Gospel be dealt with by sober men whose admonitions if they receive they shall give God thanks But if they go on in the Crime they shall be sharply punished as the Gospel prescribeth 5. De Concion Cap. 3. Preachers shall name no guilty person before the multitude unless such as have contemned Ecclesiastical Admonitions such may be named 6. De â—xc Excommunication for none but horrible Crimes c. Cap. 4. and after oft admonition But you Excomunicate all Godly men that do but say your Conformity is not lawful ipso facto by your Canon 7. Cap. 6. We permit not the power of Excomunication to be in any one person Though the consent of the whâ—le Church be specially desirable yet because it is hard to gather and take it let Excommunication thus proceed that the Arch-Bishop Bishop or other lawful Ecclesiastical Judge call one Justice of peace and the Minister of the place where the guilty person dwelleth or his deputy and two or three other Learned and well man â—ered Presbyters in whose presence when the matter hath been most diligently handled aud gravely weighed the sentence of Excommunication shall pass Cap. 7. And be written Cap. 16 There is written a large pious form like a Sermon to be used at the Reconciling of the penitent and his form of confession and petition to be received and then the Pastor of that Church is to ask all the flock whether they will forgive the offender and pray for him and whether they will have him received into their Congregation as a brother And then the Pastor is to exhort the penitent and then absolve him A great and solemn work most unlike your Discipline And then to give God thanks and pray for him and the Church Should we now but move for thus much in order to concord with the Cconformists we have reason to think no importunity could prevail for it were the consequents of our division as dismal as they are now by most proclaimed Yet verily we are most unexcuseable wretches if we have learned no more to this day than they did in so few years or under full power and opportunity will resist that good which they that wanted such opportunity wished for and go back as fast as they went forward Sect. 14. To p. 8. I never said that the troubles at Frankford were so much about free or formal Prayer as that the Presbyterians refused all forms Sect. 15. p. 19. He confesseth that Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of preferment and employment in the Church the Bishop shewing them kindness for their forward zealous Preaching and this being without their subscribing to conform is it any wonder then that they gathered not Assemblies elsewhere Had the Bishops so tryed us we should never have put them to talk so of our separation but might have done our best to build more Churches Doth none of all this difference their case and ours Sect. 16. p. 20. He confesseth when they were silenced they began to have separate Meetings and yet were all the old Non-Conformists against such Sect. 17. As to Beza's Letter have not I said more against Separation than he doth Doth the Dr. think the Reader so blind as not to see that Beza's words are just of the same importance with the account I gave and contrary to his viz. He trembleth at the thoughts of their exercising their function against the will of the Queen and Bishops for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them It s easie indeed to see what he trembles at and why he named them not which he would sure in charity have done had it been because it is sinful disobedience to preach when forbidden It was easie to see what hurt it would have done in the ruine of Preachers and hearers and shaking all the begun Reformation It s not so with us Gualter and Zanchy say not so much against Separation as I do nor John Fox nor Bullinger whom he citeth we say the same Sect. 18. The same I say of Parker and Gifford and I again tell him that he may name many more Hildersham Paget Ame c. I am of their judgment in their opposition to the Brownists but it is a notorious untruth pag. 33. that the force of all the Non-Conformists reasonings against Separation lay in two Suppositions 1. That nothing could justifie Separation from our Church but such corruptions which overthrew the being and constitution of it c. And 1. It must be remembred that Separation being a word of very many sences they held indeed that none ought to separate from a Church accusing it to be none but for that which proved it to be none 2. But did they deny that which all the Christian World confesseth viz. 1. What if our English Divines gathered by Bishop Hall against Burton be in the right that the Church of Rome is a true Church as a Thief is a true man though I think otherwise must not such Bishops or Conformists therefore separate from them 2. What if a Church impose some Lye false Oath or Subscription or some actual Sin in Worship as a condition sine qua non of her Communion is it not lawful to separate into better Assemblies 3. What if they put down all preaching save reading some dry Homilies and all Discipline is it not lawful elsewhere to serve God better But of this more after where he repeateth it The Brownists case was quite other before described Sect. 19. to p. 36 37. We also hold that whosoever separateth from the Church of England 1. As having not that Preaching and Sacraments which are of necessity to Salvation 2. Or as not professing true saving Faith doth by consequence separate from all Churches in the world because they have all the same Word Sacraments and Christian Faith And to this Mr. Jacobs Argument is good p. 38. though he was the man that answered Downam's Sermon for Bishops and esteemed one of the first Independents And Mr. Balls words to the same purpose and the second Supposition p. 39. we grant and think verily that the late Conformists have said more against the truth of the Church of England than we yea that we are the defenders of it against the Brownists and them Ball Bradshaw Gifford Hildersham c. cited by him defend it as we do and better than such as Dr. Heylin Thorndike Mr. Dodwel and such others Did he think any of this concerned me Sect. 20. Yes for p. 74. he saith We would blind the Reader by finding out the disparity of some Circumstances but not one of us can deny that it was their judgment that the holding separate Congregations for worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was unlawful and schismatical Answ It s pity so seeing a Dr. should tempt men to be so blind 1. As to think all the differences which I have named inconsiderable 2. And to go on to
to the Anabaptists and Quakers Answ Alas that such things should be the best to such a man By May go you mean 1. lawfully 2. or eventually 3. or for want of due hindring The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the first on me as if I said that so to go to the Quakers were no sin whereas I still say that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their sin 2. And as to the Event many not only may but do turn Quakers Papists and Athiests 3. And as to the third it 's all the question here not whether we should seek to save them but which is the true reasonable and allowed means Whether it be the Patrons choosing for all England the Pastors to whose care they must trust their Souls and laying them in Jail that will choose others Or whether there be not a righter way And again I say Kings and Patrons choose not mens Wives or Physicians or Food and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge Sect. 6. But why saith he P. 11. v. 115. must the King bear all the blame if mens Souls be not provided for c Answ He that is the chooser must bear the blame the King for Bishops and the Patrons for Parish Priests if they mischoose And do you think in your conscience that all the Patrons in England of so various minds and lives are like to choose only such in whose pastoral conduct all that care for their Souls should rest Yea though the Bishops must Institute them as they Ordained them When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of grosly ignorant drunken Priest their answers were 1. Their Chaplains examined them 2. They had certificates 3. A quare impedit lay against them if they required higher knowledge than to answer the Catechism in Latine And now experience will not warrant us to know what such men are P. 115. He asketh How it is possible on these terms to have any peace or order in an established Church Answ I have fully told him how in a whole Book of concord And hath their way caused greater peace and order Yes to themselves for the time So Popery keepeth some Order and Unity with them that hold to it But it kept not the Greeks or Protestants from forsaking them Sect. 7. P. 119. 120. He saith They only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve Answ Equivocal words 1. If they approve not those whom they should approve it is their sin 2. Approving is either of the necessaries ad esse or only ad melius esse They must not put the later for the former 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a discerning private Judgment The first they have not but the later In good earnest would he have all the people take those for true Pastors who they verily think are none Can they at once hold contradictions And if they must not judge as dissenters what meaneth Mr. Dodwels and such mens Arguments to prove all no Ministers that have not Succession of Episcopal Ordination Must not the people on that account disown them by his way Sect. 8. p. 119. He brings in against us my words I take those for true Churches that have true Pastors and those for none that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves the essential Power Answ He knoweth that I speak not of equivocal but proper political Churches And is it possible that such a man should dissent in this 1. Can he be a true Pastor that is uncapable of the Office Shall I abuse time to confute gross Contradictions Or if he be a profest Infidel Can he be a Christian Pastor 2. Is a Layman a true Pastor that is not truly called to it why then do they argue as Mr. Dodwell or Re-ordain men 3. Can a man be a Pastor against his will or that conâ—enteth not but renounceth it or can that be a true Pastoral Church that hath no Pastor Verily we are but upon low works if these be the things which we must prove Sect. 9. He adds And one or other of these he thinks must if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under Answ I read these words of the Dr. to a Papist To speak mildly this is a gross untruth Therefore I hope it were no Rage for me to have said the like How doth he prove it Nay in the place cited by him I not only profest the contrary but gave the Reason p. 65. Because I judge of their Office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which deprives them of an essential Part. And 1. He citeth my confession that those that I hear preach well and therefore are not uncapable men 2. That their Ordination hath all essentially necessary and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Parishes consent though not Election and therefore are called 3. And many of them as he thinks they have all essential to the Office and disown it not though I think others deny it them where there is the truth of what he saith Sect. 10. p. 120. Because my practice disproveth him he finds out a Subtilty that I joyn not with the Parish Churches as true Churches but only as Chappels or Oratories he accounts not our parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists Answ Deliberately to print such untruths seems tolerable in him but to say they are such would seem passion in me and what other answer are they capable of What I expresly say of the three forementioned excepted sorts he feigneth me to say of all or most of the Parish Churches and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Exceptions 1. Do not all those men take the Parishes for no proper political Churches but only for Parts of the Diocesan Church such as we call Curates Chappels who say that a Bishop is a constitutive Part of a true political Church and entereth the Definition and that it 's no Church that hath no Bishop and that Diocesan Churches are the lowest political And do I need to tell him how considerable these men are among them 2. Doth he himself take any one of these for a true political Church When I was young divers Laymen by turns were our publick Reading Teachers Among the rest one was after proved to counterfeit Orders This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not but when we knew of such must we take them for true Pastors and it for a true Church Sect. 11. p. 221. He saith Any Parochial Church that hath such a one a Bishop or Pastor over them that hath the power of the Keys and owns it self to be Independant he allows to be a true Church and none else Answ
Presbyterian National Church is one as headed by the General Assembly 10. An Episcopal National Church is one either as headed by one National Bishop or else by a Synod of Bishops Aristocratically or else by a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters Aristocratically All these that are constituted of One Regent and a subdite Part are called Churches in a Political proper sense and not only equivocally Now the Question is Of which sort is the National Church of England And the Doctor saith page 287. 1. That the Society of all Christians is counted a true Catholick Church from their Union and Consent in some common things and so is ours c. Answ But in what common things Not in one Bible for so may Hereticks much less in one Liturgy If it be not a consent in one Governing Head it makes no proper Church 2. He supposeth an agreement in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline Answ That 's right But what Government is it Civil or Ecclesiastical The first is no essential part of a proper Church If it be the later is it one in specie or in individuâ— politico Not the former for a 100 Episcopal Churches in several Nations may have one species of Government as many Kingdoms may have It is therefore the later that is all my Question which is the Church-Head He saith As several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National Answ True if that National Church have one Constitutive Head as a Family hath It 's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias And no Governed proper Church without Governours and there is no Governour where there is no supreme in his place and kind For inferiours have all their power from the supreme There is no Universal supreme but God but the King is subordinately the supreme in his Kingdom in respect to inferiours and so it is in other Governed Societies He addeth The name of a Church comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and so may be extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government and the same rules of Religion Answ 1. If the question were only de nomine we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are usually by Writers called Ecclesia and so is any Assembly If this be all you mean speak out 2. Many Nations may agree in the same Rules of Religion yea so all Christians do Doth this constitute National Churches 3. One Civil Government is of another species and not essential but accidental to a Church and therefore doth not constitute or individuate it One justice of Peace or Mayor in a Christian Corporation doth not make it one Parish Church But if this be all your meaning speak out we grant de re a Christian Kingdom and contend not de nomine if you call it a Church § 3. page 297. â— As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom he granteth what we desire confessing the difference But asketh whence cometh all this zeal now against a National Church Answ An untrue insinuation 1. To desire to know what it is is untruly called zeal against it 2. And agreeing with you in the description is no zeal against it He adds The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudson write for it Answ Mr. Hudson is a Conformist And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean a Christian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Assembly as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Government Whether this be just or unjust is now none of our question I have oft told what I think of it Do you also tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done Are you loth to be understood § 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Answer viz. 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And now he continues his wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Answ Yea your wonder may increase that I less and less understand it if you did not after tell us better â—â—an in this unhappy definition 1. Is this called the Church diffusive one Governed body Politick If not it is no Church in the sense in question and I 'le not stick with you for an equivocal name 2. Do you mean by Government agreed in 1. The Civil Government 2. Or the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally 3. Or one Government of all the National Church 1. The first makes it no Church in the sense in question 2. The second makes it no Church but an Association of many Churches such as a thousand Independent Churches may make or the Churches of many Kingdoms Many Families Associated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Governours but only their several Family Governours Many Cities associated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one supreme power It 's no political body without one common Governour Natural or Collective Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And what is it of Worship established by Law that individuates your Church If all thâ—â— the Law hath established 1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being and may do at every Parliament 2. And the Church is small and unknown if all that differ in any point established are no parts of it But if it be not all established who knoweth by this definition what it is and what is the very matter of your Church So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form § 5. Next he answereth the Question How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church and answereth By Unity of Consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Answ Consent to what 1. If it be not to one common Government it is no Governed Church as one 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church consenteth not to one Governing Head Christ And doth any thing else make them formally One Politick body or Church This were ill Doctrine § 6. Question How comes it to be One National Church Saith he I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are Answ Whether How comes it Speak of the efficient cause or the formal or what it 's hard to know so singular are his Logical notions But the first is most likely And then 1. The question is still unanswered What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament consent hath â—â—t up He knows this is the question 2. And if it be by Parliament consent how old is your Church What Parliament first made it It 's not so old as Luther Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons 3. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it If the corruption of
