is practised by very few especially if Mr. A ' s. Poll be allowed 2. That it signifies little as to this matter if Men be fixed Members of other Churches For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence For Communion with a Church is joyning with a Church as a Member of that Church And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship which makes a Man a Member of a Church I suppose there are many occasionally present at Mr. A's or Mr. B's Meetings who renounce all Communion with them A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church and that frequently too to hear Sermons c. but Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome Most of our Gentlemen who have Travelled abroad have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship at Rome and Paris but they would think themselves hardly dealt with to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome And if they be urged with it they will plead still They were of the Protestant Communion and the Reason they will give is because they did not joyn with them in all parts of their Worship not in adoration of the Host or Worship of Images and therefore they remained still of the Protestant Communion although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Popish Service And Is it not the same case here If Men only afford an occasional Presence at some parts of our Worship How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church than the like presence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches in some parts of our Worship and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church because they kept their Priests and had Mass in private and declared That though they looked on our Service as tolerable yet they thought the Roman more eligible and so having Full Communion with that and being only occasionally present at our Service they thought themselves good Catholicks So if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eligible and a better way of Worship with which they constantly joyn and alwayes choose to do it their occasional Presence at our Assemblies doth not make them Members of our Churches but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations if they maintain full and constant Communion with them And none of the formed Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship for they say That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches a Submission to all the Rules and Orders among them The New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Communion that scruples Infant Baptism or refuses to be present at the Administration of it although he be never so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them For not only openly condemning and opposing Infant-Baptism but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof or purposely departing the Congregation at the Administration of that Ordinance is liable by their Laws to the Sentence of Banishment And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical Interests together that as none but Church-Members are Free-men among them so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership From all this it appears that this new Notion of Occasional Communion in some parts of Worship exclusively to others is disowned by all sorts of Churches and is a late fancy taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Separation Sect. 5. But we here meet with an excellent Reason for the lawfulness of this Occasional Communion with our Churches viz. because to hold Communion with one Church exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable
Churches Or as Mr. B. expresses it The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental Reasons sway the other way From whence we may take notice 1. That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer to them than the others are and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ierusalem where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him What Church he is Member of If he should Answer He could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none Would they take such a Man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church That they would all agree was no part of Catholick Christianity And I much doubt whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion that could not tell what Church he was Member of For as to the Church of England he declares That he holds only occasional Communion with that as he would do with any other tolerable Churches But Were they not Baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it if so then if they Communicate no otherwise with it than as a tolerable defective Church they must renounce their former Membership for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it And if they do renounce their Membership in this Church their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation We thank them that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable but we cannot see how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church so that this great favor of occasional Communion which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons and some very good occasions is not worth the speaking of among Friends and so far from looking like Communion that it hath hardly the face of a Civility 2. That if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen as they say then this occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life For that is sufficient to shew their true Catholick Principles and Mr. B. faith When no such accidental Reasons do sway they are to choose the least defective way of Worship or as Mr. A. speaks To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations If then a Man be bound out of love to his Soul to prefer the best way of Worship and he judges the way of the Separate Congregations to be such there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion For the same Reasons which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one and to forsake the other And why should a Man that is acquainted with purer Administrations give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disorderly and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel and not reprove her rather by a total forbearance of her Communion And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent and holding fast that which is good and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together perswade such a Man that it is not lawful to leave the best Communion meerly to shew what defective and tolerable Church he can communicate with Which is as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow or to leave wholsom Diet to feed on Mushroms and Trash 3. That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations and less defective wayes of Worship So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way Suppose some think our Churches tolerable and Mr. B's or Mr. A's Meetings were eligible but after a while when the first rellish 〈◊〉 they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉 or Quakers and then think their way more 〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable Are not these Men bound to forsake them for the same Reasons by which they were first moved to leave our Communion and joyn with them unless they be secure that the absolute perfection of their way of Worship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fancy any defect in it Mr. Baxter once very well said Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last it will admit of no consistency Parties will arise in the Separated Churches and Separate again from them till they are dissolved Why might not R. Williams of New-England mention'd by Mr. B. proceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence Why might he not go on still refining of Churches till at last he dissolved his Society and declared That every one should have liberty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience By which remarkable Instance we see that this Principle when pursued will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers To which Mr. B. Answers What harm will it do me or them if any hearers go from me as you say to Dr. O. None that I know For as Dr. O. saith Since your Practice is one and the same your Principles must be so also although you choose several wayes of expressing them But Did the whole force of my Argument lie there Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers upon the very same ground And Is this a good way of Answering to dissemble the main force of an Argument that something may seem to be said to it I suppose Mr. B's great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a
thing of such great importance and Separation so mischievous as he hath represented it that the Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces and to run into wayes of Separation Hath not Mr. Baxter represented and no Man better the Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride Conceitedness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion And after all this must they upon a conceit of Purer Administrations and Less Defective Wayes of Worship be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces and run from one Separate Congregation to another till they have run themselves out of breath and left the best parts of their Religion behind them How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People and the Pernicious consequences of complying with them and Must the Reins be laid in their Necks that they may run whither they please Because forsooth they know better what is good for their Souls than the King doth and they love their Souls better than the King doth and the King cannot bind them to hurt or Famish or endanger their Souls But Why must the King bear all the blame if Mens Souls be not provided for according to their own wishes Doth the King pretend to do any thing in this matter but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament And why did he not put it as it ought to have been that they know what makes better for their own Edification than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament and the Governors of this Church do and let them make what Law 's and Orders they will if the People even the rash and injudicious Professors as Mr. B. calls them do think other means of Edification better and other wayes of Worship less defective they are bound to break through all Laws and to run into Separation And How is it possible upon these terms to have any Peace or Order or any establish'd Church I do not remember that any of the old Separatists no not Barrow or Iohnson did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation as these are The Brownists declare in their Apology That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions which may and will fall out among Men even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof Where a Church is rightly constituted here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers than either Iohnson or Ainsworth The ground of Separation with them was the want of a right constituted Church if that were once supposed other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England it is said That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please nor without just and weighty cause Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body Those just Reasons are 1. If a Man cannot continue without sin 2. In case of Persecution Not one word of better means of Edification For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion So in their Declaration at the Savoy they say That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship ought not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church whereunto they are joyned And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes 1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin and that in Three cases First Want of Ordinances Secondly Being deprived of due priviledges Thirdly Being compelled to any thing in practice not warranted by the Word 2. In case of Persecution 3. Vpon the account of conveniency of Habitation And in these Cases the Church or Officers are to be consulted and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church No allowance here made of forsaking a Church meerly for greater means of Edification And how just soever the reason were they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Officers and to tell them why they depart And Mr. Burroughs condemns it as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church Yet this is now the main support of the present Separation and meer necessity hath driven them to it for either they must own the Principles of the old Separatists which they are unwilling to do or find out others to serve their turn but they are such as no Man who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church can ever think fit to maintain since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and confusion as Mr. Burroughs truly observed But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches That for his part he hath seldom heard any but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London where he hath been but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Scholâ—rs or judicious Hearers than to such as need more Practicall Subjects and a more plain familiar easie method Is this the truth of the case indeed Then for all that I can see the King is excused from all blame in this matter unless it be a fault to provide too well for them And Is this a good ground for Separation that the Preaching is too good for the People Some Men may want Causes to defend but at this rate they can never want Arguments Yet methinks the same Men should not complain of starving and famishing Souls when the only fault is that the Meat is too good and too well dressed for them And on the other side hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preachers and that he really fears lest meer Non-Conformists have brought some into reputation as conscientious who by weak Preaching will lose the reputation of being Iudicious more than their silence lost it And again But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation To which he adds But the Grand Calamity is that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited and none so commonly give way to their Ignorant Zeal to Censure Backbite and Reproach others as those that know not what they talk of Let now any Reader judge whether upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself their having better means of Edification can be the ground of leaving our Churches to go to Separate Congregations unless injudiciousness and self-conceited confidence
and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities and to some purposes than judicious and well studied Sermons This Argument must therefore be quitted and they who will defend the present Separation must return to the old Principles of the Separatists if they will justifie their own practices And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do for discerning that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self he adds more weight to it and that comes home to the business viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for Separation and the very same which Barrow and Greenwood and Iohnson and Smith and Can used Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry but we are mistaken if we think they now manage it after the same manner We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation but less fit to justifie it the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Principles of our new Separatists as to the Ministry of our Church and to discover how little they differ from the old Separatists when this matter is throughly enquired into as to the Argument for Separation I. In General they declare That they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve How oft have I told you saith Mr. B. that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor And one or other of these he thinks most if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under You will say then Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist and thinks it not lawful to joyn with any of our Parochial Congregations but this is contradicted by his own Practice There lies therefore a farther subtilty in this matter for he declares in the same place he can joyn with them notwithstanding But how as true Churches though he saith they are not No but as Chappels and Oratories although they be not Churches as wanting an essential part This will bring the matter to a very good pass the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chappels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists This I confess is a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists and Non-conformists for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation if our Churches were not true Churches and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry Now saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches because they want an essential part viz. a true Ministry yet he can joyn with them occasionally as Chappels or Oratories From whence it appears that he accounts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such but only looks on them as Publick places of Prayer to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister or looking on the Congregation as a Church For where he speaks more fully he declares That he looks on none as true Churches but such as have the Power of the Keys within themselves and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power and any Parochial Church that hath such a one and ownes it self to be independent he allows to be a true Church and none else So that unless our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power in opposition to the present Constitution of our Church as he apprehends he at once discards them all from being true Churches but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches that which I only insist on now is That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches or as he calls it of the Political Organized Form as wanting an essential part viz. a true Pastor From hence it necessarily follows either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all or it must be a Separate Church or if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did by setting up new Churches in opposition to ours It is no sufficient Answer in this case to say That Mr. B. doth it not for we are only to shew what he is obliged to do by vertue of his own Principles which tend to as much Separation as was practised in former times and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B. Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Parochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many that they scarce allow any from whom they may not lawfully Separate 1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy or incompetent they allow them liberty to withdraw and to Separate from them This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others First They 〈◊〉 it in the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legaâ—â—stablishments to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and â—etronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People as the old Separatists did God saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scripture hath given the People that consenting Power antecedent to the Princes determination which none can take from them Mr. A. saith Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places yet if the People have not owned them they are at liberty to choose whom they please How many hundred Congregations saith Mr. B. have Incumbents whom the People never consented to but take them for their hinderers and burden So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation Secondly The People are made Iudges of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers This follows from the former In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom or only the tenth part it is no Schism saith he but a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent and it is no Schism but a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiors to perform their Office to such people that desire it This is plain dealing But suppose the Magistrate should cast out
Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent implicit at least of the People and so are no Vsurpers yet if they be Persecutors or Ithacian Prelatists i.e. if they either act towards or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists the People may Separate from them When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book called The Cure of Divisions to satisfie the People who were much displeased with him for it one of the material Questions he Asks about his Book is Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors As though that had been an unpardonable Crime In the Plea he saith If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin i.e. Conformity but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this persecution appears by the example he makes of me for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers and declared I intended only to speak of Lay-communion yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design And by such consequences all that speak against Separation may be Separated from as Persecuters and Ithacian Prelatists Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them But in this case we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful Ignorance or error of Conscience That there is a real distinction between these two is evident and that it ought to be considered in this case appears from hence that else there can be no sinful separation under an erroneous Conscience As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass and much more Praying by one was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time as Praying by a Form was in point of words and all Men should be required to begin the publick Worship at such an Hour and so end at such an Hour time being a necessary circumstance our Brethren grant that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it Here is then a lawful imposition and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to any certain time On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case Not on the Imposers because they grant such an imposition lawful therefore it must lie on those that Separate although they judge such terms of Communion sinful If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power as the necessary circumstances of time and place c. then mens apprehending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side and not on the imposers Because it is to be supposed that where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary care and judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required As for instance when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful condition of Communion but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy and Ceremonies which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion Where is the prohibition In the same Second Commandment say some I desire them to read it over to me They do so Where say I are the words that forbid a Liturgy or Ceremonies I am mistaken they tell me it is not in the words but in the sense I Ask How we should come by the sense but from the words Yes they say there are certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments Are they Divine or Human Where are they to be found What are those Rules One they say is that where any thing is forbidden something is commanded So say I there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image What is there more Yes say they 1. That we must not Worship God with our own Inventions now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions But I say no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God but such as God himself hath somewhere forbidden but he hath no where forbidden these And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God but then 1 They are such inventions which go about to represent God and so to disparage him and no other inventions are to be understood than the Reason of the Law doth extend to i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God 2. They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law For otherwise all use of mens inventions as to Preaching or Reading or Interpreting Scripture would be forbidden And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful because it is a meer Invention of Men as much as Liturgies or Ceremonies By this we see what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be to make Liturgies or Ceremonies unlawful terms of Communion And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain prejudices of Education or Reading only one sort of Books and taking some things for granted which they ought not before they can esteem the terms of Communion required by our Church to be sinful and therefore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily Deluded and then Separate from our Church upon it But there is another plain instance in this case wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism Many of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful On whose side doth the Schism lie on theirs that require the allowance of it as a condition of Communion or not If on the Imposers side they must condemn themselves who blame the Anabaptists for their Separation And so did Fr. Iohnson and so did the New-England Churches From whence it appears that they do all agree that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side but on those that separate
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
the Gospel Was not the same Authority the same charge as to both of them Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty and none at all to the other Is this possible to perswade impartial Men that for 18 years together you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws and yet never thought your self bound to do that which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach and not without leave from the Bishop and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too viz. the African but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments so that if one obligation were stricter than the other that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in for 18 years together and why he might not as well in the other is not easie to understand However Why all this while no Constant Communicant with any Church What no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of No Obligation upon a Christian to that equal to the necessity of Preaching These things must seem very strange to those who judge of Christian Obligations by the Scripture and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church What was this Communion intended for The antient Churches at this rate might easily be capacious enough for their Members if some never joyned with them in so long a time But he hath communicated occasionally with us Yes to shew what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with but not as a Member as himself declares and this occasional Communion makes him none For Mr. A. saith Their occasional Communion with us is but like any of our occasional Communion with them or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher or occasional going to a Popish Chappel which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice or ten or twenty times as long as they declare it is only occasional communion it makes them no Members of our Churches for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion Secondly They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered although they may be occasionally present in it Now if Men who think our constant communion unlawful Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations as Mr. A. speaks and to choose new Pastors this is gathering new Churches and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gather'd The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter Such saith he of the dissenting Ministers as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also If this be true as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles then we see plainly a Separation owned notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches For here is not only a lawfulness but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations for Preaching Hearing and other Religious Duties And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches Pastors People and joyning together for Religious Worship in a way separate from our Assemblies For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them yet they are so far from allowing constant communion that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship And what was there more then this which the old Separatists held For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation which Giffard Answered they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation and then declare that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors with whom they might joyn in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different from what must follow from the Principles of those who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties And if there be a necessity of Separation as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold that seem most moderate the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion will not excuse them from the guilt of the other For as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute and some held one way and some another And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us that he looks upon it but as drinking a single glass of Wine or of Water against his own inclination to a person out of Civility when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else It seems then this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls as the other is destructive to their health So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence Mr. A. brings several instances to prove that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful where constant is no duty as with other Parish Churches upon a Iourney at a Lecture c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church where he goes to hear a Lecture c. but the question is about the lawfulness of Separation where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful For a man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion and yet withdraws from it And it is a wonder to me none of my Friends my Adversaries I am loth to call them could discern this It is lawful saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French Dutch or Greek Church Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty Yes if he were obliged
to be a Member of those Churches and thought it lawful to communicate some times constant communion would be a Duty But because this seems so hard to be understood I will therefore undertake to prove it by these Two Arguments First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church Secondly From the particular force of that Text Philipp 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church If it be possible saith St. Paul as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask If there be not as great an obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church as with all Men and they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them And is not that possible and lies in them to do which they acknowledge lawful to be done and can do at some times What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles And cannot these prevail with Men to do that which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do towards joyning in Communion with us This I am perswaded is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority they refused it and they have been more and more backward ever since till now they seem generally resolved either to break all in pieces or to persist in Separation Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this i. e. saith he They did not enter their several Protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them And so they have been advising and considering ever since till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it and the meer necessity of defending their own practices makes them espouse these Principles Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith they had after the Plague and Fire at which they agreed That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy and wronging the Relator by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence viz. When it would not do more harm than good And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place he will find I did consider the force of those words when I put it that they resolved it to be lawful in it self although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it For they declared That it was in it self lawful and meet but the circumstances of that time did make them think it might do more harm than good and therefore it is said They delaid for a fitter opportunity which makes it clear they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing But that opportunity hath never hapned since and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it as Mr. A. plainly doth by such reasons as these Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good 1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable As though Separation were more eligible than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable and Schism were not more intolerable than Communion with a tolerable Church What will not Men say in defence of their own practice Was ever Schism made so light a matter of And the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church were not fit to be put in the ballance against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience Methinks it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate than always thus subtil and witty against the common sence and reason of Mankind 2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches i. e. be drawn off from their Separation 3. When it will harden the Papists As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more 4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general Yes no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so By these particulars it appears that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do Yet at last he saith he tells us as much is done as their Consciences will permit them Say you so Is it indeed come to this Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy or to make use of any parts of it in your own Meetings How often hath Mr. B. told the World That you stuck not at Set-Forms nor at the Vse of the Liturgy provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting publickly in a Writing on purpose That they did not meet under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England and were he able he would accordingly Read himself Is this observed in any one Meeting in London or through England Then certainly there are some who do not what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea That they never made one Motion for Presbytery or against Liturgies and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians And since that Mr. B. saith They did come to an Agreement wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy with some Alterations was required And are we now told That all that can lawfully be done is done Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles in coming to our Liturgy but Where are all the rest And Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies Do they not hereby discover that they are more afraid of losing their People who force them to comply with their humors than careful to do what they judge lawful towards Communion with our Church Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass that any who think
occasional Communion with us to be lawful should not think themselves obliged to constant Communion From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord as Mr. B. saith That is a good ground so far as it goes But will it not carry a Man farther if he pursue it as he ought to do What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches and at the same time to declare That there is greater purity of Worship and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation But if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasional Presence at some times and in some Acts of Worship for saith Mr. Ball To use one Ordinance and not another is to make a Schism in the Church The only Example produced to justify such occasional Communion with defective Churches is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in the Iewish Synagogues and Temple But this is so far from being true that the old Separatists granted That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances living and dying a Member thereof and from thence they prove That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time And did not he declare That he came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfill it And that he complyed with Iohn 's Baptism because he was to fulfill all righteousness Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ierusalem as a Member of the Iewish Church and frequent the Synagogues Even at the Feast of Dedication though not instituted by the Law he was present as other Iews were Yea Did he not express more than ordinary zeal for purifying the outward parts of the Temple because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there as well as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use And Doth not the Apostle expresly say That he was made under the Law Where is there the least ground in Scripture to intimate that Christ only kept occasional and not constant communion with the Iewish Church What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses Chair Where did he ever bid them go thither when they could have no better but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Worship and better Means of Edification Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs Is there any pretence for greater Edification now to be mention'd with what the Disciples had to forsake the Iewish Assemblies for the love of Christ 's own Teaching Yet he would not have them to do that out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teaching Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples Occasionally and at certain Seasons but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies And so it was after his Passion till the Holy Ghost feâ—l upon them and they were then imploy'd to gather and form a new Church which was not done before and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes That we never read of Christ 's Praying together with his Disciples unless perhaps at his Transfiguration with three of his Disciples although we often read of his Praying alone So that no example can be mention'd which is more directly contrary to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds than that of our Blessed Saviour's which ought to be in stead of all others to us Sect. 19. 2. I argue from the particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things From whence it appears evident that Men ought to go as far as they can towards Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity To take off the force of the Argument from this place several Answers have been given which I shall now remove so that the strength of it may appear to remain notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it Some say That the Apostles words are to be understood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge and the different conceptions and opinions which they had concerning the Truths of the Gospel Thus Dr. O. understands the Text whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expressed but as far as I can apprehend his meaning he makes this to be the Apostles viz. I. That although the best Christians in this life cannot attain to a full measure and perfection in the comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel or the enjoyment of the things contained in them yet they ought to be pressing continually after it II. That in the common pursuit of this design it is not to be supposed but the Men will come to different attainments have different measures of light and knowledge yea and different conceptions or opinions about these things III. That in this difference of opinions those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other as far as they had attained they should walk by the same Rule namely which he had now laid down and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them From whence he infers That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with Schism who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel do yet dissent from others in some things that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded And again he saith The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties is that whereunto they have attained wherein they do agree which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things that is forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ which saith he is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists For the clearing of this matter there are Three things to be debated 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or different practises 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual forbearance 3. How far the Apostles Rule hath an influence on our present case First Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or of different practises For the right understanding of this we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution
Commonâ—ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments nor to Separate from others as meaner and lower Christians because they are not come up to that perfection which you have attained to And so either way it contains an excellent Rule and of admirable use to the Christian Church not only at that time but in all Ages of the World viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things should go as far as they can towards preserving Peace and Communion among Christians and not peevishly separate and divide the Church because they cannot in all things think as others do nor others on the account of greater sanctity and perfection despise the inferior sort of Christians and forsake their Communion but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace and the Vnity of the Church Thirdly How far this Rule hath an influence on our case 1. It follows from hence that as far as Communion is lawful it is a duty since as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule And so much Dr. O. doth not deny when he saith Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion or in the Principles of Faith and Obedience should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ Then as far as they agree they are bound to joyn together whether it be as to Opinion or Communion Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion as far as that is judged to be lawful 2. That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others though of lower attainments and to keep within the same Rule which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judged necessary to hold the Members of a Christian Society together But saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it This is the Apostles Rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down quietly and wait for farther instruction and not to break the Peace of the Church upon present dissatisfaction nor to gather new Churches out of others upon supposition of higher attainments If the Rule reach our Case saith he again it must be such as requires things to be observed as were never divinely appointed as National Churches Ceremonies and Modes of Worship And so this Rule doth in order to Peace require the observation of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority provided they be not unlawful in themselves nor repugnant to the World of God But the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies Feasts Fasts Liturgies c. What then It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace And without this no Vnity or Order can be preserved in Churches The Apostles saith he gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule viz. of mutual forbearance Rome 14. And herein the Apostle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence but as a Teacher divinely inspired That he was Divinely inspired I do not question but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances which resolution may not always bind when the circumstances are changed For then the meaning of the Apostle must be that whatever differences happen among Christians there must be no determination either way But the direct contrary to this we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem upon the difference that happened in the Christian Churches And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way yet the Apostles made a determination in the case contrary to their Judgment Which shews that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alledged both wayes is no standing Rule to the Christian Church but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Welfare of that Church which they are bound to preserve And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers whereas it is most evident that the true Apostles made this peremptory Decree in a matter of great consequence and against the pretence of Conscience on the other side But saith Dr. O. further The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty provided they did not impose on others and the Dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile Churches did viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed upon them I Answer 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty out of respect to the Law of Moses and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church which might have been extremely hazarded if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters For 1. They were none of their lawful Governors but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them 2. They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation and not as meerly indifferent things And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians as to the Impositions of the false Apostles Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text. The Author of the Letter saith 1. That I ought to have proved that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures and 2. That other Church-Guides had the same Power as the Apostles had But what need all this If it appear 1. That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scriptures as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule for omitting some Divine Rules or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government 2. That it is a standing Rule of Scripture that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church And this I have shewed was the Apostles design in the words of this Text. Sect. 20. Others pretend that the Apostle means no more by these words but that Christians must live up to their knowledge and mind that one thing This is a very new Exposition and the Author of it intends
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