Clergy represent the Laity in the Convocation 21. By your Rule if divers parties of Christians agree to set up divers forms of Church-Government with mutual forbearance they would be one National Church And so would Episcopal Presbyterians and Independants if the Law allowed them all 22. Was the Church of England the same thing in the days of H. 8. Ed. 6. Q. Mary Q. Eliz. c. 23. Who maketh National Churches in absolute Hereditary Monarchies where are no Parliaments to signifie popular consent 24. If every Law of Order be essential to your Church few Conformists are of it If only the true essentials why are not we also of it 25. How ill agree you with Mr. Cheny who maketh it Atheism Infidelity Blasphemy Impiety to assert Church-making consent or confederacies besides Baptism 26. But the best is you leave us in hope of Reformation for if Parliaments will but consent for us to take down Diocesanes lower and to reform parish-Parish-Churches and alter Liturgy c. we are the National Church still And one prevailing Vote may prove us all consenters and make the Church quite another thing § 14. Yet he saith Page 299. 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 Answ I am one and I cannot see it nor so much as see how to know the Church it self nor who is a Member of it nor how any man can know it but he seems to me to make it a Church invisible But I see the Dissenters must be none of it 1. How was the Church of England known from Papists in the beginning of H. 8. or in the middle or in the end or how known when it began How was it known in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths days when the Papists came to Church or now as to Church-Papists How shall we know to which Church the late Bishop Bramhall and other Doctors belong who would have the Pope Govern us according to the Canons as Patriarch of the West principium unitatatis universalis and all go for Schismaticks that deny it Some call this the new-New-Church of England differing from the old one which was before Bishop Laud. 2. How shall one know how far consent is necessary to a Member and dissent unchurcheth him Lately a Doctor was accused for saying he scrupled to call the King according to the Liturgy Our most Religious King Mr. Jole of Sarral was suspended for not oftner wearing the Surplice and denying to pray in the Litany for Our most Gracious Queen Katherine and James Duke of York But these are small dissents The sense is the Churches Law and Doctrine and not the sound of words in various senses I have oft shewed in how many contrary senses the Conformists take the 39 Articles the Liturgy the words of Subscription and Declaration and the Oaths imposed How shall one know among all these who are or are not of your Church When you tell us that it is Agreeing in the Faith Government and Worship which is established by Law and then speak so hotly against the need and being of any common Government save the Civil at all established over the Church as a. National body and never distinguish any necessary parts of Faith Government and Worship from the rest nor tell us how to know them And when Conformists dissent in so many things some from Lay Chancellours Government by the Keys some in the sense of the Articles and the Nonconâ—oâ—â—â—ists say they consent to all that Scripture requireth and the meer Circumstantials determined by Law how shall you be known Either it is in the Essentials only or the Integrals also or also in all the Laws de Accedentibus that the Church of England by agreement is made that One Church 1. If it be only in Essentials is there either Confession Rubrick Canon or any Writer that hath told us which be those and all those and only those Essentials I never met with man that pretendeth to know them and therefore never met with man that can thus tell whether he be of the Church of England or not nor that can tell of others and who is not 2. To say it must be consent also in the Integrals that is necessary ad esse is a contradiction and is to make Integrals Essentials To say that it must be consent in all Laws of Accidents also is to make that an essential part which is no part Our loose confounding Disputers when they have lost the truth in such contradictions may say as Mr. Dodwell doth to me that I Cavil But will that answer help down all absurdities with reasonable men It 's plain that as the Papists Doctrine of defining Church-Members and Christians by no Essential Articles of Faith but by Probable Proposal of more or less doth make their Church invisible so doth this definition of the Church of England by Doctor Stillingfleet make theirs and leave us uncertain who is of it It makes me think what I hear Oliver the Usurper said to a Bishop that now is as I am credibly told Doctor how know you that you are a true Minister of Christ who answered him on Mr. Dodwell's Principles Because I have received Ordination by uninterrupted successive conveyance from true Bishops from the Apostles Saith he Are you sure they were all true Bishops and the succession uninterrupted Doctor will you take your Oath that you are thus a true Minister At which when he stuck Come come Doctor saith he there is a surer and a nearer way Certain I am that if Agreement in the sense of the 39 Articles or in all Forms and Ceremonies be necessary to constitute a Member of the Church of England abundance that subscribe are none that now go for such But if not I pray tell us why such as I also are not Members of your Church Do I more differ from you than Doctor Heylin Mr. Thorndike Mr. Dodwell and in a word than the party which adhered to Arch-bishop Laâ—d differed from the party which adhered to Bishop Abbot Whitgift and the Parliaments of those and after-times If the Church of England as such a one be constituted by no supreme Church-Government we are all of it so far as we consent to the Association and none as it is one Political body And what then becomes of its Laws and all the Treatises of its Church-Policy § 15. But yet the Doctor stops not here I unavoidably introduce Popery if I make a Constitutive Regent Church power necessary to a Church for then the Universal Church must have such Answ 1. It 's not necessary to an equivocal ungoverned Church such as our Worcestershire Association made But to a Political Governed Church it is 2. Mark here all you that go the Political Church way that your Doctor accuseth you more than the Nonconformists even of certain opening the door to Popery What if I had said so by you Is it such
much of the English Ceremonies as he thought approached those of Rome He loved all good men of what perswasion soever agreeing in the Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion When some worthy and Learned men did on his Death bed intimate to him that he had faln too heavy upon many Pious and Learned men of the Church of England He professed himself never to have born any malice in his heart against the Person of any of them but that his intention was only to blame them for having too much gratified the Enemies of the true Protestant Religion by their condescentions to them and their too great compliances with them He never recanted nor retracted any thing material that he had Professed and Printed of late years if he had used any sharp expressions or by any reflections given any offence to any truly pious man he heartily prayed their pardon and as heartily forgave all men as he desired them to forgive him And this he had often before expressed to me both in publick at my House and in private between himself and me and also after that some worthy men had been with him which gave occasion to this discourse This for your satisfaction is with truth and sincerity attested by Your Affectionate Friend Tho. Coxe London Octob. 29. POSTSCRIPT Five Additional Notices to the Reader THere are some things of which I thought meet to add this notice to the Reader I. That I am more alienated from Conformity in the point of Assent Consent and Use in denying Christendom to all Children who have no Godfathers and Godmothers and excluding the Parents from that Office by some late Observations which my retiredness kept me unacquainted with I am requested by some poor People to Baptize their Children I tell them the Parish Ministers must do it They answer me That they cannot have them Baptized by the Parish Ministers because they are poor and can neither pay the Curate nor the Godfathers I ask them Cannot you get Godfathers without money They say No No body will be Godfather to their Children for nothing Whereupon enquiring into the case I am informed that among the poor it is become a trade to be hired persons to be Godfathers and Godmothers and some that have not money must leave their Children unbaptized and till lately Popish Priests Baptized many I am not willing to aggravate this Hiring nor the causes of it nor that the same men that think Baptism necessary to Salvation or as Mr. Dodwell speaks to a Covenant right to Salvation should yet shut out all that have not money to hire such Covenanters But I am not Conformable to such Church-Orders II. Whereas there is a great stress laid on Mr. Rathband's Book of the old Nonconformists Doctrine against the Brownists as if they thought that meer obedience to the Law required them to forbear Preaching when they were silenced when indeed they only thought 1. That it bound them to give up the Temples and Tithes and publick maintenance which are at the Magistrates dispose 2. And to forbear that manner and those circumstances of their Ministry as no Law of God in Nature or Scripture do oblige them to but will do more hurt than good I have now for fuller satisfaction here added the Testimony of his Son concerning his judgment and practice who nineteen years had his liberty in Lancashire to Preach publickly in a Chappel and after that in Northumberland and no wonder if the disorders of Brownism that would have deprived them of all such liberty were opposed I have perused Mr. Rathband's Book written by some others and I find nothing in it that I consent not to but desire him that would understand it to read the Book it self Mr. Rathband's Letter to me is as followeth Reverend Sir WHereas Doctor Stillingfleet in a late Book of his hath alledged a Book published by my Father to prove that Preaching contrary to our Established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists in former times I assure you Sir that my Father is not to be reckoned in that number for he exercised his Ministry though contrary to the Law for many years at a Chappel in Lancashire and after he was silenced he Preached in private as he had opportunity and the times would bear of which I my self was sometime a witness Afterward upon the invitation of a Gentleman he exercised his Ministry at Belsham in Northumberland for about a year and from thence he removed to Owingham in the same County where he Preached also about a year till being silenced there he retired into private as formerly This I thought expedient to signifie to you and you may make what use of it you please for what is written here shall be owned by SIR Yours in all Christian respects William Rathband London April 2. 1681. He is a Grave and worthy Nonconforming ejected Minister living usually in High-gate His Father read part of the Common-Prayer and kept in as aforesaid And I thank Doctor Stillingfleet for so full a Vindication of such old Nonconformists against the Accusations of their Prosecutors III. When my Book was almost Printed I received the Manuscript of a faithful Learned ejected Minister in which he manifesteth the fallacy of Doctor Stillingfleet's Allegations of History for the Antiquity of Diocesan Bishops and fully proveth that for the first three hundred years the Bishops were Congregational and Parochial and that with so full evidence as that out of Strabo and other Geographers he sheweth that many of their Seats were but about four Miles from one another as our Parish Churches are and he confuteth what is said against it And he sheweth the Doctors gross abuse of History to prove that Bishops needed not the Peoples consent and proveth that the Peoples choice or consent was necessary by the constant judgment of the Churches But this Book is of so great worth that I will not dishonour it by making it an Appendix to mine but intend to make so bold with the Author as to publish it by it self 1. As a fuller Confutation to Doctor Stillingfleet 2. As a full Answer to Mr. Dodwell's Letters on that subject And 3. As a Confirmation of my full proof of the same things in my Treatise of Episcopacy IV. And if any will receive that from a Conformist which he will not receive from such a one as I he may read 1. Our full and faithful Vindication by a Beneficed Minister and a Regular son of the Church Called A Compassionate Consideration of the Case of the Nonconformists I am not so happy as to know the Author but he confirmeth my former Judgment that a great part of the Passive Conformists are moderate worthy men with whom we should earnestly endeavour as near and fast a coalition as is possible to be had by lawful means 2. And either the same hand or such another Conformist hath written Reflections on Doctor Stillingfleet in which the like candor and charity appeareth though with
would have all walk by he will not do it but instead of that with unusual gentleness tells me he will not differ about it if I do but grant that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace which I cheerfully grant And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear silencing us imprisoning us accusing us as odious for not wilful sinning and urging Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and making us seem Schismaticks for not forbearing to Preach the Gospel to which we were vowed and consecrated by Ordination I know not lawful from unlawful I cannot yet get him to tell us what he would have the many score thousands do on the Lords Days that have no room in the Parish-Churches with many such which our case is concerned in § 14. I thought his Book had been an Answer to mine and other mens Prefaces but I find that I was mistaken Indeed he nameth five Books written against his Accusation what he saith to Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsop I leave to themselves to consider of The Countrey Gentlemans Case in sense was this Whether all they that think Parish Communion under the present impositions to be sin are bound till they can change their judgment to forbear all Church-worship and live like Atheists and so be damned And who can find any Answer to this Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books he saith next nothing to but a dark retracting his Irenicon And far be it from me to blame him for growing wiser But why took he no notice of his own words cited in the Epistle out of his late Book against Idolatry threatning us all with no less than damnation if me prefer not the purest Church And as to my Defence his Book is nothing like an Answer unless his naming me and citing out of that and other Books a few broken scraps which he thought he could make some advantage of may be called an Answer § 15. I confess he hath made some attempt to tell me what the National Church of England is but so Independently as I doubt his party will disown it with great offence In short he holds that there is no such thing as a Church of England in the usual Political sense having any Constitutive Ecclesiastical Supreme Power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it 's only the many Churches in England associated by the common consent in Parliament c. Remember that he and I are so far agreed As I was writing this I saw a Book against him of a friend too much for me and somewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this point would help them by saying that the Convocation having the Legislative Church-Power may be the Constitutive Regent part But he confesseth to me that he spake not what is but what he counts should be or wisheth for the Dr. himself had before told us that the Convocations of Canterbury and York are two and not united to make one National supreme power so that this proveth no one political Church of England at all but only 2 Provincial Churches in England § 16. The Dr. hath so judiciously and honestly pleaded our Cause in his defence of A. Bishop Laud and his Book against Idolatry that I have made his words the first Chap. of this Book which if he candidly stand to I see not but our principles are the same § 17. His book is made up of 3 parts I. Untrue Accusations II. Untrue Historical Citations abundance III. Fallacious Reasonings Would you have an undeniable Confutation ad hominem in few words I. As to his Principles he saith himself as aforesaid Of Idolat p. 7. We are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin II. As to his History of the old Nonconformists read A. Bishop Bancrofts dangerous Positions and Heylins History of Presbytery charging them odiously with the clean contrary and the Canons made against them on that supposition III. As to his History and Doctrine against the Election of Bp s which I pleaded as I have fully proved his abuse of History in it I repeat Mr. Thorndikes words Forbear of Penalty It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation of the Churchtoregular Government without restoring the liberty of choosing Bishops and priviledg of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it O pray hard to God to provide greater store of skilful holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harvest that by the sound belief of a better world have overcome the deluding love of the honours prosperity and pleasures of the flesh and wholly live to God and Heaven POSTSCRIPT DR Edward Stillingfleet Irenic P. 114. saith The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or in the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Pastor nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least foot-step of the delegation of Church-power so that upon the matter all of them at last make use of those things in Church-Government which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence guided by Scripture and it were well if that were observed still P. 370. Surely then their Diocesses we re not very large if all the several Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church P. 361. I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City P. 157. There must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Laws For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible Society as a particular National Church For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after than of any one Congregation P. 131. The Churches power as to Divine Law being only directive and declarative but as confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory P. 113. Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in Doctrine and in practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of Communion with her there a Noncommunion with that Church is necessary and a