Worship of Images Invocation of Saints c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not depend on any such Ceremonies as ours are nor on the want of Discipline nor on the bare Dissatisfaction of Conscience but on such great and important Reasons as obtruding new Articles of Faith and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Communion of the Roman Church Amyraldus goes so far as to say That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in its communion For saith he a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions if he be otherwise faithful and skilful But if he mixes Poison with his Medicines and besides adds abundance of Prescriptions both needless and chargeable then the Patient hath great reason to look out for better help and to take care of his own safety and freedom By which he plainly declares that bare Ceremonies although many more than ours are no sufficient Ground for Separation Of late years a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation charging it with Schism because of the Separation from the Roman Church which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines M. Claude M. Pajon and M. Turretin But Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Doctrine is sound the constant use of Liturgy bare neglect of Discipline c. No they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these which they knew could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men if they could have alledged no more Substantial Reasons than these But they all agree in such common reasons which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justifiable viz. Great corruption in Doctrine Idolatrous Worship and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith No slight errors no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine not any corruption of Manners nor defect in Government or Discipline are sufficient grounds for Separation In one word saith he the Patient is not to be forsaken unless his Disease be deadly and infectious nor then neither but with great difficulty Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists goes upon these 3 grounds 1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent and without Anathematizing all those who have opposed them For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith 2. That the Publick Worship practised and allowed in that Church is Idolatrous he instanceth in Adoration of the Host the Worship of Saints and Images 3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpations of the Pope Let our Brethren now consider what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them but only that we could not have our Children Baptized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross nor receive the Communion without kneeling that we must observe Holy-days and use a Liturgy and that Men are not so good as they should be nor Discipline so exact as were to be wished How should we be hissed and laughed at all over the Christian World if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church but such things as these And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allegations they are harden'd in their own ways and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these by which unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation Sect. 24. 2. This Pretence of Separation would make Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are For the Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies and Vnscriptural Impositions as they are called than our Church hath They use the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Communion and the observation of Holy-days and times of Fasting and Set-Forms of Prayer c. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most reformed Churches by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad and at home I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love as Dr. O. speaks but to joyn together so as to make the same Bodies of Churches A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared that there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own opinions or Practices Which shews that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation for then they would not have admitted them as Members of the Lutheran Churches but have told them they ought to forsake their Communion and embrace that of the Reformed Churches Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines who have projected or perswaded an Vnion with the Lutheran Churches and others and see if any of them make the particulars mention'd any cause of Separation from them The Helvetian Churches declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger Myconius and Grynaeus and subscribed afterwards by all their Ministers and by those of Geneva and other places And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things yet say they because of our consent in Doctrine these things cause no Breach in our Churches And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremonies used in the Lutheran Churches except those of the Mass and Images in Churches At Sendomir in Poland A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian Auspurg Bohemian Confessions came to a full agreement so as to make up one Body notwithstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them which they say ought not to break the Communion of Churches as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine and the same foundation of Faith and Salvation and for this they appeal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions The Auspurg Confession declares That agreement in Doctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Churches Vnity then Separation cannot be lawful meerly on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditions And the Confession of Strasburg saith
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 otherwise if they agree with Scripture and be appointed for good ends although they be not expresly mention'd in Scripture they are rather to be looked on as Divine than Human and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself nay they say though the Laws seem very hard and unjust a true Christian will not stick at obeying them if they command nothing that is wicked Ioh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremonies The First Commanded The Second Forbidden The Third neither Commanded nor Forbidden The Vnity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First and yet for every omission the Communion of the Church is not to be broken The Second breaks the Churches Vnity yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men but for the Third Men ought not to break the Vnity of the Church And in another place he gives particular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches the Exorcism in Baptism the Linnen Garments and Wax Candles the Holy-days and Confession c. and declares That we ought not to break off communion with Churches or make a Schism for these things Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of indifferent ceremonies and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches Amyraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Lutheran Churches saith That those which came in use after the Apostolick times have no other obligation on us than that for the sake of indifferent things though at first appointed out of no necessity nay though there be inconveniency in them yet the Churches Peace ought not to be disturbed And he very well observes That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so or at least are tolerable if it be false then they are troublesome and not to be born if it be impure and lead to Idolatry then the ceremonies are tainted with the Poyson of it But saith he the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches as their occasions serve and so do others And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine not only congratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland but Pray'd for the same in Germany too as Bishop Davenant tells us who proves at large that there is no sufficient Reason to hinder it which he makes to lie only in three things I. Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences II. The Practise of Idolatry III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear And now I desire our Brethren who justifie their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful to reflect upon these things Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad which have harder Terms of communion than we What would they think of the Exorcism of Infants of Auricular Confession of Images in Churches and some other things besides what are observed among us Do we want Discipline Do they not in other Churches abroad The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Vnion of Protestant Churches declared That little or none was observed among them Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Vnion with them For What Vnion can be justifiable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful They may pity them and pray for them and wish for their Reformation but an Vnion doth suppose such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may communicate in another Do they allow this to the Lutheran Churches If not then they render Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible because unlawful If they do will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to our own Church Can they think Separation necessary from our Church on those grounds which are common to us with other Protestant Churches and yet think Vnion desirable and possible with them notwithstanding Do they think that 〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Lutheran Churches although they have the Cross in Baptism Kâ—eâ—â—g at the Communion the Surpless and other Ceremonies which we have not and yet Is it necessary to Sâ—parate from our Churches Communion on the account of such things as these where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion Either therefore they must differ from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and the most emineâ—â— Protestant Divines abroad or they must renounce this Principle of Separation Sect. 25. 3. This will justifie the ancient Schisms which have been always condemn'd in the Christian Church For setting aside the Ceremonies of which already and the use of the Liturgy and Holy-days which is common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an Vniversal consent in all parts of the Christian World the other Reasons for Separation are such which will justifie the greatest Schismaticks that ever were in the Christian Church viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and due means of Edification and depriving the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel in providing for their own Edification For What gave occasion to the Novatian Schism which began so soon and spread so far and continued so long but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and better means of Edification and humoring the People in the choice of their own Pastors There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on as to Evangelical Discipline 1. The Power of the Keys 2. The Purity of the Church 1. As to the Power of the Keys they said That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church but under certain restrictions which if Men exceeded the Church had no Power to release them and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men when Men fell in time of Persecution 2. The Churches Purity ought to be preserved by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being receiv'd into communion again They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance but they said the Church could not And this they pleaded would tend very much to the Edification of Christians and would make them more watchful over
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
he hopes it will not be made a Rule that Communion may not be withheld so the sense must be although not be left out or withdrawn from any Church in any thing so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed But as long as he grants that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them 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 Errour in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some tyranny over the Consciences of men which may not be such as to destroy true Baptism and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter 2. He answers That they do not say that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ hath instituted that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them it is the duty of them who doe so to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation To which I reply that This is either not to the business or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency For wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our Church was required of them But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches And then I intreat him to tell me what difference there is between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches Is not this the primary reason of Separation because Christ hath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church which we are bound to observe and which are not observed in Parochial Churches Indeed the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution but the primary ground is that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed Let us then 1. suppose that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation so qualified and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church and choose their Officers who are to Teach and Admonish and Administer Sacraments and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation And let us 2. suppose such a Church not yet gathered but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes 3. Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church 4. Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members neither the aëreal sign of the Cross nor kneeling at the Communion c. I desire then to know whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church according to Christ's Institution Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules and the Institution of Christ or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church which is the true Cause of their separation but such Reasons as are common to all Churches that are not formed just after their own model If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches those must be observed and separation made in order to it and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way But this was a necessary piece of art at this time to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party and to make them believe if they can be so forgetfull that they do not own separation from their Churches but onely from ours the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days that they must be forgetfull indeed who do not remember it Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments Hath Dr. O. yielded that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon they would give over separation Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration would they not have continued their Separation Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation when it is notoriously otherwise and they did separate and form their Churches upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches This is more artificial than ingenuous Sect. 2. As to the Second Dr. O. answers that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact and so necessary from the nature of the thing that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations that many wise men wholly unconcerned in our Controversies do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute And for this two Testimonies are alleged of Iustice Hobart and Father Paul but neither of them speaks to the point All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles and after to other Pastours Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin it signifies so very little to the purpose or rather quite overthrows his Hypothesis as appears by these two Arguments 1. Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles which he calls voluntary Congregations 2. Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease were no particular Congregations in one City but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks were such for he saith they first
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
then there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was concerning which these things may be observed 1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessours in Prison which he would have them to doe by turns every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage he gives this reason of it that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men it being now impaired by the fall of some during the persecution In the case of Philumanus Fortunatus and Favorinus he declares he would give no judgment cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint when many of his Clergy were absent And in another Epistle he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage and then he mentions Britius Rogatianus and Numidicus as the chief Presbyters remaining with them besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City And in Constantinople of old saith Iustinian in his Novels were 60 Presbyters for in one he saith The custom was to determin the number and in another that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople Let any one now consider whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations and at Carthage we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians that in the time of Persecution although very many stood firm yet the number of the lapsed was so great that Saint Cyprian saith Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation 2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command nor their own Place nor the future Iudgment of God nor the Bishop who was set over them and had done that which was never done in foregoing times to challenge those things to themselves with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy Wherein he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle saying that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion he complains of these Presbyters that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui Cathedrae reservare reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place and therefore charges that nothing further be done in this matter till his return when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen Lucian returns him answer that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and upon such Discipline as he should impose they were to be received to Communion So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessours they return him answer that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop as an argument of their great modesty and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them and they declare their resolution to doe nothing in this matter till they had a new Bishop By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People to appoint and ordain their own Officers Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers the same he doth soon after concerning Celerinus and Numidicus When he could not go among them himself by reason of the persecution he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters to visit in his name and to take care of the poor and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy Who give an account in the next Epistle that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation 3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People but from the Institution of Christ. So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter Thou art Peter c. And
whatsoever you shall bind c. From whence saith he by a constant succession of times such a course hath been always observed in the Church that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct Since this saith he is a Divine Institution I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me concerning the lapsed since the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the standing People In his Epistle to Antonianus he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world and in that to Cornelius that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus and to Pupianus where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop and to Stephanus that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course Let the Reader now judge whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church But we have this advantage from this appeal that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgment any one may see when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church but what was generally observed over the Christian world And now let Dr. O. give an account how a change so great so sudden so universal should happen in the Christian world in the Government of the Church that when Christ had placed the Power in the People the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs without any controul from the People which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear that the Power was at first lodged in them and not in the People For as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History and that over all the world and in a way of ambition in such humbling times without all manner of opposition for 300 years together and immediately after the Apostles had it been usurpation or innovation When and where is innovation without opposition Would not Elders so many seeing and knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed Aërius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable The force of which reasoning will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease Sect. 5. 2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture The matter of fact is that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture yet saith he there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way The thing I desired was that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations they would prove that they did make new and distinct Churches and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province Who ever denied or disputed that On the contrary the proof of this is a great advantage to our Cause for since where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province it speaks of them as of different Churches but when it mentions the Christians of one City it calls them the Church of that City as the Church of Ierusalem the Church of Ephesus but the Churches of Iudea Galilee and Samaria what can be more evident than that the Christians of one City though never so numerous made but one Church If one observe the language of the New Testament one may find this observation not once to fail that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number they are the Churches of a Province as the Churches of Iudea the Churches of Asia the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of it is still câ—lled the Church of that City as the Church at Antioch the Church at Corinth and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together they are the 7 Churches but when spoken to single it is the Church of Ephesus the Church of Smyrna c. Which being spoken without any discrimination as to the difference of these places in greatness and capacity or the number of Believers in them doth evidently discover that what number soever they were they were all but the Church of that City For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus Sardis Pergamus and Laodicea which were great and populous Cities than in Thyatira and Philadelphia which were much less especially considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephesâ—s and the mighty success which he had in preaching there which will amount to no great matter if in three years time he converted no more than made up one single Congregation And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power and prevalency of the Gospel I cannot but wonder what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province as Galatia and Macedonia he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations who denies that but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City though never so great made but one Church and uncontroulable evidence from Antiquity that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City All that he saith further to this matter is that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves because in every one of them Elders were ordained Act.
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
species of Churches without God's Authority 3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches 1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church This I begin with because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others for in Saint Cyprian 's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world and that the Bishops there were the most godly faithfull peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times And of the following times he thus speaks Most of the African Councils saith he were the best in all the world Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils no Bishops being faithfuller than they Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised I shall lay down these two Observations Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them That there was to be but one Bishop in a City though the City were never so large or the Christians never so many This one Observation made good quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis For upon his principles where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence as he speaks there either they must alter the instituted species of Government or they must have more Bishops than one in a City For he saith the Church must be no bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach and have Conversation with But that this was not so understood in the African Churches appears by their strict observance of this Rule of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it will appear by this one Instance That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City and that was the Schism of the Donatists upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome had it not been fair to have divided them or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share But instead of this how doth Saint Cyprian even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian as Saint Augustin calls him aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City where there was one chosen before His words are so considerable to our purpose that I shall set them down Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already who ought to be alone he is not another Bishop but none at all Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can What! in such a City of Christians as Rome then was where were 46 Presbyters to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times and I am apt to think knew as well the Constitution of Churches then thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius and there tells him how far they had proceeded and what mischief this would be to the Church since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms After the election of Cornelius some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party and were received back again at a solemn Assembly where they confessed their fault and declared That they were not ignorant that as there was but one God and one Christ and one Holy Ghost so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius who would have it understood of one Pope but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church there ought to be but one Bishop in a City After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was that was chosen in his place And the necessity of this Vnity he insists on elsewhere and saith Our Saviour so appointed it unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy saying all the Apostles were equal and a little after Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that these holy men these Martyrs and Confessors men that were indeed dying daily and that for Christ too were all agreed that a Bishop there must be and that but one in a City though never so large and full of Christians Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus with this Proviso that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop and the other to have another People provided for him For which Saint Augustin commends him as an excellent man a true Son of Peace and Father of Christian People By which we see the best the wisest the most moderate Persons of that time never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Rule on both sides was but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese and if there had been any new made to increase
their number as it was objected on both sides if it were proved they were not to be allowed for generally then every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties but in some places they had but one where the People were of one mind and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa both Parties striving to increase their Numbers Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places Carthage was a very large City and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time as I have already shewed And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major Restituta in which the Bishops always sate as Victor Vitensis saith there were several other considerable Churches in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage as the Basilica Fausti the Basilica Leontiana the Basilica Celerinae mentioned by Victor likewise who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum The Basilica Novarum The Basilica Petri. The Basilica Pauli And I do not question there were many others which I have not observed for Victor saith that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop maximam turbam Clericorum a very great multitude of Clergy all which he immediately banished And without the City there were two great Churches saith Victor one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom and the other where his body was buried at a place called Mappalia In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage taking in those who were trained up to it And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion as he calls it in one Church and at one Altar Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop and so setting up one Altar against another was setting up one Bishop against another as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate and so there were as many Altars as Churches So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist that in the City where he was Bishop the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence that not onely the Oblations were made there and the Communion received but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin which I have mentioned elsewhere but from Optatus who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers for saith he illà c ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove In the African Code there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside which evidently proves that there were not onely more places but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks as they often did the African Council decrees that after the decease of such a Bishop if the People had no mind to have another in his room they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop Which shews that they thought the Dioceses might be so large as to hold the People that were under two Bishops And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops In one it was determined that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them without limitation of distance after that that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before but if the Donatist Bishop were converted then the Diocese was to be divided between them If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese he that did take the pains in it was to have those places laid to his Diocese unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop that he was not to blame Let Mr. Baxter now judge whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes as he confidently affirms Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government and he tells this particular story of it that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there the man did accordingly and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman President to complain of their insolence and to crave his assistance which he saith he did lest he should be blamed for his negligence who was the Bishop of that Diocese And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena and he saith he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will to be better instructed as being under his care but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away himself upon which he writes a long Epistle to him In another Epistle he gives an account that there was a place called Fussala which with the Country about it belonged to the Diocese of Hippo where there was abundance of People but almost all Donatists but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them those places were all reduced but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo he took care to have a Bishop placed among them but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop he was fain to resume it as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala which he mentions afterwards However it appears that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint
and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him And it is no hard matter to guess what answer Saint Augustin would have given him But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches Quidam de Episcopis in Provinciâ nostrâ saith Saint Cyprian and yet he speaks of his Predecessours times which shews the very ancient extent of that Province In provinciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates saith he again which shews that more Cities than Carthage were under his care Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra in his Epistle to Cornelius In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration Victor mentions one Crescens who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onely in these parts of Africa let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points but had some for the right Constitution of Churches and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him It is observed by Epiphanius that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches especially those in Maraeotis of which Athanasius himself gives the best account Maraeotis saith he is a Region belonging to Alexandria which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself whence we observe 1. That here were true Parochial Churches for so Athanasius calls them Churches and not bare Oratories 2. That these had Presbyters fixed among them who performed divine Offices there 3. That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belonged to him 4. That these were at that distance that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy So in Alexandria it self there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them as Epiphanius several times observes and it would be a very strange thing indeed if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop But Mr. Baxter's great argument is from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity whence he concludes that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly Whereas all that Athanasius saith amounts to no more than this that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches the People grew impatient and so at last he yielded to them But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present and that this Church would hold them all If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion and finding themselves too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London Athanasius saith not a word more than that it was Easter and there appeared a great number of People such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City Doth he say or intimate that all the Christians of the City were present that none of them went to the lesser Churches or were absent though the Croud was so great Doth he not say the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them But the argument is of greater force in this respect that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church But to serve this hypothesis Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great City and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exceeding great City so great that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past mens comprehension and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great persecution when he was banished he kept up the Assemblies in the City and at Cephro he had a large Church partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him and partly from other places and when he was removed thence to Colluthion which was nearer the City such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him that they were forced to have distinct Congregations so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie and so Athanasius useth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Christians meeting in several Congregations If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before under the sharpest persecution is it possible to imagin in so great a City after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation There is no hopes of convincing men that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities I shall onely add one Instance more from Antiquity which is plain enough of it self to shew the
great extent of Diocesan Power then and that is of Theodoret a great and learned Bishop and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches for so many Parishes saith he are in my Diocese which he had then enjoyed twenty six years Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret And yet these Parishes did not change their species for he saith they were Churches still This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle But without any considerable ground unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis For what if Theodoret ' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy Is that a sufficient argument to reject them unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles with the History of those times or with his other Writings Which are the Rules Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death And it is supposed that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him which was the occasion of writing it his other Epistles are so full of it that Mr. B. never read the rest if he calls this into question upon that account That Hypatius Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost which Nicephorus saw doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit But he is much mistaken if he thinks there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples which he compared with the Vatican and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret ' s name Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie to be spurious What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret ' s Works I do not well understand unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them But there are two things he objects which seem more material 1. That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time 2. That he proves from other places in Theodoret that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches 1. As to the first certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove that one such City as Cyrus then was had 800 Churches in it But by Cyrus Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus as will afterwards appear If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy Strabo and Pliny then there would not appear the least improbability in it since many considerable Cities were within it as Beroea now Aleppo and Hierapolis and extended as far as Euphrates Zeugma being comprehended under it The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others in that Province there was a Metropolitan who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus or Cyrrhus But notwithstanding I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province but of his own peculiar Diocese for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City which was under Theodoret's care within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order as he complains in several Epistles and there it is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regio Cyrrhestica and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius where he saith it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth And he saith in another Epistle that Christianity was then so much spread among them that not onely the Cities but the Villages the Fields and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown In his Epistle to Nomus he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion another with the Eunomian another with the Arian Heresie which were all converted by his care and in another place he saith he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion ' s Doctrine in his Diocese and the great pains he took to root it out and the success he had therein And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives as Tillima Targala Nimuza Teleda Telanissus which are sufficient to shew that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches his Diocese being forty miles in length and as many in breadth So that Mr. B. must reject not onley that Epistle to Leo but the rest too and his other Works if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy which is too hard a task to be undertaken without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought 2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses which all men know to have been very different but about the extent of Episcopal Power whether it were limited to one Parochial Church or was extended over many And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this I extreamly failed of my expectation as to the other places of Theodoret which he promised to produce For I find five or six places