total and positive separation is lawful and convenient P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism P. 119. Let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same argument that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to Conform to any suspected or unlawful practice c. They lay the imputation of Schism on all them who require such Conditions of Communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to Conform for Conscience sake A Premised explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH THE word CHURCH being Equivocal is unfit for our disputation till explained It signifieth being a Relative several sorts of related Assemblies which are distinct I. In their Matter A Church of Jews Turks Christians of Orthodox and of Hereticks being not one thing II. In the Efficient A Church of Gods instituting or a Church of mans III. In the Fnds. 1. A Christian Assembly at a Fair or Market or Court or Army c. is not the same with an Assembly for Religious exercises 2. Nor an Assembly for Legislation about Religion in Parliament or Consultation in Synods or Disputation in Schools the same thing as an Assembly for stated worship c. IV. In the Form or Constitutive Relation to the Correlate And so the great difference which now concerneth us to note is that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing and a Political Society related as Governours and governed is another The first is either an accidental Assembly or else a designed Assemby by consent This last is either an Assembly of Lay-men which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government and may meet to worship God without a Pastor and this in Politicks is usually called a meer Community 2. Or an Assembly of Rulers or Pastors in equality as to Government there And this is called a Council Synod Dyet Parliament Convention c. V. A Governed or Political Church is of Three several Species at least as there are three Species of such Government I. A Christian Family consisting of the Family-Government and Governed living together in holy faith love worship and obedience to God the Master being their Teacher Ruler and Guide in worship II. A Pastoral-Church consisting of one or more Pastors and Christian people correlated as his flock for the benefit of his Pastoral office which essentially containeth a power to teach them lead them in worship and govern them by the Keys as a Ministerial Judg who is fit for that Commmunion All together is called also the Power of the Keys and is subordinate to Christs Teaching Priestly and Ruling Office III. A Royal or Magistratical Church consisting of a Christian Soveraign and Christian Subjects to be ruled by his sword or forcing power under Christ and his Laws for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the society and the glorifying and pleasing the Lord Redeemer And IV. The Universal Church comprehendeth all these three as parts and is most excellently properly and fully called the Church consisting of Jesus Christ the chief Pastor Teacher Priest and King an eminent perfect Policy with all Christians as the subject part It is visible in that the subjects and their profession and worship are visible aod Christ was visible on earth is visible in the Court of Heaven his Laws and Providence are visible and he will visibly judg the world and reign for ever And it is no further visible The constitutive essential parts are only Christ and his subject-body The noblest organical parts of that body are Prophets Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers In all this note 1. That we have no difference that I know of about the Church in any of these senses before mentioned except 1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods service without Gods particular prescript or institution 2. Whether it be true that the King is so persona mixta as some hold as to be King and Priest and to have the power of Church-Keys and Word and Sacraments 3. Whether over and above the lowest Pastoral Churches Christ hath instituted a direct superior Pastoral sort of Churches to rule the inferior in Faith Worship and the Keys of Discipline over Pastors and people And if so what are these superior Pastoral Churches whâ—ther Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Papal or all And if Christ made no such whether men may make them 2. And note that we are certainly agreed that the Magistratical form of forcing power and the Pastoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys are two though the subjects should be the same though usually the Church is in the Commonwealth as part And none of us deny a Christian Common-wealth Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and though this power be over the Pastoral Church it is but Accidental and not Essential to it 3. And note that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this were 1. What is the Pastoral specifying form of the Church of England And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Institution And I have brought him to maintain that there is no such Church of England at all And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he 4. And Lastly Note that as to a Pastoral Church we agree I suppose in distinguishing a Transient and a fixed relation And as he that is a Licensed Physician acteth as such where he cometh though related fixedly to no Hospital so if a lawful Minister of Christ either fixed in another Church or in none but the Universal be called pro tempore for a day to do his office in another Church he acteth as Christs Minister and their Pastor for that dayâ— And if a travelling Christian joyn with them he is a Member for that day Yea if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the same relations to the same ends it is a temporary transient Pastoral Church But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification ought to fix their relation and practice Though most of this be said after where he calls me to it I thought meet here to premise the Explication of the word Church as in divers books largely I have done of the word Separation lest I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part and we should dispute about a word which the Reader and perhaps our selves understand not But we have a greater controversie than this risen since A. Bishop Laud's and Grotius's Reconciling design v z. what the Catholick visible Church is 1. Protestants have hitherto held as the first point of difference from the Papists that the Universal Church hath no constitutive Head or supreme regent Power but Christ He hath setled no one
Vicarious or deputed supreme Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical 2. Accordingly they noted the difference of two sorts of Papists some that set the Pope as superior above Councils others as the Councils of Constance and Basil and the French that make the General Council supreme the Pope being President as the chief of the Patriarchs and having many priviledges as Primate to the Universal Church 3. But that in truth the Catholick governing power of Pope and the other four Patriarchs was but a humane form of Church Policy setled in one Empire as a National kind of Church and the Councils were Universal as to the Empire but not to all the Christian world which I have proved against W. Johnson fully called by the Emperour that had no power over other Nations and subscribed by his subjects 4. That the grand cheat that hath set up Popery is the turning this National Church into an Universal Government of all the Christian world and pretending that Christ or his Apostles set up that power over all which Emperours and Imperial Councils set up only over one Empire 5. We are sworn against Forreign Jurisdiction by the Oath of Supremacy For the Roman Empire is dissolved and if it were not we are no subjects of it 6. Yet we hold that all Christians should live in all possible love and concord counselling and helping one another for the edification of the Church and that such Councils are useful thereto as may be had without more hurt than good But that no Universal governing power besides Christs for Legislation Judgment or Execution is needful to that concord nor is a Government of the whole Christian world by any one Political supreme Pope or Council or Colledg of Pastors or Cardinals any more possible or lawful to be sought than that all the Kingdoms on earth have one humane civil Soveraign though all Kings as well as all Bishops are bound to serve God with the greatest concord that they can attain But now he that will read many late Divines of England will find that they are come to this 1. To take the foresaid Conciliar and French Papists to be no Papists and so to make it a controversie de nomine in which for me let them have their liberty 2 To take it for a necessary thing to believe that the Universal Church in the world hath one supreme governing power under Christ and is a Society that is therein visibly one And 3. That this one ruling power is either a General Council or the Colledg of all Bishops on earth 4. And that the Imperial Church-form was and is to be the true Universal Church form viz. a General Council where the five Patriarchs are by themselves or by consent 5. And that the Pope is President and Principium unitatis and chief Patriarch and so to be obeyed by us 6. And that there is no true way to Universal concord but by being of this one Church so formed and obeying its Universal Laws which they say christ hath given them power to make 7. And that they are Schismaticks and not to be tolerated that do not so consent and obey 8. Yea say some to us in England it is compelled obedience to all the present Impositions which only must cure our divisions without abatement for Union or any Tolerations A great deal more of this nature is built on this principle that the Church in all the earth is one as under one humane supreme Government under Christ and that all are Schismaticks that are not of it and obey it not I am not for disgracing any by the name of Papists that refuse it whether the French and the councils of Pisa Constance and Basil shall be called Papists I contend not But whether those false principles be the only terms of concord wise men will cautelously consider ADVERTISEMENT THere is lately Published a Book of the same Authors called A Search for the English schismatick by the Case and Characters 1. Of the Diocesan Canoneers 2. Of the Present Meer Nonconformists Not as an Accusation of the former but a necessary Defence of the latter so far as they are wrongfully accused and persecuted by them And is to be sold by Nevill Simmons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls THE CONTENTS AN Historical Preface Dr. Stillingfleet's judgment as in his Irenicon A Premised explication of the equivocal word Church What the Catholick Church is in our judgment and what in the judgment of many of our silencers Chap. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet's large and plain Asserting of our principles in his Defence of Archbishop Laud and Rom. Idolatry p. 1. Chap. 2. Some Animadversions on his Preface Whether the Jesuits first brought in Spiritual Prayer A full explication of our judgment about Spiritual Prayer His hard terms against mens high or low chusing Tutors for their Children p. 11. Chap. 3. Dr. Stillingfleet his Accusations examined His confusion disputing a question not stated What he means by Our Church by Communion by Constant by Withdrawing by Separate Congregations what Separation I am for or against Whether he say true that my Tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conforming were written without the least provocation on their part or that as designed to represent the Clergy as notorious Lying perjured Villains p. 22. c. Chap. 4. His false History of the old Nonconformists as if Bancroft's Danger Posit Heylin and all such old accusers utterly belyed them and the Canons made against them had a false supposition his citations examined More proof of his falsification The difference between the Nonconformists and the Brownists How we are used by them The Reformatio Legum Eccles how much for discipline I now add my request to the Reader that would know how far the first Reformers were of the Nonconformists mind and against our new Church-men that they would but read Cranmers and the other Drs. words cited by Dr. Stillingfleet in the end of his Irenicon and left out of Dr. Burnet's History and Bucer's Scripta Anglicana De Regno Del his Censura of the Liturgy de cura Anim. c. The story of Dr. Ames Paul Bayne Dr. Fulk c. Dr. Humphrey's Letter to the Bishops p. 55 56 57. Chap. 5. The false Reasonings and accusations of his second part p. 59. My judgment and case stated which he falsly reporteth Others Cases considered Whether it be true That there is no other reason against Communion than was at the first Reformation Difference proved 1. From the things imposed 2. From the design of the imposers 3. From the effects 4. From the case of the Church with whom we Communicate 5. From the additional reasons for our Preaching p. 64. What he would have them do that cannot have room in their Churches p. 70. His appeal to my case at Kederminster shamed p. 71 c. His false supposition that most of my Hearers need not our Teaching because they sometimes hear in the Parish-Churches
p. 73. He acquits them from Schisme that separate if the Church be Schismatical 74. I desire the Reader then to Read my few Sheets called A search for the English Schismatick More mistakes p. 74 75. Chap. 6. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church The Doctors Schismatical Error Confuted p. 76. He by this condemneth Apostles and Evangelists that were Itinerant and unfixed such as Bucer de Regno Dei would have sent abroad my exceptions about Churches and Ministers justified and his Calumny detected p 80. Whether I give too much to the People or am against the Rights of Patrons or Magistrates p. 82. Many more Calumnies to p. 89. He accuseth me as accusing them for naming the sins that I dare not commit p. 89. More of his vain Accusations to p. 92. Whether he be for silencing us p. 92. More of his Calumny p. 99. Considerable Quere to him p. 94. How he would drive men to Separation p. 95 96. He is come to Self-condemning Gentleness in expounding his Rule and Text Phil. 3. 16. p. 97. His sad Ennumeration of the causes of just Separation p. 98. Chap. 7. He begins his Third Part with more false Accusations p. 99. His History for Diocesan Churches against Parochial found fallacious p. 100 c. His vain Plea for the English Frame p. 106 c. He saith It s probable while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few p. 108. And Dr. Hammond saith No Subject Presbyters whether John Fox were the Publisher or Prefacer of the Reformatio Legum c. p. 109. Discipline hard but not unnecessary p. 111. Chap. 8. What the National Church of England is fully discussed and the Doctors Self-contradictions detected He denyeth any true Political Church of England He and we more agreed than he and other high Church-men that are for a Constitutive Political Government p. 112 113 c. He maketh it an introduction of Popery to hold that a Church must have a Constutive Regent Church-power and so fasteneth Popery on the Masters of his cause Chap. 9. That the mutual Consent of Pastors and flock is necessary to the very being of their Relation About Thirty Proofs from Antiquity that the Universal Church was for about 1000 years of that mind and decreed it p. 128 c. The necessity of consent proved from the Nature of the work where the reasons of it are all plainly opened p. 133. c. The Doctors contrary surmises and false Histories fully confuted p. 136 c. Chap. 10. Of the imposed Use of the Cross in Baptisme and denying Baptisme to the refusers p. 153. His vaine excuses confuted Whether the Cross be used as a Sacrament His disingenuous falsifying my words of the use of Crucifixes and other Images p. 156 c. What the Papists ascribe to Sacraments p. 168. Chap. 11. Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicate Nonconformists for not Communicating when ipso facto Excommunicate be guilty of Schisme p. 163. Chap. 12. Of the English sort of Sponsors and the Exclusion of the Parents Duty p. 167. see more in the Postscript Chap. 13. Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth p. 171. Chap. 14. Epistles and Testimonies Compar'd with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Jo. Glanviles Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant With a Letter of his to the Author and a Digression about Dr. Lewis du Moulin his Published Picture and Death-bed Repentance A Postscript of five notices viz. 1. Of a new Observation of the Trade of taking mony to be Godfathers to Poor mens Children and missing Baptisme for want of mony 2. A Letter of Mr. W. Rathbands of his Fathers judgment and Practice 3. An Excellent Confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets History of the extent of Dioceses and Choice of Bishops fully proving that the old Bishops were Parochial or Congregational and always chosen by the People or not made theirs without their free Consent By a Learned and faithful Minister 4. An Excellent Vindication of the silenced Ministers by a Conformist c. 5. My Apologie for the Nonformists Preaching Written by me and Comming out with this ERRATA IN the Preface Sect. 17. line 13. read pleaded for l. 17. after Clergie and People add of â—â—â—â—â—iâ—â—â—sâ— So Evident is the right of Synods Clergie and People AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS c. CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformists especially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord about the true Nature of Schism and who is the Schismatick written by him at age in his most owned books and not in youth in his Irenicon I stand to all my words against Schism which he hath cited and so I doubt not but he stands to these following of his DIscourse of Idolatry of Rome p. 7. Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of destroys Salvation The Papists consent p. 43. I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest that hath the best groundâ— and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 194. 195. 1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to distruction For this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more But this is a principle of Natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of it or to contradict the end and designe of it 2. The Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church Pag. 216. 217. 1. It is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contâ—ine in them the unquestionable will of that God whom we are bound to serve and it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfyed in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easly a matter for men to mistake in the waies they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should enterpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God or do they think
or form wich another may speak The help of knowledge hearing use and passion may help him to words Therefore they never take a man to be proved godly or sinceer by his bare words but by the grace of Prayer which is holy desire c. and not by the speaking gift or habit 11. But we think that it was not the Jesuits that first said out of the aboundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and though the tongue may lie it is made to express the mind and we must judge of other mens minds by their words till somwhat else disprove them And its natural for the Heart to lead the Tongue And men are more affected by words which come from affection than by those that do not and Reading words written by another when we speak to God is not so natural a signification of desire or other affection as speaking them from the present dictate of the heart For any Child that can read may do the one and it is not the usual signification of seriousness in other actions A beggar that should only read his begging lesson or a Child or Servant that should only read some words to his Father or Master would be thought less sensible of his wants 12. Ministers should be men better aquainted than the people how to speak to God and man It is their office and therefore it belongeth to them to choose the words which are fittest and to set up a Ministry that can do neither is to befriend the Prince of darkness against the Kingdom of Light and to be a deadly enemy to the Church and Souls And to set up a ministry that need not do it but may choose or is not obliged to it is the way to set up a ministry that cannot do it Let the Ministers be bound to no more than to Read and a few years will transform them to such as can do no more than read Moscovy proveth that and too many other Countries 13. If it be praying freely from present knowledge and desire without a book or set form which you call Spiritual prayer either you are for the use of it in the Pulpit or not If you are did the Jesuits teach it you or will you go on to follow them If not what a divided party are the Conformists while so many use it and pray spiritually And what a Case is the Church of England in that hath still so many Ministers that pray as the Jesuits Disciples Or why do you so reproach your Church and Ministry 14. Do you think that there is more force in the name of a Jesuit to disgrace Spiritual prayer or in the name of Spiritual prayer to honour the Jesuits And do you not seem to prevaricate and highly honour the Jesuits on pretence of dishonoring Spiritual prayer If you had said that the Jesuits first brought in Spiritual preaching and discourse and Spiritual living would it not have more honoured them than dishonoured Spirituality Will freedom from Spiritual prayer honour your Church as Seneca thought Cato's name would do more to honour Drunkenness than Drunkenness could do to dishonour Cato I am not such an Antipapist as to fall out with Father Son or Holy-Ghost because the Jesuits own them You do but help to confirm my charity who have long thought that among the Papists there are many persons truly godly though their education converse and proud tyrannical wordly Clergy have sadly vitiated them 15. All prayers written or unwritten are made by some body Those that the Bishops write down for us in the Liturgy and for our Fasts were made by their invention Either they had the help of the Spirit in making them or not If yea then why is it not as Jesuitical to write a Spiritual prayer as to speak one If not excuse them that say Gods Spirit made not your Liturgy nor are they Spiritual prayers 16. And were it not too like high and dangerous Pride if such a one as Bishop Bancroft Bishop Laud Bishop Morley Bishop Gunning in a Convocation or before every publick Fast should be appointed to write the words of Prayer and should in effect say to all the most Learned Divines in England The Spirit caused us to write these prayers and our measure is so sure and great that none of you may presume to question it nor to think that you can pray Spiritually in any words of your own but only in ours at least in the Assemby The Spirit will help you if you say our words but not your own It now cometh into my mind what may be some of the meaning of Bishop Gunning's Chaplain Doctor Saywell in his last Book that none hath power to ordain Bishops but they that have power to give the Holy Ghost for the work of their Office It may be it is The Holy Ghost to write Doctrine Sermons and Prayers for all their Clergy to use But do you not say also to the Presbyters Receive the Holy Ghost If they have him why cannot they speak their own hearts in other words than yours Is Spiritual prayer appropriated to your Liturgy words or forms any more than at the Council at Trent he was to the Popes instructions 17. We all confess that as all the actions of imperfect men have their imperfections so have all our prayers and these are easily aggravated Sudden free prayer and book prayer have both their conveniencies and inconveniencies The question is which hic nunc hath the greatest and whether forbidding either be not worst of all I have named the conveniencies and inconveniencies of each in my Christian Directory 18. Experience telleth the world that the daily saying over only the same words and that read out of a paper imposed by others by one that no further sheweth any sense of what he doth is not so apt as more free and well varied words in season to keep people from sleepy senseless prophanation and praying as the Papists do with their Masses Rosaries and Beads And the variety of Subjects preached on and variety of occasions and all accidents require some diversification of words and methods 19. It is a work of reverence to speak to the King yet as it is lawful to write a Petition to him so to speak to him without Book Judges have serious work to do for estate and life and yet they are trusted to speak without prescribed words and so are Advocates Lawyers Ambassadors Physicians Philosophers and all men in their Professions except Ministers and Christians as such 20. We know not why men may not be intrusted to speak to God in the name of imperfect man without imposed books and words as well as to speak to man from the most perfect God and in his name in preaching Mans actions will be like man Nothing that is not divine and spiritual should be spoken as from God and in his name And as after our frustrated Treaty for Concord 1661. one of them nameless wrote a Book against free praying
without an imposed form in the Pulpit and yet they never durst forbid it to this day so I know who shewed his desire of a new Book of Homilies of his own making its like to have been imposed instead of preaching and of the old ones on those that had not special license to preach But interest ruleth the world They durst not so far disgrace their Clergy as to make them meer Readers nor lose the advantage of talking out of the Pulpit for their Cause where none must contradict them Mr. Lob hath ask'd you already whether our Spiritual Prayer as you call it or your Liturgy and Bishop Cousins and Dr Taylors Prayer-books c. be liker to the Popish Mass book and many other Offices and Devotions Indeed Mr. Austins hath so much gravity as excepting his excursions to Saints c. it may compare with many of yours And for that sort of spiritual Devotion in which they flie too high I have found more of it in the Friers Franciscans Benedictines c. such as Barbanson Benedictus de Benedictis c. than in the Jesuits And the Oratoriana Phil. Nerius Baronius and the rest and of their sober or Religious men as Sales Mr. Roâ—ti c. and of old John Gerson Kempis c. have more of spirituality than the Jesuits But enough of this § 6. As to the rest of his Prefatory discourse of the Advantages of Popery 1. We doubt not but the Papists play their game among all Parties as far as they are able and put on divers sorts of Vizors But doth he that is a Historian not know that all over the world their cheif design is upon the Rulers and Leaders and they Cry Fight neither against great or small but to win one Court Card signifieth more than many others 2. Doth he think the Papists take the Conformists or the Nonconformists to be nearer to them and less against them 3. Did the Papists think Bishop Lauds reconciling design described by Doctor Heylin entertained by Sancta Clara Leander c. or the Parliaments fears of his introducing Popery in those times to be more against them 4. Are they liker to help in Popery that are so apt to be over-averse to any thing that favours of it in Doctrine Discipline and Worship and account the Pope Antichrist Or they that hold as followeth 1. As Grotius That a Papist is but one that flatters the Popes as if all were just that they say and do and so there are few Papists I hope in the World 2. That the Church of Rome is sound in Faith 3. And so are all the General Councils even Trent 4. That Rome is the Mistress of all Churches or as Bishop Bromhal that for Concord we must all obey the Pope as Patriarch of the West and Principium Unitatis Catholicae ruling according to the old Canons a Foreign Jurisdiction and all those pass for Schismaticks that refuse it of which more after 5. That the validity of our Ministry must be proved by the derivation of it from the uninterrupted succession of the Roman Ordainers and Church 6. That the Church of Rome by that succession is a true though faulty Church of Christ but so are none of the Reformed Churches which have not Bishops or have them not by such uninterrupted succession 7. That the only way of the Concord of Churches and all Christians is saith Bishop Gunning to obey the governing part of the Church Universal which 〈◊〉 Collegium Pastorum all the Bishops of the universal Church in one Regent Colledge governing all the Christian World per literas formatas 8. That its safer and better for the Protestants in France to be of the French Church of Papists than to continue without Bishops as they are 9. That we should come as near the Papists as the Greek Church doth or as both Greek and Latin did at the rupture of the two Churches or as in Greg. 1st daies say others or as in Char. Mag. daies say others receiving say some the first six General Councils say others the first 8. 10. That we must amend the Oath of Supremacy for the Papists as Thorndick saith and so many Doctrines as he intimateth 11. That its desireable that the Papists had continued in our Churches as in the begining of Queen Eliz. And if they come as Church Papists do should be received in our Communion 12. That if the Pope have not as some hold a right of such Primacy as belongs to Saint Peters successour at least His Primacy is a very prudent humane constitution 1. That there may be a Common Father to care for all the Church 2. And one to be a Head of Unity and order 3. And one to call General Councils 4. And one to rule between when there are no such Councils which are rare 5. And one to give power to Patriarcks and Arch-Bishops who else will have none over them to authorize or Govern them 6. And one to decide controversies when Countries Churches and Arch-Bishops disagree 7. And one to send out Preachers among Heathens Infidels and Hereticks all over the world 8. And one boldly to reprove admonish and if need be excommunicate Kings which their own subjects dare not do I do not mean that all these things or any of them are the Doctrine of the Church of England or held by all or most that conforme But if some of it have been published by the Chief Prelates and some by their chief defenders and some in conference with us by Clergy men I only ask whether all this please not and advantage not the Papists more than Nonconformists any way do And whether Arch-Bishop Usher and his Successor Arch-Bishop Bromhal Bishop Downam and his Successour Bishop Taylor differed not as much as you and I do And whether the multitude of Parish Priest that were Papists in Queen Elizabeths daies and Bishop Godfrey Goodman a Papists Bishop of Gloucester with all the rest mentioned by Prin Rushworth Burnet c. tell us not that the Papists had a hopeful game to play among the Bishops and Clergy of the Church § 7. As to his note out of Mr. Jo. Humpheries book disclaiming Cruelty to Papists it s known Mr. Humphery is a man of latitude and universal Charity and tyeth himself to no party or any mens opinions He openly professeth his hope of the Salvation of many Heathens and I so little fear the noise of the censorious that even now while the Plot doth render them most odious I freely say 1. That I would have Papists used like men and no worse than our own defence requireth 2 That I would have no man pat to death for being a Priest 3. That I would have no writ de excommunicato capiendo or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments For I would not give it them if I knew them if they came § 8. As to his Accusation of my first Plea for Peace he hath it after and it is after answered
And as to his Accusation of my book for Concord I answer 1. Is it no Ministers work in a contending world to tell and prove what are Christs ordained termes of Christian Concord but his that is Christs plenipotentiary on Earth and were to set the termes of Peace and War Is this spoken like a peace maker and a Divine Doth not he pretend also in his way to declare the terms of Concord 2. But no man more heartily agreeth with him in lamenting the state of the Church on earth that when such men as Bishop Gunning Dean Stillingfleet Dr. Saywel c. on one side and such as I and many better men on the other side have so many years studied hard to know Gods will I am certain for my self and I hope it of them with an unseigned desire to find out the truth what ever it cost and I profess as going to God that would he but make me know that Popery silencing Prelacy imprisoning Banishing or ruining all Nonconformists Anabaptists Antinomians Quakers or any that ever I wrote against are in the right I would with greater joy and thankfulness recant and turne to them than I would receive the greatest preferment in the land I say that yet after all this we should so far differ as for one side to be confident that the others way of Concord is the ready way to ruin wickedness and confusion and to come to that boldness to proclaim this to the world alas how doleful a case is this What hope of Christian peace and concord when such excellent sober well studyed men as they quite above the common sort not byassed by honour or preferments or power by Bishopricks Deaneries Masterships plurality or love of any worldly wealth and such as we that study and pray as hard as they to know the truth are yet confident to the height that each others termes of Love and peace are but Sathans way to to destroy them both and introduce as Dr. Saywel saith Conventicles do Heresie Popery Ignorance Prophaneness and Confusion And what we are past doubt that their way will do experience saith more than we may do Oh what shall the poor people do in so great a temptation § 9. But I must pass from his Preface where I have noted 1. That he is yet so peaceable as to propose some sort of abatements for our Concord that the benifit may be sibi suis not reaching our necesseries but much better than nothing 2. That they are so ill agreed that Bishop Gunnings Chaplain writeth against it making the only way of Peace to be by the sword to force all men to full obedience to their Lordships in every thing injoyned not abating an Oath a Subscription a Covenant a Word a Ceremony without Comprehension or limited Toleration 3 And I could wish the Doctor would consent at least that Lords and Parliament men may have the liberty themselves of educating their own Sons so it be in the Christian Reformed Religion and to choose their Tutors and not confine them to Conformists only The Papists are tollerated in choosing Tutors for their Children The King of France hath not yet taken away this liberty from the Protestants Nor the Turks from the Greeks And must you needs take it away from all the Lords Knights Gentlemen Citizens and Free-holders of England Perhaps Beggars will consent if you will keep their Children or do what the Godfathers vow Most Gentlemen that keep Chaplains expect that they teach their Sons at home sometime at least what if a Lord or Knight have such a Chaplain as Hugh Broughton or Ainsworth or as Amesius Blondel Salmatius as Gataker Vines Burges c. must the Law forbid them to read Hebrew Philosophy or Divinity to their Sons I doubt you will scarce get the Parliament hereafter to make such a Law to fetter themselves lest next you would extend your dominion also to their Wives as well as Sons and forbid them marrying any but Conformists Is it not enough to turn us all out of the publick Ministry Methinks you might allow some the Office of a School-master or Houshold Tutor or Chaplain under the Laws of Peace unless the Sword be all that you trust too If it be it is an uncertain thing The minds of Princes are changable and all things in this World are on the Wheel when Peter flieth to the Sword Christ bids him put it up for they that so use it perish by it Hurting many forceth many to hurt you or to desire their own deliverance though by your hurt CHAP. III. The beginning of the Doctors unreasonable Accusations examined His stating of the Case of Separation § 1. THis much instead of an intelligible stating of our Controversie he giveth us Page 2. By separation we mean nothing else but withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and joyning with Separate Congregations for greater purity of worship and better means of Edification And may we be sene by this that we understand the difference 1. Whether by Our Church he meant the Parochial Church and if so whether some or all or the Diocesan Church or the Provincial or the National or all I know not But I know well that some withdraw from some Parish Churches which joyn with others And some think they withdraw not from the Diocesan or Provincial if they communicate with any one Parish Church in the Diocess And some renounce the Diocesan Church which constantly joyn with the Parochial And for the National Church who can tell whether we have Communion with it till we know what they mean by it Indeed in the latter part after the long dispute he condescendeth beyond expectation to explain that term But it s so as plainly to deny that there is any such thing as a Church of England in a Political sense that hath any constitutive Regent part But even there so late he maketh it not possible to us to know whether we be members of the Church or not For he maketh it to be but all the Christians and Churches in the Kingdom joyned by consent exprest by their Representatives in Parliament under the same civil Government and Rules of Religion Doctrine and Worship and Government 1. As it is a Christian Kingdom we are sure that we are members of it 2. As it is all the Churches of the Kingdom consenting to the Scriptures yea and to Articles of Doctrine and all that Christ or his Apostles taught we are sure that we withdraw not from it 3. But if every Chancellor Dean Commissary Surrogate c. Or every forme or word or Ceremonie be essential to their Church we cannot tell who is of it and who not Or really whether any reject not some one forme word or office If every such thing be not essential he never in all the book tels us what is or how to know it or who is of it § 2. And the word withdrawing seemeth to imply former Communion And if so he maketh