cited out of his History but not one that comes near any proof of this matter The 1. proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia where there were no Christians Therefore in Theodoret's time there was no Diocesan Episcopacy The 2. shews that in a small City of Thebais Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished and there were but a few Christians yet there was a Bishop Who ever denied this where there was a prospect of converting more as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased new Bishops were made which this is very far from The 3. proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force without any Synod of Bishops or Choice of the Clergy or Request of the People I suppose by this time Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church which I am sure he had not from Theodoret nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria The 4. is intended to prove that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly which met onely in one place at once But it is very unhappy that Theodoret shews just the contrary in that place for he saith that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his very words to whom he saith Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church Which Mr. B. thus translates Valens found the Orthodox even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them of which he dispossessed them I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret and I dare say he will see cause to admire it But if any one can imagin that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation for my part I must give him over as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to but of what it was in its settled state The 5. is from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers I am ashamed to reade much more to confute such arguments as these For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation The 6. proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism It is true Theodoret saith Doliche was a little City and so he tells us Cyrus was no great one but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese which for any thing we see in Theodoret might be as large as we have evidently proved from him the Diocese of Cyrrhus was Let the Reader now judge whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches viz. for personal Communion and men make another is not this a violation of Christ's Command and setting up Man against God I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation and therefore the extending it to more can be no violation of Christ's Command or setting up a new species of Churches as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meekness towards his Adversaries charges me for speaking against this principle of his with pleading for presumption profanation usurpation uncharitableness schism what not What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness Why I set down a saying of his as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed That is not to the business for that which I quoted it for was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mens devising and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable and that the imposing it as Divine is an intolerable usurpation and all this at the same time when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord My business is now to shew Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this I need no more than one of Mr. B. ' s own Cautions in his Premonition viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops as he calls them over Parochial Bishops as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace There are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter ' s Arguments to prove that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office was settled for all following Ages 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form but we never reade of any abolition discharge or cessation of the Institution 〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of mutability as settling one form of Government for one Age onely and no longer 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastours Sacraments c. and to say they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with to the end of the world Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave Successours in the care and Government of Churches have a great deal of weight in them and overballance the difficulties on the other side As upon this occasion I think fit to declare From whence I argue thus That which is onely a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing
committed to the Presbyters Preaching and Administration of Sacraments required of them and the exercise of Discipline as far as belongs to them of which afterwards but now in the Consecration of a Bishop this part is left out and instead of that it is said That he is called to the Government of the Church and he is required to correct and punish such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous in his Diocese So that the more particular charge of Souls is committed to every Pastour over his own Flock and the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop as that which especially belongs to his Office as distinct from the other Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be considered viz. What Authority the Bishop hath by virtue of his Consecration in this Church And that I say is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority which lies in three things Government Ordination and Censures And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office I shall make appear by these things 1. In the Preface before the Book of Ordination it is said That it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authours that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons What is the reason that they express it thus from the Apostles time rather than in the Apostles times but that they believed while the Apostles lived they managed the affairs of Government themselves but as they withdrew they did in some Churches sooner and in some later as their own continuance the condition of the Churches and the qualification of Persons were commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto Of which we have an uncontroulable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist and all their removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few But as they went off so they came to be settled in their several Churches And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the different Testimonies of Antiquity For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Saint Cyprian and others are so plain hereby room is left to make good all that Saint Ierom hath said and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at first So that we may allow for the Community of names between Bishop and Presbyter for a while in the Church i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves but afterwards that which was then part of the Apostolical Office became the Episcopal which hath continued from that time to this by a constant succession in the Church 2. Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church As for this part of the Apostles function saith he to visit such Churches as were before planted and to provide that such were placed in them as were vertuous and godly Pastours I know it remaineth still and is one of the chief parts of the Bishops function And again there is now no planting of Churches nor going through the whole world there is no writing of new Gospels no prophesying of things to come but there is Governing of Churches visiting of them reforming of Pastours and directing of them which is a portion of the Apostolical function Again Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is ceased yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City by moderating and Governing them by visiting the Churches by cutting off schisms and contentions by ordering Ministers remaineth still and shall continue and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops as most meet men to execute the same Bishop Bilson fully agrees as to these particulars 1. That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands 2. That upon experience of the confusion and disorder which did arise through equality of Pastours did appoint at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops 3. That these Bishops did succeed the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches as he proves at large and therefore he calls their function Apostolick Instead of many others which it were easie to produce I shall onely add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason In his third Paper to Henderson he hath these words Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be always so it is in the Apostles times now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour In his first Paper at the Treaty at Newport he thus states the case about Episcopal Government I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God and of an Apostolical Institution as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successours therein as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines he saith that meer Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis onely they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching Administration of Sacraments publick Prayer Exhorting Rebuking c. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis Pastorum too having the oversight of Flock and Pastours within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government And that although the Apostles had no Successours in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraordinary in them as namely the Measure of their Gifts the extent of their charge the infallibility of their Doctrine and the having seen Christ in the flesh but in those things that were not extraordinary and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times as the Office of Teaching and the Power of Governing are they were to have and had Successours and therefore the learned and godly Fathers
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
26 Canon which saith that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which he mentions as an abortive thing published by Iohn Fox which last any one that hath seen them knows to be a mistake nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt yet not so destroyed but with some diligence he might have seen it but it was for nothing of this kind that Book underwent so severe a censure as Mr. B. insinuates but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons which I think are plain in this case But Mr. B. saith this is not the lesser excommunication but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth this is certain the Minister is impowred is required to doe this the question then is whether this be not such a Censure of the Church as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister I grant this is not the lesser excommunication according to the Vse of this Church for that supposeth the sentence passed and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person upon extraordinary occasions But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication as appears by several passages in S. Augustin produced by Spalatensis to this purpose viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament Which is very true of the greater Excommunication but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders whereby they were suspended from full Communion but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given These were said to be in the state of Penitents It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion others onely on their death-beds others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance of which those were left to be Iudges who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of Church-communion but he saith the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull being still Candidates as he calls them so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion but not wholly cast out of the Church because the Christians might as freely converse with these as with any but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries But there was no question wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion there was a Power of Discipline because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged but in so governing the Members of the Church that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion it is thereby evident that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him I answer 1. What need this publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself is not this sufficient I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion he advised them to withdraw themselves from it till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences and then they might come to it Here is no publick Admonition by name and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders and yet the Church be a true Church and Christians obliged to communicate with it as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion But my design is onely to speak to this case so far as the Church is concerned in it Sect. 16. If it be said that notwithstanding this the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed I answer 1. That is not our question but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny And what other abuses have crept in ought in an orderly way to be reformed and no good man will deny his assistance in it 2. It is far easier to separate or complain for want of Discipline than to find out a due way to restore it No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it than Mr. Baxter hath done especially in that it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least 3. The case of our Churches now is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times For the great Reason of Discipline is not that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled for to assert that were Donatism but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
preach notwithstanding the Laws can excuse them from Separation for this lies at the bottom of all 1. As to the Original inherent Right and Power of the People Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way he quotes a saying of F. Paul out of a Book of his lately translated into English that in the beginning the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person For was there not a Church to be formed in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end Where was the Church power then lodged Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed Were not then the several Pastours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them And if they had such Power and Authority over the People how came their Power to be derived from them as it must be if the Church Government then were Democratical Besides Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers and convey the Power of the Keys to them which never were in their hands And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons no more is required as to the People than barely their Testimony therefore it is said they must be blameless and men of good report But where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys must meet together and choose their Pastour and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves to them If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury for they have said no more of their Power in the Church than they have done of the Pope's It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle but were not the Women so too And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too Suppose not doth this prove that the Churches Power was then Democratical then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power which I do not think any man would say much less F. Paul As to the election of Deacons it was no properly Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock and was there not then all the reason in the world the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith he gave an account of it to all the Church And what then Must he therefore derive his power from it Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds But here is not all the Church mentioned onely those of the Circumcision at Ierusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert And what is this to the power of the Church But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders Apostles Priests and faithfull Brethren I grant it but is it not expresly said that the Question was sent up from the Churches to the Apostles and Presbyters Is it not said that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it and that the multitude was silent Is it not said that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters without any mention of the People And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power but in the other place it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made In success of time it is added when the Church increased in number the faithfull retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families and having left those of the Congregation the Government was retained onely in the Ministers and so became Aristocratical saving the election which was Popular Which account is neither agreeable to Reason nor to Antiquity For was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times How came it to be changed from that to a Democratical Form Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches and charged the People to obey them And was this an argument the Power was then in the People It was not then the People's withdrawing of which there can be no evidence if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power in Antiquity but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity but yet not such as to fix any inherent or unalterable Right in the People As I shall make appear by these following observations 1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church 3. That to prevent these many Bishops were appointed without their choice and Canons made for the better regulating of them 4. That when there were Christian Magistrates they did interpose as they thought fit notwithstanding the popular claim in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State 5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons 6. That things being thus settled by established Laws there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws If I can make good these Observations I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded concerning the Right and Power of the People which my Adversaries build so much upon 1. That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How much rather of the Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith
Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom So it is said concerning Timothy himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's taking him into the Office of an Evangelist So in the choice of the Deacons the Apostles bid them find out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of good reputation among them And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose where he gives an account how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe Here it is plain that they were of the Apostles appointment and not of the Peoples choice and that their Authority could not be from them whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern and although their number was but small at first yet as they increased though into many Congregations they were still to be under the Government of those whom the Apostles appointed over them And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others and he brings the Instance of Moses when there was an emulation among the Tribes what method he took for putting an end to it by the blossoming of Aarons Rod which saith he Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel and thereby to bring Glory to God now saith he the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church which the sense shews to be his meaning therefore foreseeing these things perfectly they appointed the persons before mentioned and left the distribution of their Offices with this instruction that as some died other approved men should be chosen into their Office Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith well-pleased discharging their Office with humility quietness readiness and unblameableness being men of a long time of good report we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office It seems some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal not onely on themselves but the Christian Church which made Clemens write this Epistle to them wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves than to continue making such a disturbance in it and if they were good Christians they would do so and bring more glory to God by it than by all their heat and contentions Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain 1. That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People but appointed by the Apostles or other great Men according to their Order 2. That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church about those who should bear Office in it 3. That all that the People had to doe was to give Testimony or to express their approbation of those who were so appointed For he could not allow their power of choosing since he saith the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it And it seems very probable to me that this was one great reason of the faction among them viz. that those few Popular men in that Church who caused all the disturbance represented this as a great grievance to them that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others and not chosen by themselves For they had no objection against the Presbyters themselves being allowed to be men of unblameable lives yet a contention there was and that about casting them out and such a contention as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordainâ—d and therefore it is very â—ikely they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen But it seems the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church took 〈…〉 them leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained And this is plain even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis to which Mr. Baxter refers me For the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onely to this giving Testimony therefore saith he God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ in the Presence of the People for what reason that they might give them Power no that was never done under the Law nor then imagined when S. Cyprian wrote but he gives the account of it himself that by their presence either their faults might be published or their good acts commended that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all The People here had a share in the Election but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person And therefore he saith it was almost a general Custom among them and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice that when any People wanted a Bishop the neighbour Bishops met together in that place and the new Bishop was chosen plebe praesente the People being present not by the Votes of the People quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit which best understands every mans Conversation and this he saith was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus who was put into the place of Basilides Where he doth express the Consent of the People but he requires the Iudgment of the Bishops which being thus performed he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus For Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry and joyned blasphemy with it had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick and desired onely to be received to Lay-Communion upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf that he might be restored Sabinus finding this makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the Peoples Power and yet here we are to consider 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned 2. Another Bishop was put into his room not by the Power of the People but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops 3. They