all the Anabaptists Independants Presbyterians c. Who never were of their Church to be none of the Separatists here meant But if by withdrawing he mean not joyning in Communion either he meaneth in the whole Communion or but in part If the whole then the many thousands that live in the Parishes and Communicate not in the Sacrament are no members of the Parish Church And who knoweth then who are of their Church And how few in many Parishes are of it that yet pass for Members of the Church of England And yet I that joyn with them am none of it in their account And. 3. What meaneth he by Constant Communion I go to the Parish Church when sickness hindreth not once a day I go to the Sacrament and am none of their Church Thousands go but rarely and thousands scarce at all at least to the Sacrament and these are of their Church and no separatists 4. But perhaps the conjunction is explicative and joyn with separate Congregations for greater purity and Edification If so then he that never joyneth with them nor any other is none of the intended separatists 2. Nor he that goeth to other Churches on other accounts than for purity of Worship and Edification As Papists that go as to the only true Church for the Authority § 3. But the utter ambiguity is in the word separate And that you may understand it he explaineth it by repeating it By separation he means withdrawing to separate Congregations But the doubt is which are the separate Congregations I named many sorts of Lawful and unlawful separations but he will not tell us which he meaneth by any intreaâ—y § 4. I would my self yet that I may be understood tell the reader what sorts of separation I renounce and what I own But I have done it so oft and largely that I am ashamed to repeat it as oft as mens confusion calls me to it The reader who thinks it worth his labour may see it done in my first Plea for Peace and in the Preface to my Cath. Theol. and specially in the beginning of the third Part of my Treat of Concord and in Christ Direct And he calls me here afterward to the same Certainly it is only sinful separation that is in the question and as certainly there are many sorts not sinful I am locally separate from all Churches save that where I am I morally separate from the Roman Church as an unlawful Policy and all other which are in specie against Gods word I separate from some for Heresie as being not capable matter of a Church while they own not all the Essence of Christianity I separate from some as Imposing sin and refusing my Communion without it I separate from some as having no lawful Pastors some being uncapable matter and some being usurpers that have no true call I separate from some only so far as to prefer a better rebus sic stantibus sometime a better as to the Doctrine sometime as to the Worship sometime as to the Discipline sometime and mostly as to the Pastors worth and work some go from their own Parish because the Minister is very ignorant in comparison of another to whom they go some that hear the Minister preach against preciseness and for Ceremonies had rather hear another that calleth them to holiness some that have tollerable Preachers go to Doctor Stilling sleet and Doctor Tillotson as better some go for neerness to another Church Some go from their own Parish because the Minister cuts the Common-prayer too short and Preacheth too long some because they would have it so go to such some because the Parson is an Arminian others because he is contrary Some go to the Minister that is strict in keeping the scandalous from the Sacrament some therefore go from him some remove their Dwellings or Lodgings for these ends and some do not some go from their own Parish for the benefit of the Organs in another And of old when Nonconformists had Parish Churches and used some part of the Liturgy many went to them from their own Parishes Some of these are lawful some are unlawful Most certainly they that go from their own Parishes yea or to Nonconformists Assemblies in London go not all on the same account Nor doth the Doctor and such other separate from me as I am said to do from them but otherwise and much more § 5. If he would first have told us what Separation is sinful secondly and then have proved us guilty of it instead of the confused talk of Separation and a begging the question by suposing that to be sinful which he will neither discribe nor prove such it had been of some usefulness to our conviction But I confess I never liked those Physitians who give their Patients the Medicines that they are best stored with or they can best spare be the disease whatsoever Nor the disputer that poureth out what he is best furnished to say how useless soever to the reader or to the Cause Disputeing should not be like boys playing at Dust point who cover their Points in a great heap of Dust and then throw Stones or Cudgels at it and he that first uncovereth them wins them Dusty heaps of ambiguous words confusedly poured out befriend not Truth that should be Naked nor the reader § 6. Some thought it was the Place called Conventicle houses which made the Conformists call us Separatists and they got oft into Parish Churches and Chappell 's But these were made the worst of separatists and punished the more And doubletss it is not meeting at any of the new Tabernacles nor at the Spittle nor at Sturbridge Fair where Preaching hath long been used nor in a Prison nor at the Gallows to Prisoners and People which are faulty Separation § 7. Some thought that they meant that its want of the Common-prayer that maketh us Separatists and they have tryed and read the Common-prayer in their Assemblys But these have been accused and suffered the more And even Mr. Cheny was forced to fly his Country for reading it and Preaching in an unlicensed meeting And some reading more and some less by this it will not be known who are the Separatists The old Nonconformists in their Parish Churches read some more some less and now some Conformists vary They say a Conformist at Greenwich keepeth up a Common-prayer Conventicle some Conformists are accused for overpassing much One lately suspended for wearing the Surplice too seldom and refusing to pray for our gratious Queen and James Duke of York How much of this goeth to make a Separatist § 8. Some thought it was want of the Magistrates leave that made them call us separatists But when the King Licensed us the accusation was the same yea Mr. Hinkley and many others tell you that they took this for worst of all § 9. Some say it is want of the Bishops Licence But as Mr. Tho. Gouge hath his University Licence and I have Bishop Sheldon's Licence
I think not invalidate and yet this goeth for no justification of us so is it with others § 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as described by their Cannon that must make us Separatists which is of men that call themselves of another Church But that 's not it Mr. Gouge Mr. Poole Mr. Humphrey and my self and abundance more that never gathered any Church nor called our selves of any other then their own are nevertheless separatists in these mens account § 11. They that remembred what was called Separation in England of old supposed it had these two degrees which made men called Brownists First falsly taking the Parish Ministers and Churches for no true Ministers and Churches of Christ and therefore not to be Communicated with Secondly or in the lower rank falsly taking the faults of the Parish Ministers and Churches to be so great that its a sin to have ordinary Communion with them But they that have still disclaimed both these are Separatists still in our Accusers sence § 12. Some thought that ordinary Communicating in the Parish Churches and pleading for it would prove us no separatists with them But this will not serve as my own and many other mens Experience proveth § 13. I am called after to say more of this The sum of my separation is this First that I take not the Parish Churches to be the only Churches that I must Communicate with and will not confine my Communion to them alone as if they were a sect or All But will also have Communion with Dutch French or Nonconformists 2. I take not the Order Discipline and mode of worship in the Parish Churches nor the Preaching of very many Parsons Vicars and Curates to be the best and most desirable 3. I take those to be no true Political Churches which have no Pastors that have all the Qualifications and Call and Authority which is Essential to the Office and therefore can communicate with them but as with a flock without a Pastor or an Oratory Community or Catechized Company 4. I live peaceably under such Bishops as have many hundred Parishes and no Episcopos Gregis true Bishops and Pastoral Churches under them as they think But I own not their Constitution 5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Associated for mutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prescribeth and in all the Protestant Religion and all that all Christian Churches are agreed in and all that is truly needful to the ends of Christianity But not absolutely in all which their Canons Liturgy c. conttaine Especially their sinful Impositions and their Presumtious Canonical Excommunications of dissenters ipso facto 6. I am one of the Christian Kingdom of England as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command But not for obeying them in sin against God nor for believing all to be Lawful because they command it nor for their taking down Family Government or self Government and discerning private Judgment of the subjects This is my measure of separation § 14. And I think in cases that concern our own and many mens Salvation we should have leave freely to speak for our selves and not be used as we are that must neither be endured to be silent or to speak Let this Dr. open our case to you himself saith he Pref. p. 36. Speaking of my first Plea for Peace As though it had been designed on purpose to represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and orders established among us For there are no less than thiâ—ty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity set down in it and all this done without the 〈…〉 provocation given on oue side And elswhere he saith he shall less regard my aggravations Ans 1. If I do that which you think as bad I would gladly be told of it though false accusations I desire not And impenitence is too soon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees and I had rather be saved from it 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reason and humanity as well as Christianity to decide the case of this Accusation 1. We did in 1660. and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durst for fear of sin and Hell to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Episcopal party 2. When our labour and hopes were frustrate and two thousand of us cast out of the Ministery and afterwards laws made against us as Conventiclers first for our Fining Imprisonment and then Banishment and after besides Imprisonment to pay twenty pound the first Sermon and forty pound the next and so on when after this the Law that banished us from all Cities Corporations c. and places where we lately Preached did most deeply accuse us as the cause I never wrote so much as the reasons of our dissent When by the execution of these Laws we were by Informers and others used as is well known I was still silent My not conforming shewed my dissent but I durst not so much as once tell them why lest it should more exasperate them 3. At last I was often told that the Bishop that first forbad my Preaching and many others after him oft said to Great men Mr. Baxter keeps up a Schism and yet holds all our conformity lawful save renouncing a rebellious Covenant And I yet continued silent 4. At last they wrote against us that we durst not say that any part of Conformity was sin but only inconvenient 5. Then many pulpits and books proclaim that we against our Consciences kept up a Schism for a baffled cause which we had nothing to say for 6. All this while Lords and Commons used to ask us what is it that you would have and what keepeth you from Conformity In private talk but would never allow us to speak for our selves and give the world or Parliament our reasons 7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy cryed out to the Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and as one said set fire to the Fagot and blamed them for not doing it 8. When the King gave us his Licence they were greatly offended as aforesaid 9. At last one great Bishop told me that he would desire the King to constraine us to give our reasons and not keep up a Schism and not tell for what And another greater told me that the King took us to be not sincere that would not give our reasons And all this while I durst not give them as knowing how they would be received 10. When the Bishops kept me from Preaching and gave me leisure I wrote 1. An Apology for our Preaching 2 A Treatise of Episcopacy and divers other such and yet durst not Print them
nor indeed could do it 11. At last after about seventeen or eighteen years silence by such importunity and the Press being more open I ventured first but to write my first Plea for Peace which only nameth matter of Fact and our bare Judgment enumerating the things which we think sin without our Arguments lest it should provoke them more And therein professed that knowing mens different Educations studies interests c. I did not by this accuse the Conformists nor the Law makers but only tell 1. What I thought would be sin in us 2. And how great a sin if we conformed Reader should I have stayed longer the smal Tract of Sacrilegious desertion of the Ministry came out when we were licensed but ventured not to name the matters of our Nonconformity what could we do less I staid till I think half the silenced Ministers were dead Is the call of superiours the Interest of our Ministry and Consciences of so little regard as that I must not tell men that so loud and long had asked what 's the matter Must we neither be silent nor speak And now see here 1. If Dean Stillingfleet be a man to be believed in such accusations All this was done by me without the least provocation on their side wonderful difference Is my naming what I think God forbids me so great a provocation to them and is all this for seventeen years before named not the least provocation to us on their part What shall one think could bring such a man to such a word 2. And that which I profest that I wrote not to accuse them he tells you was as if designed to represent them as a Company of notorious lying Perjured Villains This Collection I feared But how could I avoid it Must not I tell them that urge me what sin I fear least they say you represent us as such 3. See here how they talk of us contrarily as the Barbarians of Paul that now make him a Murderer and anon a God For many years together our Lords and Masters perswaded men that we took Conformity to be no sin save renouncing the Covenant And now how Contrary It s the representation of a Company of notorious lying perjured Villains with thirty tremendous aggravations Repent O England saith Bradford at the stake But who would have thought that Repentance had been so hard a work in a case called so heynous and that to the Preachers of Repentance as it is either to them or to us which ever it be that is found in the guilt CHAP. IV. Of his History of the case of the old Nonconformists § 1. AS to what he saith of the sameness of the former Case and ours I shall tell him the difference after where he more calls me to it And shall shew him so much difference as will discredit this assertion § 2. As to the case of the old Nonconformists 1. It must be premised that we take them not for any of our rule but cleave to Gods word and the example of the Primitive Church looking still at the great ends of order and Government 2. We maintain as well as he that the Chief Nonconformists were against that called Brownism or Separation and wrote more against it than the Conformists did 3. I still profess my self to be of their Judgment in this and have practised accordingly 4. But they were not against such Preaching or any such sort of separation as I have either practised or defended § 3. Here therefore it must be known what the Controversie between them and the separatists was 1. The higher sort of separatists said that the Church of England was no true Church The Nonconformists said it was a true National Church both as a Christian Kingdom and as an Association of Churches and as represented in National Synods were they made one 2. The said Brownists said that the Parish Churches were no true Churches nor to be owned as such nor joyned with The Nonconformists held that they are true Churches that have capable Ministers though faulty 3. The separatists said that the Parish Ministers were no true Ministers because ordained by Diocesans and not chosen by the people c. The Nonconformists said that the capable were true though faulty Ministers owned by the peoples consenting communion and the ordination valid though culpable 4. The separatists said that Ministers and people must gather Churches that are purer and set up better discipline in them whatever Rulers say or do against it or whatever they suffer as far as they are able The Nonconformists said this is to be done where it may be done without doing more hurt than good but else it is no duty but a sin viz. To do it Tumultuously Seditiously or so as by running on the Magistrates sword by improbable attempts to lose their own advantages for doing and getting good and hinder the common parish reformation 5. The Separatists said that no prohibition of the Magistrate will warrant a Minister to forbear the publick work of his office The Nonconformists held that it belongeth to the Magistrate to restrain deceivers and all false Teachers who do more hurt than good and such should obey when they are forbidden to Preach and Administer Sacraments Yea if the Magistrate wrongfully forbid a worthy Minister to Preach for order he is bound to obey unless the need of the Church and Souls and the probable benefit plainly weigh down that matter of order and make the Magistrates prohibition invalid as being against the common good and the ends of the Ministry and so against Christ 6. The semi-separatists Robinsons party after held that though the Parish Churches may be called true Churches as a Leper is a true man and it may be lawful to hear a Sermon in them yet the Common-prayer is so bad and the people and Ministers so bad and discipline so cast out that it is unlawful to joyn with them in Common-prayer or Sacrament or to become setled members of them but all must attempt though in Forreign Countreys that are able to set up purer worship and discipline The Nonconformists held that those that can have better without more hurt than good should cheose it But they that cannot may joyn in member-ship Common-prayer and Sacrament with such Parish Churches as will admit them without their own actual sin and consenting to their faults § 4. I shall now give you so full proof that the Nonconformists were for more which the Doctor calleth Separation than my Preaching or practice ever reached to as I shall tell the Reader what credit this Doctors history deserveth and what inhumane usuage the Nonconformists have from that sort of men § 5. Anno 1593. Was printed against them Bishop Bancroft's book called Dangerous Positions and Proceedings c. Or English Scotizing for Discipline by force c. In the first book he maketh their Reformations so odious as that Page 30. He saith that in Scotland it hath wrought more mischief in Thirty years
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
mind by citing four of their Books against Brownists and were four or forty times four all But Mr. Rathbands is said to be the Nonconformists Doth he believe that he meant that all or the twentieth part of the Nonconformists wrote or subscribed it One of the Names to it is Mr. Simeon Ash my intimate dear friend whose judgment in these matters was the same with mine whom I was with even in his sickness almost to the last hour of his life and was buryed Aug. 23. 1662. the day before the Law had else silenced him and he was to me a better Expositor of his own mind than the Dr. can be He was so much for going on to preach that his Motto in his Funeral Ring was I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ I yet keep my Ring and can shew it you And as to old Mr. Langley another of them I heard him my self preach in Albriton Church in Shropshire a Thanksgiving Sermon for the hopes of deliverance from the silencing Bishops when the Law forbad him And for old Mr. Slater I heard him preach at Trinity Church in Coventry when the Law forbad him And did they not understand their own Writings better than the Dr. doth Sect. 23. And I would I knew how to prevail with him to tell me whether the Law and Canon did not forbid all the Ministers in England to worship God according to the Directory and neglect the Common Prayer Book which yet almost all did for many years in the times of usurpation And yet of nine thousand or more of these seven thousand since conformed to the Church of England and they say that this Dr. is one of them If mere disobedience then be the sin all these lived so long in sin and he with others Sect. 24. But all that can be gathered out of the four Books â—â—â—ed and such others is but this which is our judgment 1. That Churches and Pastors are under the Kings Government as well as other Subjects 2. That it belongeth to him to punish them for evil doing and encourage them in doing well 3. That as to this his own execution he is the publick Judge whether they do well or ill 4. That if he justly forbid any to preach or assemble he must be obeyed 5. And if he mistake in particular cases not destroying the ends of his Government the common good he must not be resisted nor in such a manner disobeyed as tendeth more to the common hurt than his mistake doth nor disabled to Govern by their dishonouring him much less by Rebellion or Confusion 6. Nor are men bound to cast away their great advantages for Gods service which they then had on pretence of doing better when by accident it would do more hurt than good nor as Bradshaw saith to run on the Sword or oppose Sword to Sword or raise Sedition and ruin themselves in vain Their advantages were many 1. Lawful Communion in the Parish Churches 2. Most of them either constantly or by sits had publick Churches or Chappels to preach in and were still in hope 3. The Magistrate protected them and the Reformation 4. They hoped for a progress of it whereas had they openly done as the Brownists they had endangered the Reformation by the exasperation and ruined themselves and lost most of their labour So that it is plain that preaching in that imprudent manner which is like to do more harm than good they took to be a double sin as hurtful and as disobedience for obedience is due in such a case But in case the manner and circumstances be such as that these evils are not consequent but more good than hurt to be expected they thought the bare breach of the Law no sin Sect. 25. Which I yet further prove 1. Because it s agreed by all that Governing Order is a medium for the thing ordered and never obligeth when it overthroweth the end power being given to Edification and not to Destruction None have power to forbid the necessary preaching of the Gospel and probably to damn Souls 2. Because else the Nonconformists should be more against preaching when forbidden than the Conformists who say as Bishop Bilson We must go on with our work suffer and as Bishop Andrews Tortur Torti Cohibeat Regem Diaconus c. 3. Yea the Papists who on pretence of Obedience are tyrannical yet mostly agree as I have elsewhere proved that humane Laws bind not beyond the case of scandal when they are against the common good And a Toletane Council decreed that their Constitutions should not be taken to bind ad pâ—câ—atum to hazard Souls but only ad poenam 4. As I have said their own practice fully expounded their words who constantly broke the Law and Canon in preaching in Houses and in Chappels without or contrary to the Liturgy or a part of it So did Mr. Ball at Whitemore Mr. Hind at Banbury Mr. Geree and Mr. Fox at Tewksbury John Rogers at Dedham Mr. Taylor Mr. Harvy Mr. Bourne at Manchester Mr. Gee Mr. Johnson Mr. Hancock Mr. Barlow Mr. Broxholme Mr. Cooper and abundance more besides those mentioned before And now I leave it to the Dr.'s further thoughts whether he spake truly of the sence of All the Nonconformists and have proved what he undertook To abuse the Magistrate or do his part for publick Reformation they were against and so are we Sect. 26. As to his question Was there less necessity then or now I answer 1. There was then more necessity as there is of you or me in America where we cannot preach the people lately Papists desired not their helps nor scrupled hearing others as many thousands do now 2. There was necessity then and so there is now but opportunity must joyn with necessity to oblige which they had more than we by connivence in Chappels where was necessity and they had less than we in other places Sect. 27. As to the Answers of Mr. Sprint on my knowledge the usual answer was That evil must not be done that we may have leave to do good and that if others hinder me because I will not sin it is not my omission of any duty yet the disparity of the Apostles case and ours may be mentioned to shew the difference of obligations Positive Precepts bind not ad semper but Negatives do and it s too gross a shift to turn a Negative to a Positive and then pretend that the comparison is between two duties preaching is a duty when we can do it but not when we cannot do it unless we will swear subscribe profess or practise a forbidden thing Sect. 28. I conjecture that to what I have proved of the practice of the Nonconformists it will be said that Their preaching in peculiar places Chappels or Churches though in a manner against Law and Canon was but a partial joyning with the Church of England and not a separation and the connivence of the Bishops was a kind of Toleration Answ 1. And
are in all places of this Realm almost neglected the offender either nothing or little rebuked and sith the transgressors have no colour of conscience it is sin and shame to proceed against us first having also reasonable defence of our doings Charity my Lords would first have taught us Equity would first have spared us brotherliness would have warned us pity would have pardoned us if we had been found trespassers God is my witness who is the beholder of all faith I think of your Lordships honourably esteeming you as brethren reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the Congregation alas why have not you some good opinion of us why do you trust known Adversaries and mistrust your Brethren We confess one faith of Jesus we preach one doctrine we acknowledg one Ruler upon earth in all things saving in this we are of your judgment shall we be used thus for a Surplice shall brethren persecute brethren for a forked Cap devised singularity of him that is our enemy Now shall we fight for the Popes coat his head and body being banished shall the controversie so fall out in conclusion that for lack of necessary furniture as it is esteemed labourers shall lack wages Churches preaching shall we not teach shall we not exercise our Talents as God hath commanded us because we will not wear that which our enemies have desired and that by the appointment of Friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our Adversaries should laugh to see brethren fall together by the ears Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses Manasses Ephraim My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church the Crests and triumphs of Antichrist the laughter of Satan the sorrow and sighs of a number the misery and sequel of the Tragedy I write with zeal without proof of my matter at this time present but not without knowledge of it nor without grief of mind God move your Spirit at this present to fight against Carnem Circumcisionem immo Concisionem against Literam Legem which principally is now regarded and rewarded Speak I humbly beseech you to the Queens Majesty to the Chancellor and to Mr. Secretary and the rest that those proceedings may sleep that England may understand your zealous mind toward the worship of God your love toward the poor welwillers your hate toward the professed enemies your unity in true conformity the other neither be needful now neither exacted in any good age So shall the little Flock be bound to you so shall the great Shepherd be good to you An ANSWER to the false ACCUSATIONS and REASONINGS of the Dr.'s SECOND PART HEre the Dr. begins with the description of their principles whom he accuseth I am one of them And the first sort are those that hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant viz. at some times to be present and in some part of our worship and on particular occasion to partake of some acts of Communion with us but they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these though at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church The second sort are `` Such as hold any Communion with our Church unlawful And he pretends to proceed with all possible clearness Answ I am sorry if more clearness and truth is become impossible to him He taketh not me to be one of the second sort and therefore describeth me as of the first It s no presumption to say that I know my own mind and practice better than he doth though he would seem to know the old Nonconformists minds better than they did themselves Sect. 2. The matter of fact must first be notified 1. I ever distinguished the National Diocesan Parochial and Segregate Churches And the National as supposed organized or an Ecclesiastically political Society from the National as a Christian Kingdom and as an agreeing Association of Churches without any Governor of the whole Single or Aristocratical And I distinguished Diocesans that are as Arch-Bishops over lower Bishops and those that are like ours infimae speciei and I distinguished Parish Churches that have true Pastors from those that have none but uncapable men through insufficiency heresie malignity or as usurpers are not truly called 2. Accordingly I concluded 1. That the Parish Churches in England that have true Pastors are true political governed Churches 2. That though some would make them none by denying to the Pastors an essential part of their office and make the Bishop the sole Pastor and the rest but his Curates and the Parishes no Churches as having no Bishop but to be only as Chappels part of the lowest governed Church Diocesan and so give up the cause to the Brownists called Separatists yet truly such Parishes are true political Churches because the ordainer being but the investing Minister the office is not essentiated as he willeth or saith but as God the Instituter willeth and saith As the power of the Husband over the Wife is not what please the Priest that marryeth them but what pleaseth God who giveth it by his Law and as the Lord Mayor's power is not what please the Recorder or he that giveth him his Oath or Insignia but what the Kings Charter giveth and the Kings power is not what he will that Crowneth him and giveth him his Oath but what he hath right to by the constitution of the Kingdom so that the truth of the Parish Churches is soundly maintained by the Nonconformists and overthrown by many of the Diocesans But if the Parish Minister himself consent not to the essentials of his own office his Ministry may be valid to others while he is in the place but he is himself no true Pastor 3. All Parishes are no true governed Churches whose Ministers want any thing essential to a Pastor nor must be owned as such if known 4. But for the peoples sake they are true Churches secundum quid or equivocally as a company of Christians may be so called that have no Pastor and as such may be so far communicated with 5. I never spake against a Diocesan or Arch-Bishop that hath Parish Churches and true Pastors or Bishops under him and taketh on him no more than the Apostles did excepting their work properly Apostolical viz. by the Word and not the Sword to oversee and instruct inferior Pastors 6. When the Diocesans put down all lower Churches and true Pastors I own not that doing nor them in that form but I separate from them no further than they do from Christ 7. When they are but as good Arch-Bishops taking care of many Churches whether their Diocess shall be called a Church as such is but lis de nomine I find not that any Apostle as such was the constitutive Head of a Diocesan or Provincial Church or made any such above particular Churches
Nor do I find in the New Testament any political Church form but the Universal headed by Christ and particular ones governed by Pastors The General is the constitutive Head of his Army and the Colonel of his Regiment and the Captain of his Troop as distinct subordinate Bodies but the Major General General of the Ordnance Quartermaster General c. may be only under Officers to the whole and the noblest integral parts but as such no constitutive Head of any Body of Men whatever So that General Pastors prove no superior proper Church But because it was lawful in prudence for the Apostles to have taken several Provinces limited severally to each so may men now and if any call such Churches I strive not so the matter be agreed on 8. I ever owned a Christian Kingdom and the agreeing Association of as many Churches as can for mutual help and concord and the King to be their Governor by the Sword And if any will call a Kingdom a Church or an Association that hath no constitutive Government a Church as if he called a Diet or Assembly of many Kings or Princes a Kingdom or Republick let him enjoy his Equivocation so we understand each other 9. According to these Principles I own my self a Member of the universal Church of the Church of England and of the Parish or particular Church where for the time I am called to be that is as they are But I think I may remove from Parish to Parish as I have cause as a dweller or a lodger may and I take not all the Parish to be the Church and take Parish bounds to be no Divine Institution but a humane mutable point of order convenient when by accident it crosseth not the end nor doth more harm than good 10. I think if any Nobleman in London confine his ordinary communion to a just assembly in his happel or any that have a Minister utterly unsuitable to their needs do usually hold communion in the next Parish Church for better he is thereby neither Separatist nor Sinner 11. According to all this when I was silenced I ordinarily heard Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Tillotson and communicated in several places as I had best opportunity and quickly going to Acton I there constantly morning and evening joyned at Common prayer and Sermon communicating in the Sacrament where I had best opportunity being loth for the Parson and Curates sâ—ke to tell you why it was not there once with Dr. Horton and often with Nonconformists The Plague driving me to Hambden I constantly there joyned in all the publick Worship and Sacrament Returning to Acton I did as before and sometime repeated Dean Rieve's Sermon till he got me sent to Gaol for teaching some willing ignorant people between the Church meetings in my house Thence going to Totteridge I many years constantly twice a day joyned in the publick worship and took the Sacrament when administred as Mr. Parre will testifie Thence removing to London and licensed by the King to preach I forbare some time and after chose only the Market house at St. James's openly declaring that we met not as separating from the publick Churches but for the need of multitudes that went to no Church for want of room Since then I have many years joyned in all the publick worship Word Prayer and Sacraments with the Parish Church when able since that I also sometime joyn with Nonconformists and preach my self Afternoons and on Thursdays in the Nonconformists Chappels being not allowed to do it otherwise In the Country in Summer I have far off got into some Parish Churches for a day and tryed neer London but could not have consent though I have Bishop Sheldon's License for that Diocess I think not yet invalidated This is the matter of fact Now Reader Qu. 1. Doth the tenth part of those counted of this Parish Church hear and communicate so oft as I do Q. 2. If not what makes them and not me to be of that Church Q. 3. What is the constancy that this Dr. maketh necessary to a member Q. 4. What are the parts of their worship which he saith I joyn not in Hath he named any Q. 5. Is this only occasional joyning Sect. 3. I do maintain that 1. When consideratis considerandis we may choose the purest Churches and most edifying Ministry it is a duty so to do And one of his answers the Rector c. hath in the Epistle cited his own words not out of the retracted Irenicon but his late Book against Popery expresly threatning us with damnation if we do not To which I find no excuse made by him yea the Papist adversary grants the same 2. I do maintain against those that separate from all Churches which they dare not be stated members of that its lawful to communicate occasionally where we may not do it statedly But is this to deny all save occasional communion with all their Churches 3. I often say that there is so great difference of Parish Ministers and of Persons cases and opportunities and Relations as Wives Children Servants under Parents c. of divers commands c. that to be constant Communicants in their Parish Church is to some a duty to some a sin and so is occasional communion Sect. 4. As to the second sort that hold all communion with them unlawful 1. I leave them to plead their own cause and I meddle only with my own part 2. But I must say that if they mistake those that wilfully give them the occasion are unfit reprovers of them And if men for worldly ends or by error will corrupt and defile a Church to the utmost that is consistent with lawful Communion or neer it they may make the question whether their Communion be lawful too hard for understandings Every one cannot tell whether one in a swoon be alive or dead and some may bury him too hastily Stretch not my similitude beyond my meaning If a Gentleman of the game should by wilful sin get the Lues Venerâ—â— and the case be disputed whether his wife may separate from him or if he beat her once a week if she will not daily eat that which makes her grievous sick and he doth it to exercise his Authority another may better plead against her departure than he If it be a fault in her so to save her self what is it in him to destroy or abuse her If we be forbidden to take poyson and one will causelesly command us to take a doubtful thing as Nightshade Hemlock Aâ—ripigmentum c. and then condemn us as disobedient for refusing he is the unfittest person to condemn us If it be lawful to avoid a house that hath the Plague a man is excusable that mistakes the spotted Fever for it Were your Congregations but full of persons that had the scabs of the small Pox not dryed away and one went to a sounder Congregation for fear of infection not at all condemning you he might be born with
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