Ages and at last among us the royal Power overthrowing the other reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parlaments the Consent of the People is swallowed up therein since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation For not onely the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage derived from his Ancestours before the freedom of elections was granted Which shews not onely the great Antiquity of this Right but the consent of the whole Nation to it And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said That the King did dispose of them jure suo Regio by his Royal Prerogative as his Ancestours had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People than here in England and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here As to the inferiour Right of Patronage it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters as in a College together a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Country Presbyters c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice In the time of the first Council of Orange A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches c. 10. viz. If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno. A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk And the same were settled in the Western Church as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage and the endowments of Churches till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented and to give institution to the Benefice The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX plead That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage from the first planting of Christianity here For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built and at whose cost and charges they were erected and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves And this Ioh. Sarisburiensis saith was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us And the onely Questions now remaining are whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their own Pastours and supposing that it might be done whether it be reasonable so to doe And I conclude that 6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections 1. because it was no unalterable Right but might be passed away and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations and 2. because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings but may be remedied by Laws far easier than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves which cannot be done in a divided Nation without throwing all into remediless confusion 3. Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence Beza declaims against it as a thing without any ground in Scripture or any right in Antiquity and subject to infinite disorders In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King and so are the Bishops in Denmark In other Lutheran Churches the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates and in these the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State which hath Power to depose them And it would be very strange if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onely be discovered here where it is as unfit to be practised as in any part of the Christian world But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter for when the objection is put by him That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power and therefore they now consent he saith this seemeth a Iest for he saith 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power 2. They never consented that Parlaments should do what they list and dispose of their Souls or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls 3. They may as well say that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting 5. The obligation on the People was Personal and they have not God's consent for the transmutation So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves and all Rights of Advowson in the King or Noblemen and Gentlemen or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations and things utterly unlawfull among Christians since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny that the freedom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them do lie within the Magistrates Power and so binding Laws may be made about them unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives And if these may be justly settled by Laws then the
he denies the Supposition viz. that there is any such agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship he denies the first consequence and as though that were not sufficient he denies the remoter consequence too And what Argument can stand before a man of such prowesse in disputing 1. He denies an Agreement in Doctrine which I have already shewed was allowed by all Dissenters before him from the days of R. Brown to Mr. A. But we must not mistake him for as fierce as he seems to be at first yet let him but have scope to shew some tricks of Wit and trials of his skill in fencing and he is as tame and yielding as you would wish him for at last he confesses they generally agree with the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles and but for meer shame he would have said all for I never heard of one before him made any scruple of it And this is the Doctrine established in this Church and if there be an Agreement in this then this Supposition is granted 2. As to substantial parts of Worship he denies an Agreement in this too although Dr. O. saith we are agreed in the substantial parts of Religion and I hope the parts of Worship are allowed to be some of them But he pretends not to know what we mean by the difference between the parts of Worship making some substantial and others circumstantial and then he offers to prove that our Church appoints new substantial parts of Worship and therefore he must know one from the other and after he hath spent some leaves in the proof of that at last he fairly concludes that there is a difference at least in a circumstantial part of Worship But because this is a weighty charge against our Church I shall take the more pains to consider it because the main objection against our Ceremonies lies under it and that which most sticks with the more sober Nonconformists Mr. A. 's charge about a substantial part of Worship being appointed by our Church is thus drawn up An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship Now this he chargeth our Church with but gives no instance but the sign of the Cross after baptism is that which he means which Mr. B. calls the transient dedicating Image of the Cross. For the clearing of this it will be necessary to shew 1. What we mean by a substantial part of Worship 2. How it appears that the sign of the Cross is made no substantial part of Worship by our Church 1. What we meanâ—â—y a substantial part of divine Worship For I have observed that the want of a clear and distinct notion of this hath been one of the greatest occasions of the Scruples of the most conscientious Non-conformists For being afraid of displeasing God by using any other parts of Worship than himself hath appointed and looking on our Ceremonies as real parts of divine Worship upon this reason they have thought themselves obliged in conscience at least to forbear the use of them The great principle they went upon was this that whatever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a real and substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was necessary to make a part of Worship their answer was that Divine Institution did not make that a part of Worship which was none but that to be a part of true Worship which otherwise would be a part of false Worship In the mean time they did not deny the lawfulness of the application of common circumstances to Acts of Religious Worship as Time and Place c. but the annexing any other Rites or Ceremonies to proper Acts of Religious Worship as the sign of the Cross to Baptism they supposed to be the making new substantial parts of Divine Worship and therefore forbidden by all those places of Scripture which imply the Scripture it self to be a perfect Rule of Worship This as far as I can gather is the strongest Plea of the Non-conformists side which I have represented with its full advantage because my design is if possible not so much to confute as to convince our Dissenting Brethren Let us then seriously consider this matter and if we can find out a plain discernible difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and mere accidental appendices this discovery may tend more to disentangle scrupulous minds than the multiplying of arguments to prove the lawfulness of our Ceremonies And that we may better understand where the difficulty lies these following things are agreed on both sides 1. That besides proper Acts of Worship there are some Circumstances which may be differently used without setting up new parts of Worship As for instance Adoration is a substantial and proper Act of Divine Worship but whether that Adoration be performed by prostration or by bowing or by kneeling is in it self indifferent and no man will say that he that makes his adoration kneeling makes another new part of Worship from what he doth who performs it standing or falling on his face And so if the Ancient Eastern Church did at certain times forbid kneeling in acts of Adoration this doth not prove that they differ'd in point of Adoration from the Western Church which requires kneeling in the same Offices of Divine Worship because they agreed in the act of Adoration but onely differ'd in the manner of expressing it 2. That Divine Institution makes those to be necessary parts of Worship which of themselves are not so As is plain in the Sacraments of the New Testament which of themselves are no necessary substantial parts of the worship of God but onely become so by being appointed by Christ. So under the Law many things meerly ritual and ceremonial in themselves yet by vertue of Divine appointment became substantial parts of Divine Worship 3. That for men to make new Parts of Divine Worship is unlawfull For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no fault and consequently that our Saviour without cause found fault with the Scribes and Pharisees for their Traditions 4. That there are many things which may be done in the Worship of God which are not forbidden to be done unless they be Parts of Divine Worship For if the supposed reason of their prohibition be their being made Parts of Divine Worship if it be made appear that they are not so then it follows they are not forbidden 5. That what is neither forbidden directly nor by consequence is lawfull and may be practised in the Worship of God For although Mr. A. quarrels with me for saying they require express Commands to make things lawfull in the Worship of God yet he allows that what is not required either directly or by consequence is unlawfull and by parity of Reason what
more agreeable to the sense of their Church and that the argument is of no force against it because it is so hard to be understood for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this Ioh. Baptista Gonet a late learned Thomist not onely contends earnestly for this opinion but saith The greater part of their Divines assert it and those of greatest reputation as Ruardus Tapper Vega Sayrus Ysambertus Suarez Valentia Bellarmin Reginaldus Moeratius Ripalda and many more And Conquetius he saith reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments as it is asserted by their Divines to the significancy of our Ceremonies 2. As to the Protestant Doctrines he represents that in very ambiguous terms for he saith That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally If it be their Doctrine that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all which he seems to yield and if he did not might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad as well as at home This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onely invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons There being not the least ground for it that I can discern and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds and have filled them with strange fears and scruples yea some who have conquer'd their prejudices as to other things have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way And yet after all Mr. B. declares That if it be a sin it is the Ministers and not the Person 's who offers the Child to be baptized and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it yet it can be no pretence for Separation Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church for allowing worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Iesus which he saith are made the Motive of Worship if not something else The lawfulness of these things so far as they are required by our Church I had formerly defended against the Papists and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used I had said that bowing at the name of Iesus was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell the Worship being not given to the Name but to Christ at the sound of his Name Why may not saith he an Image give warning to the Eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear I will tell him since he needs it because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant But such men do too much discover whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs but the Question is whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated Motive to Worship When I read this I began to pity the man being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans he had some reason to have answered him but I have none But he brings it home to us for saith he If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship then how shall we excuse our own adorations What doth the man mean I am yet afraid all things are not right somewhere We acknowledge no adorations but what are due to the Divine Majesty and do these need to be excused And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images against our worshipping of God Let him first prove that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty before we shall go about to excuse our adorations But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship whoever said they did not I am sure not our Church But let this pass what follows then saith he why do we not introduce Images into our Churches Ask Mr. B. that Question and not us of the Church of England If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull this were a pertinent Question but since we deny it what makes all this against us which if our Church-men shall venture upon I pray stay till they do before you charge us with it Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate But he saith they may doe it with equal reason Here is something now fit to be proved We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body or to Iesus at the mention of his name Hold now to this and prove it Instead of that he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell and bowing at the name of Iesus viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship when mens minds should be intent on devotion and not sit listening and watching as Whittington ' s Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you viz. what he hath laboured for all this while for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God which no body contends for that I know of but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons or the Creed and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly and although it be said or otherwise in the Church pronounced yet by the manner