in all Cities Corporations or Places aforesaid though their example might have drawn many as mine did where I was 11. Ministers and Corporations and Vestries were not then bound to swear or subscribe that it is unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to resist any commissioned by the King when the Keeper of his Seal may sign Commissions to seize on the Kings Forts Garrisons Navies and Treasuries to deliver up the Kingdoms to Foreigners to destroy Parliaments Cities and Laws I am sure Hooker Bilson or Arch-Bishop Abbot subscribed not this nor were such Conformists Are all these no difference of case Sect. 8. There is 2. a great difference in the drift and tendency of the Impositions They were at first to quiet a Popish Nation while the true Doctrine took possession and rooting and to avoid the cavils of those Papists that charged the Reformers with forsaking all the Church But what they have been used for these last forty or fifty years I leave the Reader to judge 1. By the Complaints of all the Parliaments since then save one 2. By the History of Arch-Bishop Laud's Tryal 3. By Dr. Heylin's History of his Life 4. By the writings of Divines such as Mr. Thorndike Dr. Parker Dr. Pierce Arch-Bishop Bromhall and many more such and by the Papists historical collection out of such See Dr. Heylin's description of the Reconciling Plot Anno 1639. Arch Bishop Bromhal saith Vindicat. p. 19. c. Whereas Mr. Baxter doth accuse Grotius as a Papist I think he doth him wrong nay I am confident he doth him wrong And I have read all that he alledgeth to prove it but without any conviction or alteration in my judgment I will endeavour to give some further light what was the Religion of Grotius He was in affection a friend and in desire a true Son of the Church of England And on his Deathbed recommended that Church as it was legally established to his Wife and such other of his Family as were then about him obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it The said Bishop though no Papist saith pag. 81. I know no members of the Greek Church who give them the Papists either more or less than I do Compare this with the Council at Florence and the Patriarch Jeremiah's Writings and the present sence of the Greek Church and we may know his mind But my ground is not the authority of the Greek Church but the authority of the Primitive Fathers and General Councils which are the representative Body of the Universal Church P. 82. To wave their last four hundred years determinations is implicitly to renounce all the necessary causes of this great Schism And to rest satisfied with their old Patriarchal power and dignity and Primacy of Order which is another part of my Proposition is to quit the modern Papacy name and thing Pag. 84 85. That Christians may joyn together in the same publick devotions and service of Christ 1. If the Bishop of Rome were reduced from the Universality of Soveraign Jurisdiction jure divino to his principium unitatis and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sence of the Councils of Constance and Basil and is desired by many Roman Catholicks as well as we 2. If the Creed were reduced to what they were in the time of the four first General Councils with only necessary explications and those made by the Authority of a General Council 3. And some things whence offences have been given or taken be put out of the Divine Offices Whether Christians ought not to live in holy Communion and come to the same publick worship of God free from all schismatical separations Pag. 93. 1. That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Antioch and after at Rome is a truth 2. That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apostles is the unanimous voice of the Primitive Church 3. Some Fathers and Schoolmen who were no sworn Vassals to the Roman Bishop do affirm that this Primacy of Order is fixed to the Chair of St. Peter P. 97. Though the Bishop of Rome had such a Primacy of Order by Divine Right or Humane it would not prejudice us at all nor is worth the contending about But 1. It is not by Divine Right in foro exteriore 2. Nor elsewhere interiore but executive according to the Canons Whereas I said that Protestants that consent not to the Popes Patriarchal Power over us in the West will fall under the reproach of Schism he saith p. 104. c. Must a man quit his just right because some dislike it Their dislike is but scandal taken but the quitting of that which is right for their satisfaction should be scandal given If they be forced to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks it is by their own wilful humors or erroneous Conscience other force there is none 2. Whether is the worse and more dangerous condition to fall under the reproach of Schism or to fall into Schism it self Whosoever shall oppose the just power of a lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding is a material Schismatick at least P. 107. It 's unsound arguing to deny a man his just right for fear lest he may abuse it as a Patriarchal Power was the Bishop of Rome's just right They who made the Bishop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers not excluding the Apostles and Christian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils what Laws they made in this case we are bound to obey for Conscience sake till lawfully repealed by vertue of the Law of Christ Much more he hath to this purpose and p. 112. for uniting the Church Catholick on humane terms and p. 117. against the peoples liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture and after at large that concord must be on humane terms p. 122. Grotius judgment was and mine is moderate but had not this man been so owned by many now I had not cited so much of his And for Grotius I have over and over cited his own words and shall not now repeat them And was this the drift of Conformity of old 3. Sect. 9. Another difference is in the effects for with us things not universally or absolutely determined by God are to be used or refused as they do more good or hurt 1. Then open Preaching and gathering Assemblies by Nonconformists would have greatly offended the Prince but our King at Breda and in his three first Declarations and by his Licenses and connivence shewed such wisdom and clemency as intimated less displeasure at our liberty 2. It would have deprived most of the Nonconformists of their hopes of publick liberty in the Parish Churches which most of them enjoyed but we had neither possession nor expectation of such a thing 3. It would have hindred and hazarded the progress of the Reformation but our preaching hath done more to stop the progress of the Syncretism or of Popery Others know this whatever you frivolously
with them when he laid the scene an hundred years backward or as far off as New England let him know then all these things in confutation of his historical supposition 1. That Kiderminster Parish hath but about three thousand or four thousand souls and the Church so fit with five Galleries that all may hear But his Parish is said to have twenty thousand souls of which not four thousand can hear 2. A considerable part of Kiderminster Parish called Ridnal being at Bewdly Bridge end and two miles from Kiderminster and some Villages more usually were Mr. Tombes his hearers at Bewdley and I never blamed them 3. After him they were Hearers and Communicants to his Successor Mr. Oasland and he took the Pastoral care of them that desired any and I was so far from blaming him that I greatly thanked him and we were far from disagreeing 4. Though Mr. Tombes and I differed in the doctrine of Infant Baptism I gave him leave yea and the Quakers too in the publick Church many hours together to say all that they could for their opinions in the hearing of my Auditors and none of them ever won one of them that I heard of yet the Dr. supposeth some great danger of their peoples seduction if they hear such as I that never were accused of false Doctrine 5. But he hath chosen an instance yet neerer our present case Another part of Kiderminster Parish is neer three miles off at a Village called Mitton where at the Chappel I found a Curate called Mr. Turner infamous for drunkenness fighting living on unlawful marriage and for gross ignorance I tryed him and perceived not that he understood much of the Creed I sent them a worthy Preacher once a day first and twice after and declared my utter dissent to Mr. Turner's Ministry yet because some of the Church of England would have him and he would against my will read the Common Prayer to them once a day I hindred them not from their choice but they went on 6. And the sequestred Vicar in the Town Mr. Dance was generally taken to be as ignorant as he so that when once a quarter he went into the Pulpit his own Wife though of the Church of England would for shame go out of Church Yet did I never forbid him to preach and he oft read the Common Prayer at Sir Ralph Clares and I suppose gave them the Sacrament 7. I had opportunity then to have hindred all this if I would have used Magistrates They were both by Proclamation to remove two miles off but neither of them once removed so much as out of their houses nor did I desire it but we are by law driven five miles off 8. Mr. Dance had forty pounds a year allowed him and Mr. Turner never had a groat of his ancient Salary diminished when another was put in but the other paid otherwise but we ask you nothing for assisting you 9. I had never one hundred pounds to my self and therefore could maintain no more help two Assistants I had but have you no more to maintain Assistants Now judge how well your historical Instances serve your turn And besides the number of Souls very many Parishes are so wide that distance forbiddeth many to come to the publick Parish Churches Some Villages are five miles some four and many three miles off and how can Families especially Women Children and the aged and especially in winter go so far twice or once a day And must all these forbear to hear or to worship God for fear of being counted Schismaticks Because the Dr. appealeth to my self I seriously profess that when I had a Pastoral Charge which was but in one place I would have been very thankful to any one that dissered no more than the Dr. and I do that would have gathered a Congregation of such as for number or distance could not have come into the Parish Church and the case of distance did occasion the honest separation aforesaid though the case of numbers did not Yea when hundreds desired Communion according to the Common Prayer I never offered to hinder any of them from taking it where and how they would Sect. 14. P. 99. He saith This is Mr. Baxter's own Case when he is pinched with the Point of Separation thus he declares that his hearers are the same with ours at least ten or twenty for one If this be true then what such mighty help is this to our great Parishes what colour or pretence is there from the largeness of them that he should preach to the very same men that come to our Church Then how come they to be lawful when few or none of those many thousands ever come to speak softly this pretence is not becoming Mr. Baxters Sincerity Ans what hope of Justice from such Judges Or what hope of profiting such Readers by Dispute as cannot answer such as this themselves When I began to preach at St. James's the neighbours assured me that many of the hearers had been at no Church of four years but they were Members of the Parish-Church and that some of them got into the Church but rarely and some liked it not so well as to be forward seekers When I was driven thence I preached a while where Mr. Wadsworth was in Southwark There were some people that had adhered to their old ejected worthy Pastor and some that I knew not Since then I preach once on the Lords day in another mans Pulpit as near St. James's as I could and the same persons that heard me there do many of them come hither and some others of all whom I know very few but by report On Thursdays I preach a Lecture in another mans Pulpit to persons of whom I know not many but report saith that some of them joyn not ordinarily with the Parish Ministers and some do and most judge it lawful and sometime but seldom practise it And those are of two sorts some that prefer the Nonconformists Ministry and some that finding the Parish Churches crowded and many present are out of hearing do seldom go thither though they are of the Parish Churches and dissent not from their Ministry or Worship some say we have no Seats and cannot stand some say we cannot hear the Minister some say Thousands stay away that can get no room and will go no whither else and when we can go elsewhere we will not crowd in first to keep them out that so much need Others must be out if we be in These are your own Church-Members they hear you sometimes but seldom Others that hear you constantly on the Lords days will think that a Sermon on the week days may be needful to them whatever you think or say against it And is it inconsistent with Sincerity here to plead the peoples necessity It 's well that our Sincerity is not to stand or fall to your judgment Did I say that my hearers are constant hearers in your Churches Can you perswade the World
1. The Eunuch baptized in his Travails Acts. 9 was only a Member of the Church Universal 2. Those that were converted by Frumentius and Edesius when there was no particular Church And all that are first converted in any Infidel or Heathen Land before any Church be formed 3. Those that by Shipwrack are cast on heathen Countries where no Churches are 4. Travellers that go from Country to Countries as Lythgow did nineteen years and others many And I think he unhappily named Jerusalem where Travellers come that are of no fixed Church unless he in that also be a Superindependant and think that men may be many years Members of a Church many hundred miles off which they have no personal communion with 5. Merchants and Factors who are called to dwell long among Infidels where are no Churches 6. Embassadors who by their Princes are sent to reside among such much of their lives 7. Wanderers that have no fixed habitations as many Pedlers and other poor wandering Tradesmen and loose Beggars that have no Dwelling 8. Those thot live among Papists or any other Christians who impose some sin as a condition of communion 9. Those that live among such Christians as have no true Pastors who are constitutive parts of particular Churches Some being incapable through insufficiency some by Heresie and some for want of a true Call Such as by Mr Dodwells Doctrine most of the Christian World are for want of uninterrupted rrue Episcopal Ordination 10. Those who are subjects to such as permit them not to be fixed Members As Wives hindred by Husbands Children by Parents and some Subjects violently hindred by Princes who yet allow them transient Communion And verily a man would think by the writings of many Conformists that they took it for a Duty to obey a Prince in such a case 11. Those who live where Church-corruptions are not so great as to make transient Communion unlawful but so great as to make fixed communion seem to be a culpable consent If I come in travel to a Church of Strangers I am not bound to examine what their Discipline is what their Lives be or how their Pastors are called But where I am fixed I am more bound to know these and if I find them exclude Discipline live wickedly and have unlawful Pastors I may in some cases be a partaker of the sin if I fix among them 12. They that live in a time and place of Schism and distraction striving who shall prevail and condemning each other all following several Factions and needing Reconcilers It may for a time become in prudence the duty of peace-makers to own no Faction nor to be more of one Church than of another while he seeth that it will do more hurt than good And those that wait in hope as the Nonconformists now do to see whether their Rulers will restore them to reformed Parish Churches may at once in prudence find it needful neither to fix as Members in some Parish Churches till reformed in the Teachers at least nor to seem to be Separatists by gathering new Churches In none of all these cases is a man unchristened nor schismatical for being no fixed member of any Church besides the Universal And as it is the ill hap of these men commonly to strike themselves I doubt they will prove Grotius himself no Christian by this Rule who for many years before he died they say joyned with no particular Church as a fixed member And I know not well what particular Church they make the King a Member of Sect. 2. To his Questions Pag. 3. Were we not Baptized into this Church and do you not Renounce Membership This is scarce a civility I answer 1. This Church which Church do you mean I was not Baptized into St. Giles's nor St. Andrew's Parish Church but into one above an hundred miles off and yet my removal made me no culpable Separatist Or doth he mean This Diocesan Church No I was Baptized in the Diocess of Lichfield Doth he mean This National Church as it is supposed a political body constituted of the Ecclesiastical Governing and Governed Parts he saith there is no such Church of England but that It inferreth Popery to assert such But if he equivocate here and mean not by a Church as in the rest but either a christian Kingdom or an agreeing Association of many Churches I am still a fixed member of such a Kingdom and of such an Association in all things necessary to Churches and Christian Communion 2. But Baptism as such entred me only into the Universal Church much less did it fix me in any other I was Baptized where I was to stay but a little while And this phrase of being Baptized into our Church is to me of ill sound or intimation Bellarmine saith that all that are baptized are interpretatively thereby engaged to the Pope I was baptized in a Parish and in a Diocess and in a Christian Kingdom but not so into them as to be obliged to continue under that Priest or Bishop or in that Kingdom And my Baptism I hope did not oblige me to every Canon Ceremony Form or Sin of the associated Churches in England abusively by him called one Church 3. And unhappily it is not meer Independancy that he is still pleading for but some extremes which the moderate Independants disclaim viz. That a member of their Churches is so tyed to them that they may not remove to another without their consent And am I so tyed to what to Parochial or to the Diocesan or to the association of English Churches If it had been to the Species I would fain know whether their things called by them Indifferents specifie them Sect. 3. P. 111 112. He yet more pleads as for Separation why then above once or twice why should I so countenance defective Worship and not rather reprove it by total forbearance of Communion c. Answ My Reasons I told him because the accidents may continue which made it a Duty but I cannot hinder others from yielding to his arguments Let him make his best of them Only I must tell him yet 1. that if he lay his cause on this that their Parochial or Diocesan Churches are not defective 2. Or that the defects cannot by others be avoided he will quite marr his matter and undo all by overdoing 3. And if he indeed think that all defective Churches must be forsaken he will be one of the greatest Schismaticks in the World But who can reconcile this with the scope of his whole Book Sect. 4. P. 112. He saith Here are no bounds set to peoples Fancies of purer Administrations Answ Have I so oft and copiously named the bounds and now is the answer Here are none Are there none in all the same Books he citeth 2. Scripture is their bounds as he well openeth in his desence of Biâ—hop Laud. Sect. 5. P. 114. He complains of my leaving out the best part of his argument viz. The people may go