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience 2. If no error will excuse from sin why is the Question afterwards put by me What error will excuse I answer 1. it is an exercise of patience to be troubled with a cavilling adversary 2. Do not I say as plainly as words can express it that a wilful error doth not excuse from sin And the question afterwards put concerns the same thing and the Answer I give to it is if the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse but if it be wilful it doth not Is this mans conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute 3. He saith I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation What Sophisters arguments are these As though we did not commonly speak of the thing as it is and not as the Person apprehends it S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution although he did not think it so when he did it The Iews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles which was wilful murder and yet they were men in their wits The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing it self for I was not so foolish to put the case concerning men who thought themselves bound to commit a sin knowing it to be a sin 2. He much questions whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church it is sufficient to my purpose And did not the false Apostles do so and have not others followed their examples And thus after other trifling Cavils to the same purpose after his manner he yields all that I say and saith It is freely granted by all the world that wilful Error doth not excuse from sin And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common doctrine of all Casuists only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand Why so was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule And was it not very pertinent to this to shew how far an erroneous conscience may or may not excuse from sin But Mr. A. saith it should have been about the Power of Conscience concerning an established Rule of mans making and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make Is not this indeed to the purpose First to suppose an unlawful rule imposed and then to enquire what conscience is to do about it My business was to shew that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfie themselves with this that they followed their consciences because their consciences might err and if that Error happened to be wilful being contracted for want of due care what they did might not only be sinful in it self but imputed to them as sins Which all men who pretended any regard to conscience ought to have an eye to for why do they pretend conscience but to â—void sin And if under a wilful error of 〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins as the Ieâ—â— and S. Paul were then men ought not to satisfie theâ—selves barely with this pretence that they do as 〈…〉 direct them This was the plain 〈◊〉 of that â—art of my Sermon and I leave any 〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent But he saith 〈…〉 if they be such are wholl◠〈…〉 invincible Ignorance If 〈…〉 better for them I hope they have 〈…〉 in their own breasts for it than what appears in some of their late Books for neither a peevish angry scornful provoking way of writing about these matters nor a light scurrilous cavilling Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse are any great signs of such an impartial endeavour after satisfaction as Mr. A. boasts of I cannot tell how much they have read the Scriptures and studied this Controversie nor how earnestly they have pray'd for direction but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates which give me no great satisfaction in this matter But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge being very willing to hope and believe the best To return to the Author of the Letter The main force of what he saith lies in this that those who cannot conquer their scruples as to communion with our Church must either return to the State of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers This is new doctrine and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church although there were some things they scrupled and could not conquer those scruples And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us and much more living under some of our Ministers I never heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately and it hath been considered already And it is a very hard case with a Church if People must fly into Separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church I would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others their Separation be lawful If it be it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent for this Principle overthrows them all I will instance particularly in the last as most favourable to such kind of Liberty And I need not suppose a case since such hath already happened several times in New England R. Williams is one remarkable Instance who scrupled many things in their Churches and therefore could joyn no longer with them and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them and the People who scrupled as well as he chose him for their Pastor What is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present separation But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause so far from it that R. Williams published grievous complaints to the world of the persecution he underwent for it Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton an eminent Minister of New England viz. of a Church that
separated from a Church on the account of their Preachers having human learning and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them their answer was That is your judgement and this is ours i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples and therefore must persist in separation or return to Paganism Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth withdraws from their Communion and sets up another Assembly in the Town and upon his obstinate continuance therein was solemnly excommunicated by them And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to time will discover I would only know whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod should proceed to Separation whether this Separation be justifiable or not This is certain that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles and say their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees and if they proceed those Churches may be broken in pieces by these principles of Separation As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countreys most of them were by new Scruples which the People could not conquer for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members and carried away many of them And so they had done in New England and dissolved those Churches before this time if this principle had been allowed there viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples they may proceed to Separation No they tell them they must preserve the Peace of their Churches and if they cannot be quiet among them the world is wide enough for them So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians This I only mention to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their Scruples And upon the same ground not only Anabaptists and Quakers but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations For I suppose this Gentleman will not deny but they may have Scruples too many Scruples and of long standing and among great numbers and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them And by that time all these have set up among us shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation have taken any care to put any stop to it or to let us know where we may fix and see an end of it what scruples are to be allowed and what not and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling and say they cannot conquer their Scruples Are there no Scruples among us but only against the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism and kneeling at the Lords Supper Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper saying they are not to be literally understood Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations and say we can have no true Churches because we renounce Communion with the Pope What is to be done with all these and many more scruplers who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers This I mention because this Gentleman seems to look on it as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. For having spoken of that he addes Nor is it in it self of less weight perhaps 't is of much greater that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children but others must appear and undertake for them which he repeats soon after And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters as any that have come after him in the Admonitions declared that this was a thing arbitrary and left to the discretion of the Church And in his first Answer he saith For the thing it self considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches they do not mislike of it So that on the same ground it seems all oâ—â—er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at as well as ours and yet not only this Gentleman but Mr. B. several times mentions this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us nay he calls this his greatest objection and yet he confesseth that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents our Baptism is valid and lawful Now where is it that our Church excludes such a representation Indeed by Canon 29 the Parents are not to be compelled to be present nor suffered to answer as Susceptors for their Children but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office In the Bohemian Churches there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them and so they may be said to represent the Parents If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉 against the consent of the Parents then none couâ—â— in reason suppose that there was any implicit compact between them But since they are of the Parents choosing what they do in that office is supposed to be with their full consent If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old at some certain seasons only and indispensable occasions required the Parents absence might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence and the intentention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance If men be negligent in doing their duty must the Church bear the blame and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion But there is something beyond this which lies at the bottom of this scruple viz. that the Child 's Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents and therefore if the Parents be excluded and only Sponsors admitted the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism For Mr. B.'s first Question is which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism any more than all
the Infidels Children in the world And his next is whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers and Gods general promise I answer 1. The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism and so whatever right the Parents have that is challenged when the Child is brought to be baptized 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's and hath so continued ever since but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it 3. In their own capacity when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith in the charge given to them after Baptism So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another they all succeeding each other there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents 2 If the Parents be supposed to have no right yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children Not as though their Sponsion gave the right but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance To make this clear we must consider that administration of Baptism is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys which Christ first gave to the Apostles and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church By vertue of this Power they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects The Church of Christ as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity hath alwayes allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church but lest the Church should fail of its end and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty it required Sponsors for them who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle ad Bonifacium where he saith 1. That the Childs benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism not for any spiritual benefit but for corporal health notwithstanding this saith S. Augustine if the due form of Baptism be observed the spiritual effect of it is obtained 2. That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants For saith he the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby not so much by those in whose arms they are carried for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms as by the whole Society of the Faithful Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit quia tota omnes tota singulos parit so that it is by the Churches right that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it 3. That there is no necessity that the Parents themselves offer their Children For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism as to the remission of Original Guilt or the account of their Parents offering them For many are offered to Baptism by strangers and slaves sometimes by their Masters And when Parents are dead Children are offered by such as take pity upon them and sometimes Children exposed by Parents and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins which neither have Children nor intend to have any 4. That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism Not as though the Child did really believe yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them do carry the name of the things represented as saith he the Sacrament of Christs body after a certain manner is called his Body and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood so the Sacrament of faith is called faith i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors which cannot be performed by the Children Thence he saith ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works and in another place he declares that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil and turn to God and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins 3. Those who think themselves bound to baptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptizing Children and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered For 1. They are not well agreed what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient or a justifying faith be necessary If saving faith be necessary whether the outward profession of it be sufficient Whether that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind or that only which is really so Whether profession be required for it self or as a discovery of something further Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient or real serioâ—sness be required What we must judge real seriousness in profession as distinct from inward sincerity What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary And whether besides all these actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary And if it be whether the Children of confederated Parents
not being confederated themselves can convey a right to their Children About these and other such like Questions those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes and can neither give others nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them 2. The consequence of this is that they must baptize many with a doubting mind and must exclude many more than they can baptize For Mr. B. saith if he took a dogmatical faith it self or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit I would baptize none because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith and who not The like others are as ready to say of his serious voluntary not prevalently contradicted practical profession or at least that no man can baptize with a good Conscience till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace or are not actually confederated with them And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right how few Children will be left that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers as Mr. B. calls them and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches Communion As to kneeling at the Communion I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration which I have not answered in another place Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion viz. that upon the same Reason these are imposed the Church may impose some use of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer 1. That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him or else he shall not stay in his House at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father because he hath some scruples whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not not meerly on the account of its significancy but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature This he thinks so weighty a scruple that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition on his continuing in his house and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fathers House and drawing away as many of his servants from him as he can infuse this scruple into But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his disobedience For faith he to his Father Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence and to make this the condition of my staying in your House Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son and ask you blessing Morning and Evening and am very willing to sit at your Table and depend upon you for my subsistence Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat You say it is a token of respect I say for that reason I ought not to do it For how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect It is true you require no more now but I consider what you may do and for all that I know the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you for that is a token of respect in some Countries next you may require me to kiss your Toe for that is a token of respect used some where and who knows what you may come to at last and therefore I am resolved to stop at first and will rather leave your House than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns that may represent the Trade and Company they are of would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it to say What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last it is true the matter is small at present but I consider it is a Badge it is a moral significant ceremony a dangerous teeming thing no man knows what it may bring forth at last for how can I or any man living tell but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat Would such an unreasonable jealousie as this justifie such a mans refractoriness in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company than submitting to wear the Badge of it So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required 2. There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies than what it hath already done supposing that it might do it on the same ground Because the Church hath rather retrenchâ—d than increased Ceremonies as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required as a condition of Commmunion But besides our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies because the very number of them supposing them lawful is a burden of which S. Augustin complained in his time and others had much more cause since and therefore for that cause many were taken away And withall it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine which it must do if it increased our Cermonies so as to make a new argument against them from the number of them 3. There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us For 1. As to the Vse of Images our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry and that from such reasons as cannot extend to our Ceremonies viz. from the express Law of God and the general sense of the Primitive Church which allowed and practised
the sign of the Cross at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images 2. For Circumcision which he tells us may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law that he saith If ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing which was never said of any of our Ceremonies And whereas he saith it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony he is much mistaken if their Emperour Claudius say true for he saith it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia and boreing the ear among the Indians And Ludolphus proves it to be no other because it is done by a woman in private without any witnesses 3. As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation But why are things never used by the Primitive Church for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false it is nothing to us brought to parallel our Ceremonies when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church which observed the same kind of Ceremonies The only remaining pretence for the present Separation is that there is a parity of reason as to their Separating from us and our Separating from the Church of Rome For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable then this will hold for themselves because they think so and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike When 1. They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true we reject all their additional Articles in Pius 4. his Creed not only as false but some of them as absurd and unreasonable as men can invent viz. that of Transubstantiation which is made by them the great trying and burning point But what is there which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine as new as false as absurd nay they all yield to the Antiquity to the Truth to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it You may be sure it is some mighty thing for he saith presently after it that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice Alas for him that his modesty should ever hurt him But what is this dangerous Secret that they have hitherto kept in out of meer veneration to the Church of England Let us prepare our selves for this unusual this killing charge Why saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church this Doctrine is contained It is matter of Doctrine then I see although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles as far as they concern Doctrine But what is this notorious doctrine It is saith he that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Did I not fear it was some dreadful thing some notorious heresie condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils But is it said so in plain words or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Consequences No it is plain enough for the Question is What is required of Persons to be baptized Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament Quest. Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform But I pray doth it hence follow that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Are not the words express that they promise both by their Sureties And is promising and performance all one I do not find it so by this Instance For here was a great matter promised and nothing performed It is true the Catechism saith Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptized which supposeth the persons to be baptized capable of performing these things themselves And then comes a Question by way of objection why then are Infants baptized c. to which the sense of the Answer is that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised And now let the Reader judge since this horrible Secret is come out whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church And I know nothing can do them greater Service than such Parallels as these 2. We charge them with those Reasons for Separation which the Scripture allows such as Idolatry perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ and Tyranny over the Consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so But not one of these can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God we worship no Images we invocate no Sains we adore no Host we creep to no Crucifix we kiss no Relicks We equal no traditions with the Gospel we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christs and to dispence with his Laws and Institutions We mangle no Sacraments nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a
divide rashly from her as they do Is not this to divide from all the antient Churches from all the Churches of the East from all the Protestant Churches which have alwayes had a very great respect for the purity of that of England Is it not horrible impudence to excommunicate her without mercy and to make themselves believe strangely of her for them to imagine that they are the only men in England nay in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and to hold the truths necessary to salvation as they ought to be held Indeed one might make a very odious Parallel betwixt these Teachers and Pope Victor that would needs excommunicate the Churches of Asia because they did not celebrate the Feast of Easter the same day they did at Rome Betwixt them and the Audeans that divided from the Christians and would not endure rich Bishops Betwixt them and the Donatists that would have no communion with them that had been ordained by lapsed Bishops and imagined that their Society was the true Church and the well beloved Spouse that fed her flock in the South Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved For my part as much inclined to Toleration as I am I cannot for all this perswade my self that it ought to be allowed to those that have so little of it for other men and who if they were Masters would certainly give but bad quarter to those that depended upon them I look upon these men as disturbers of the State and Church and who are doubtlesly animated by a Spirit of Sedition Nay I can scarce believe that they are just such as they say they are and I should be something afraid that very dangerous enemies might be hid under colour of these Teachers Societies composed of such persons would be extream dangerous and they could not be suffered without opening the Gate to disorder and advancing towards ones own ruine There are some of these that are composed of more reasonable men but I could wish they were reasonable enough not to separate from those of which the Church of England is composed Especially in the case we are in they should do all for a good agreement and in the present conjuncture of affairs they should understand that there is nothing but a good re-union that can prevent the evils with which England is threatned For to speak the truth I do not see that their Meetings are of any great use or that one may be more comforted there than in the Episcopal Churches When I was at London almost Five years ago I went to several of their private assemblies to see what way they took for the instruction of the people and the preaching of the Word of God But I profess I was not at all edified by it I heard one of the most famous Non-Conformists he preached in a place where there were three men and three or fourscore women he had chosen a Text about the building up the Ruines of Ierusalem and for the explication of it he cited Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times and did not forget to mention a Proverb in Italian Duro con duro non fa muro All this seem'd to me nothing to the purpose and very improper for the poor women and very far from a Spirit that sought nothing but the comfort and edification of his hearers To cantonize themselves and make a Schism to have the liberty to vent such vanities is very ill conduct and the people seem very weak to quit their mutual Assemblies for things that so little deserve their esteem and preference I do not think that any one is obliged to suffer this irregularity It is true that the Assemblies of the Novatians were sometimes suffered at Rome and Constantinople and that even the Donatists had some kind of liberty in the first of these places But they were only strangers and that neither did not indure any long time and as there were but few of them that is not to be drawn into example But it is another case in England and seeing the good of the State and Church depends absolutely upon the union of the people in the point of Religion one cannot there press an universal union too much But it ought to be procured by good means and since the Bishops are persons of great experience of an extraordinary knowledge of a true fatherly zeal and goodness towards their people I hope that they will employ themselves in this great work with all the prudence and charity that are necessary to the succeeding of such a commendable undertaking You particularly My Lord whose moderation and capacity are acknowledged by all the World it looks as if it were a design reserved for your great Wisdom and if you do not succeed it is clear that all others will labour in it but in vain For my part I can contribute nothing to it where I am but Vowes and Prayers and of these I can protest that I make very sincere ones every day for the prosperity of the English Church and that it would please God to order things in such manner that all the Protestants of England for the future might be of one heart and of one soul. I beg your Lordship to be well assured of this and to believe that it is impossible to be with more respect than I am Leyden Sept. 3. 1680. My Lord Your most Humble and most Obedient servant Le Moyne A Paris l' 32. d'Octob Monseigneur RIen ne vous a deu paroistre si estrange ny si incivil que mon silence sur la lettre que vous me fîstes l'honneur de m'escrire il y a environ trois mois Il est pourtant vray que je n'ay rien a me reprocher sur cela a fin que vous le croyiez comme moy vous voulez bien me permettre de vous dire comment la chose s'est passée Quand on m'apporta vostre lettre j'estois retombé dans une grande violente fiebvre dont Dieu m'a affligé durant quatre ou cinq mois qui m'a mené jusqu'a deux doits de la mort Ie priay un de mes amis qui estoit alors dans ma chambre de l'ouvrir de me dire le nom de celuy qui me l'escrivoit mais il se trouva que vous aviez oublié de la signer sur quoy je me l'a fis apporter pour voir si je n'en connoistrois point le caractére Et ce fut encore inutilement par ce que jusqu'alors je n' avois rien veu de vostre main Cela me fit croire qu'elle avoit esté escrite par celuy lá mesme qui l'avoit apportée pour m'attrapper dix ou douze sous de port car ce petit stratageme est assez commun en
way faulty yet I cannot choose but be something ashamed But to come to the contents of your Letter I cannot express to you with how much grief I understand that your divisions continue at a time in which there are such pressing reasons for being Reunited Above all that which you tell me of writings that are at this time published to make men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private persons without sinning seems to me a thing so unreasonable in it self and so very unseasonable now that I should scarce believe it if it were not attested by a person of your merit and consideration My Lord you know well what my sentiments are and always have been in this matter and the way which I used two years ago when I was in England in frequenting your assemblies and preaching too in a Congregation that is under the jurisdiction of the Church of England sufficiently shews that I am very far from believing that her Communion is unlawful And this also proves very evidently that my opinion in this matter is the same that is holden by our Churches because it is not imaginable that I would without any necessity have done a thing which would have drawn the displeasure of my Brethren upon me and which at my return would have exposed my self to be blamed if not to be censured by them My Lord I would to God that all the mistaken Christians that are in the world would receive your Reformation I would with all my heart spend all the blood I have to procure them so great a good And I am sure with what an exceeding Joy our Churches would enter into their Communion if being pure in their opinions for Doctrine they differed no more from us than by Surplices and innocent Ceremonies and some diversity of Orders in the Government of the Church And by this my Lord you may perceive what I have to answer to your second question For since the Church of England is a true Church of our Lord since her Worship and Doctrines are pure and have nothing in them contrary to the word of God and since that when the Reformation was there received it was received together with Episcopacy and with the establishment of the Liturgy and Ceremonies which are there in use at this day it is without doubt the duty of all the Reformed of your Realm to keep themselves inseparably united to the Church And those that do not do this upon pretence that they should desire more simplicity in that Ceremonies and less of inequality among the Ministers do certainly commit a very great sin For Schism is the most formidable evil that can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this Christian charity obliges all good men to bear with their Brethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the dispute is ought to seem even in the eyes of those that have the most aversion for them And this was so much the opinion of our great and excellent Calvin that in his Treatise of the necessity of the Reformation he makes no difficulty to say That if there should be any so unreasonable as to refuse the Communion of a Church that was pure in its Worship and Doctrine and not to submit himself with respect to its Government under pretence that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours is there would be no Censure nor rigour of Discipline that ought not to be exercised upon them Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatear si qui erunt qui non eum revereantur summaque obedientia observent And Beza himself who did not in the general approve of the Episcopal Government makes such a distinction of yours and is so far from believing that one may or that one ought to take occasion from thence to separate from your Church that he prays earnestly to God that she may always remain in that happy estate in which she had been put and preserved by the blood by the purity of the Faith and by the wise conduct of her excellent Bishops Quod si nunc Anglicana Ecclesia instaurata suorum Episcoporum et Archiepiscoporum authoritate persistat quemadmodum hoc nostrâ memoriâ contigit ut ejus ordinis homines non tantum insignes Dei Martyres sed etiam praestantissimos Pastores et Doctores habuerit frautur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ quae utinam illi sit perpetua But my Lord although the first Authors of the Separation which troubles you be extraordinarily to blame and though those that continue it and strengthen it by their unreasonable and passionate Writings be extreamly so too it is certain yet that among the multitude that follows them there is a very great number of good-men whose faith is pure and whose piety is sincere and who remain separate from you only because their simplicity is surprized and because they have been frightned with the bugbear words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist which are continually beaten into their ears I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom St. Paul said they were of the Body for all that And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops such as you ought to say of them though in something a different sense as Optatus Milevitanus said of the Donatists of his time Si Collegium Episcopale nolunt nobiscum habere tamen Fraâ—res sunt In the name of God then my Lord do all that possibly you can to bring them back to their duty by sweetness and charity which is only able to do great things on these occasions For men who have always something of pride do commonly oppose every thing that seems to them to act by bare Authority only but they scarce ever fail to yield themselves up to forbearance and condescension Mansuetus homo cordis est medicus I do not pretend My Lord to thrust my self in to give you any particular advice in this case you that see things near at hand and that have a heart deeply affected with Christian Charity will judge better than any man what remedies are the most proper for so great an evil and I am sure that if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the a staining from some expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the colour of some habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great pleasure And I think I have read in some part of the Vindiciae of Mr â—ean of Windsor that these were the
charitable sentiments which the Church of England declared by the mouth of three or four of her Bishops in a Conference that was held concerning the means of re-union the first year that his Majesty was restored and that nothing hindered the matter from going farther but some of those Ministers they call Presbyterians However it be I pray God with all my heart that he would open the eyes of the one to make them see the weakness of the reasons upon which they ground such an afflicting Separation and that he would preserve and increase more and more in the other that piety that zeal and that charity which they have need of for the happy proceeding to a re-union which will rejoice men and Angels and bring down a thousand blessings of Heaven and Earth upon those that shall contribute the most unto it And I assure you My Lord I should be 〈◊〉 â—â—mpt at all Comfort if I should see that some new 〈◊〉 least were not made for the success of a 〈…〉 so holy and of such consequence in a time 〈…〉 to me so proper for it For besides that the interest of your State and Church do require it in such an extraordinary manner I hear that by a wonderful blessing of Heaven all your Episcopal Sees are filled at this time with excellent servants of God who love Iesus Christ and his Church and who have all the qualities of the head and the heart which are necessary to make them able and willing to contribute to this good work And to judge of it by you My Lord and My Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury and My Lord Bishop of Oxford whom I had the honour to see during my stay in England I am easily perswaded of it But I am afraid I have tired you with this long Letter I humbly beg your pardon for it and I beseech you to be very well assured that I alwayes preserve a very grateful acknowledgement of the Friendship with which you honour me and that I am with all the respect that I owe My Lord Your most Humble and most Obedient Servant De L' Angle Mons. Claude my excellent Collegue to whom I have shewed this Letter has prayed me to tell you with assurance of his most humble service that he would subscribe this with all his heart and that he is absolutely of my Opinion The Third Letter from Monsieur Claude on the same Subject A Paris 29. Novemb. Stilo Novo Monseigneur MOnsieur de l' Angle m'ayaut rendu la Lettre qu'il vous a plû m'écrire j'ay esté surpris d'y voir que vous m'aviez fait l'honneur de m'en écrire une autre que je n'ay point receüe à laquelle je n'eusse pas manquè de faire réponse Vous me faites beaucoup d'honneur de vouloir bien que je vous dise ma pensée sur le different qui vous trouble depuis long-tems entre ceux qu'on appelle Episcopaux ceux qu'on nomme Presbyteriens Quoy que je m'en sois deja diverses fois expliquè par des Lettres que j'ay faites sur ce sujet à plusieurs personnes dans mon livre mesme de la Defense de la Reformation où parlant de la distinction de l' Evesque du Prestre j'ay dit formellement que je ne blame pas ceux qui l'observent comme une chose fort ancienne que je ne voudrois pas qu'on s'en fist un sujet de querelle dans les lieux où elle se trouve établie pag. 366. quoy que d'ailleurs je me connoisse assez pour ne pas croire que mon sentiment doive estre fort considerè je ne laisseray pas de vous temoigner dans cette occasion comme je feray toujours en toute autre mon estime Chretienne mon respect mon obeissance C'est ce que je feray d'autant plus que je ne vous diray pas simplement ma pensée particuliere mais le sentiment du general de nos Eglises Premierement donc Monseigneur nous sommes si fort éloignez de croire qu'on ne puisse en bonne conscience vivre sous vostre discipline sous vostre Gouvernement Episcopal que dans nostre pratique ordinaire nous ne faisons nulle difficultè ni de donner nos chaires ni de commettre le soin de nos troupeaux à des Ministres receus ordinez par Messieurs vos Evesques comme il se pourroit justifier par un assez grand nombre d'exemples anciens recens depuis peu Mr. Duplessis ordinè par Monsieur l' Evesque de Lincoln à esté establi appellè dans une Eglise de cette Province Monsieur Wicart que vous Monseigneur avez receu au S. Ministere nous fit l'honneur il-n'y-a que quelques mois de Prescher à Charenton à l'edification universelle detout nostre troupeau Ainsi ceux qui nous imputent à cet égard des sentimens éloignez de la paix de la concorde Chretienne nous font assurement injustice Ie dis la paix la concorde Chretienne car Monseigneur nous croyons que l'obligation à conserver cette paix cette concorde fraternelle qui fait l'unité exterieure de l'eglise est d'une necessitè si indispensable que S. Paul n'a pas fait difficultè de la joindre avec l'unité interieure d'une mesme foy d'une mesme regeneration non seulement comme deux choses qui ne doivent jamais estre separées mais aussi comme deux choses dependantes l'une de l'autre parce que si l'unité exterieure est comme la fille de l'interieure elle en est aussi la conservatrice Cheminez dit il Ephes. 4. comme il est convenable à la vocation dont vous estes appellez avec toute humilitè douceur avec un esprit patient supportant l'un l'autre en charité Estant soigneux de garder l'unitè de l'esprit par la lien de la paix D'un cotè il fait dependre cette charitè fraternelle qui nous joint les uns avec les autres de nostre commune vocation de l'autre il nous enseigne qu'un des principaux moyens de conserner en son entier cette commune vocation qu'il appelle l'unitè de l'esprit est de garder entre nous la paix Selon la premiere de ces maximes nous ne pouvons avoir de paix ni de Communion Ecclesiastique avec ceux qui ont tellement degenerè de la vocation Chretienne qu'on ne peut plus reconnoitre en eux une veritable salutaire foy principalement lors qu' à des erreurs mortelles ils ajoutent la tyrannie de l'ame qu'ils voulent contraindre la conscience en imposant la necessitè de croire ce qu'ils croyent