More and more untruths 1. Where do I say that owns it self to be Independant as if that were necessary to its being 1. Doth he not confess that I own general Visitors or Archbishops and appeals 2. That I own Associations which he makes the state of the Church of England 3. That I own Synods for obliging concord 4. That I own the Magistrates Government of all Is there no dependancy in any of these or all what dependancy more doth he assert 2. As to the Power of the Keys dare he come into the light and tell us whether any power of the Keys that is of the Government of his particular Church be essential to the Pastor of a true organized governed Church or not If not is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church If yea then is he a Pastor that wants what is essential to a Pastor But if they will call a forcing Power or the present secular Mode of their Courts by the name of the Keys I never said that these are essential to a Church nor desirable in it but am a Nonconformist because I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce just Endeavours to amend it Sect. 12. p. 121 122. The next Accusation is They leave it in the peoples Power notwithstanding all legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit Answ He tireth me with putting me on repetitions 1. They can unjustly judge of none and disown them without sin It is not I that give men power to sin no more than Power to die or be sick which is but impotency would I could give them power against it 2. It is not power to reject any chosen by King or Patrons from being publick Teachers or to have the Tithes and Temples nor to be a Pastor to others But it is to have a discerning Judgment whether one chosen by the Patron be a person to whom he himself ought to trust the pastoral Conduct of his Soul Either the Dr. thinks that Laymen have this discerning power and duty or not If yea is it nothing to him to seem thus seriously to plead against his conscience If not I ask him 1. What meant Christ and his Apostles to call men to beware of false Teachers to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine to mark them and avoid them and turn away from them and not bid them good speed 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks and even some Popes and Councils to hear Mass of Fornicators â— What meant all those Fathers and Councils that make him no Bishop that cometh not in with the peoples consent if not Election 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries or with what Limitations the contrary Doctrine must be received Must all the people trust only such Pastors as the Prince or Patrons choose all over England or also in Ireland France Spain Italy Germany among Lutherans Calvinists Greeks c. supposing the Law be on that side Must we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. 1. Sect. 13. p. 122. He adds Mr. Baxter speaks his mind very freely against the Rights and Patronage and the Power of the Magistrates in such Cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people as the old Separatists did Ans Is this true 1. What is it against the Right of Patronage or Magistrates Power for me to choose who I will trust the guidance of my Soul with while I contradict not his power to choose publick Teachers and give the Tithes and Temples and confess that for order sake I ought to consent to such as he chooseth thus unless he put on me a true necessity of a better choice If the King choose all the Hospital Physicians what wrong is it to him if I at my own charge choose a better for my self when I think else ignorance or malice will murder me Doth he that desireth as I ever do that in so great a case there may be many Locks to the Church Door deny any one of them viz. The Ordainers consent the Magistrates and Patrons and the Peoples Is this the same that the old Separatists did Should Glocesier take Goodman a Papist for their Bishop because the King chose him Abundance of Patrons in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths Reign presented Papists It seems if they were imposed by Law and Patrons you would have the people submit to those that cry down Bishops Liturgy and Ceremonies too Father Paul Sarpi translated by Dr. Denton will tell you how new a way this is Sect. 14. p. 122. He adds The People are made Judges of the Competency of their Ministers Answ They are discerning Judges Doth not your charge imply that you think otherwise and yet you dare not say so Must they not judge when Forreigners heretofore were set over them whether they speak English or no or if a Socinian deny Christs Godhead or the im mortality of the Soul whether he be Competent or not Or if they have an ignorant Curate that when necessary advice for the Soul is asked of him will say no more but Trouble not your head about such matters but cast away care and live merrily If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch must we not note the difference Alas how little would some men have a man care for his Soul in comparison of caring what Physick what Food what Wife what Servant what Trade he chooseth Trust one to the conduct of such as all the Patrons of England will choose for you but not any of the other As to the not causeless forsaking former Pastors he knoweth that it was the strict charge of the old Canons of the Churches and the Bishops themselves do hold the same I thought they ought not to be forsaken because men thrust them out The Churches at Antioch Alexandria and many more did oft and long cleave to those Pastors whom the Christian Emperors cast out and reject those whom they imposed When I have proved this so fully in my first Plea and Church-history what an unsatisfactory answer is it for such a Dr. to repeat it and say This is plain dealing Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches so light with him Sect. 15. p. 123. The next charge is They give directions to the people what sort of Ministers they should own and what not Answ We do so And I had thought all Christians had been of the same mind It 's sad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth a publick defence Dare he say that all imposed must be owned Then either Salvation is at the Magistrates will or it 's the priviledge of such Countries as have good ones or a man may be saved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they all subscribe Sect. 16. Next the Accuser falls on my general Rule The Ministry that tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification and to do
Is his Rule true only in England or in France Spain Italy Muscovy c. also or where that the Law maketh men true Pastors Sect. 28. But p. 132. he said that he detesteth the Principles that set mans Laws above Gods and that in stating the Controversie he supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting parties of our Church Answ Of all things you are the unhappiest in stating the Controversie The Instances here were 1. Insufficiency through Ignorance 2. Heresie 3. Malignant oppugning the very ends of the Ministry 4. No true calling 1. Doth he agree with us in all the Substantials of Religion who knoweth not the very essentials of Christianity Ignorantis non est Consensus 2. Doth he agree with us in all the substantials that is a Heretick or if we falsly judge his opinion Heresie do we agree with him 3. Is malignant opposing Godliness and pleading for prophaneness or ungodliness an agreement in all the Substantials 4. What if we agree in all Substantials with an unordained Layman imposed on us is he therefore our true Pastor 5. But how shall we know whether we agree or not if we are no judges of it Do you not see your own Contradictions who shall judge whether the Pastors or People agree shall the Prince or Patron If you know the Teachers heart how know you the Peoples Must we believe that we agree because you say so If the people must judge whether they Agree they must judge of the things in which the Agreement is that is both the Pastors Doctrine and their own minds And is not this to judge whether he be a Heretick c. or not And who shall judge whether the disagreement be in Substantials It must be the agreers And they must be wiser than I if they can learn from you here what is a Substantial and how to know it Sect. 29. It may be he will say that where Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox none are Usurpers but true Pastors whom they impose Ans But doth not this make the people Judges whether Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox and is not that as dangerous as to judge of the Teachers And Orthodox Princes and Parliaments may impose Heretical Teachers and may by Law enable Patrons and Prelates to impose them What more natural than to propagate what men like and oppose what they hate If the many hundred Patrons in England be all orthodox and pious and free from Schism c. we are strangely happy If not we may expect that they choose accordingly But the Bishops will secure us Ans 1. They have not done 2. They say they cannot by Law 3. Would it be any wonder if Bishop Goodman of Glocester kept not out any Popish Teacher Or if such Fathers of the Church as Archbishop Bromhall let in such as would have the Pope Govern us all by the Canons as Patriark and principium unitatis and all pass for Shoismaticks that consent not to such a forreign Jurisdiction contrary to our National Oaths Sect. 30. As to his instance of Solomons putting out Abiathar c. I answered it fully and many more objections in my first Plea and will not write the same again for him that thinks it not worth the answering or taking notice of Sect. 31. When p. 138 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Confusions to deny 1. that the Kings Nomination of Bishops 2. and the Patrons of Parish Pastors proveth them no Usurpers but true Pastors is he not an unreverend dishonourer of Bishops himself who maketh them all that for a thousand years held the same that I do to be the authors of all imaginable Confusion Is he not unreverend to their Canons and to antiquity and to the universal Church itself Whatever in his third part he Cavils against it he cannot be so strange to Church-history as not to know that they were commonly against him Sect. 32. The matter of the next accusation is p. 139 140. having said Plea p. 41. 42. If any make sinful terms of Communion by Laws or Mandate imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion and expelling those that will not so sin I add If any should not only excommunicate such persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with Malice Imprisonments Banishment or other Persecution to force them to transgress this were heynous aggravated Schism Ans And is not this true or doth his bare repeating it disprove it Is he a zealous Enemy of Schisin that taketh all this for none I did not steal it out of his defence of Archbishop Laud but less than this is there made Schism Yet he tells us that he sets not mans Laws above Gods nor pleads for Persecution But lest the repeating of my words should shame the Accuser he hath two handsome devices 1. He puts complying with them in sin that is Conformity as refused instead of those that will not so sin in sinful terms of Communion forbidden by God c. 2. He forgeth an addition as mine and therefore it is no sin to separate from such when I have no such words being only there telling what is Schism and not what is not I confess it will sound odly to say It is Schism not to communicate with those who excommunicate imprison and banish me by Law if I will not do that which God forbids and they make a Condition of my communion For I must not sin And in prison and Banishment under Excommunication they deny me communion And yet I say not that it 's always faultless For if they do not execute their own Law in some cases where publick good requireth it I may best communicate with them as far as they permit me without the imposed sin till they do execute them But this excuseth not their Schism Sect. 33. p. 140. He blames me as charging him with the silencing design Ans I did warn him in real desire of his safety If defending the Church-Laws and Endeavours for our restraint in the words to which I refer the Reader If preaching and writing against our preaching as Schism and all the rest in his Books do signifie no owning of our silencing I am glad that he meaneth better than he seemeth who could have thought otherwise that had read 1. his first Q. whether it be not in the power of those that give orders to limit and suspend the exercise of the ministerial Function Q. 2. And whether the Christian Magistrate may not justly restrain such Ministers from preaching who after the experience do refuse to renounce those Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve us again in the like trouble And Serm. p. 42. the Church of Englands endeavours after Uniformity is acquitted from Tyranny over the Consciences of men by the Judgment c. And p. 54. condemning them as hard thoughts of the Bishops that in cruelty they follow Ithacius c. And in this new Book
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
comes to the point in question whether they have the Pastoral Power of the Keys over their own Flocks And 1. He saith One would think the objector had never read over the office of Ordination for them For the Epistle is read the Charge given by St. Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act 20 or the third Chapter of 1 Tim. concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great Impertinency had this been c Ans This is like the rest I must not suppose that he never read it himself See Reader whether any of this be true Indeed heretofore it was in the Book of Ordination but we shewed the Bishops that thence Bishop Usher in his Reduction argued that the Presbyters have some conjunct Power with the Bishops to govern their own particular Flocks and some true Pastoral Power of the Keys I was one that oft urged it on them And they told us that the Bishop was the Pastor and they but his Curates and to confute us put out both these parts of Scripture from the Book which he saith are in it so that neither of them is there And presently they also put out the very name of Pastor given to Parish Ministers in almost all places of the Liturgy Doth not all this shew their mind Sect. 17. Next he tells us of the Bishops Exhortation calling them the Messengers Watchman Pastors and Stewards of the Lord. Ans It was so in the old Book But the word Pastors here also is purposely put out to shew their judgment Is this just dealing And doth it not confute himself 3. He tells us of the Promise to Minister Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Ans The truth is neither in the exhortation nor collation of Orders is there any mention of any power given him to govern but only to administer the Word and Sacraments and thus far the people are called his charge But in the question Discipline is named thus as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God so that 1. The Priest hereby owneth that as it is received in this Church and Realm it is according to Gods Commandments and 2. Then promiseth so to use it which is 1. To be an Accuser 2. And as a Cryer to publish the Bishops or Lay-Chancellors Excommunication and Absolutions This is the promisé Sect. 18. And what if the name of Government or the Keys had been put in when it is denyed in its essential part I have proved out of Cousins Tables Zouch and the Canons and actual Judgment and Practice of the Bishop that Government or Jurisdiction is denyed to them And instanced in many and most acts in which it doth consist in my Treatise of Episcopacy And this being my question whether the English frame depose not the ancient Churches which had every one their own Pastor with the power of the Keys and so the ancient Offices and Discipline I am not now concerned about the General Archiepiscopal Power of the Diocesans Sect. 19. p. 269. He saith that while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few Ans Mark this Reader 1. If so then while they lived there were but twelve or thirteen Bishops in the World if any And were then no more Churches that had governing Pastors 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apostles were fixed Bishops but ambulatory Apostles there were none in the World in their times 3. Then the Angels of the seven Churches were Apostles reprehended by Christ or meer Presbyters or of the few excepted Bishops Why then doth he himself elsewhere argue that there were Bishops then because these Cities were Metropoles 4. See what concord is between the chief Doctors of the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters but Bishops in Scripture times and supposeth the Episcopal Party of his mind This Dr. saith It 's probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few And so they differ 1. Of the sence of the Texts that mention Presbyters and Bishops 2. And about the guidance of the Churches de facto in those times 3. And if the Arpostles were not fixed Bishops of single Churches they have no Successors as such If they were we must have but twelve or thirteen Bishops as their Successors in the World And which be those Seats and how prove they their claim Sect. 20. To prove the Parish Ministers Pastoral Power p. 272. he tells us of that he is judge of the Qualification of those that are to be confirmed Ans 1. Had I ever taken a Parish Charge under them I would have taken more advantage from the new Rubrike about this than any thing else and then the Bishops intended But 1. There is not one of a multitude confirmed and desire of Confirmation proveth not any understanding of Christianity 2. And if the Minister doubt whether they be Ready or capable they may refuse to give him any account 3. He is to send in the names of such as he judgeth fit But 1. it 's only when the Bishop Summons them 2. And the Bishop is no way obliged to confirm no more than the Priest approveth of To prove this 1. Their ordinary practice is to confirm without the Curates hands 2. When the Kings Declaration was debated at Worcester House 1661 before the K. Lords Bishops and Ministers I laboured almost only for this that day to have got in the word Consent of the Minister of the Parish for such as should be Confirmed supposing that one word would have partly restored the Parish Pastors power and so have made our Bishops tolerable Archbishops that if possible we might have been healed But the Bishops rejected it with all their might and got the King to refuse it But because I laid so great a stress on it the Lords and others that were to collect and publish the Concessions when we were gone put it in for that time and at the Convocation the Bishops cast it all away Did they not tell us then their sence And they call him only the Curate of the Parish and not the Pastor And 4. If this were practicable some good men would practice it at least this Doctor himself But I never heard of one that pre-examined his Communicants whether they were ready and willing to be Confirmed 5. And if he did he would keep away many fit Persons that scruple our sort of Confirmation 6. And what is all this to the many thousand Noncommunicants who quietly remain members of your Churches Sect. 21. As to his words p. 275. of power to keep the scandalous from the Sacrament I have in so many books proved it next to none and utterly insufficient that I will not wast time to repeat all here Sect. 22. He tells me that in Can. 26 is not in Reformatio Legum Eccles Ans But I have before told him how much more and better is which would go
far to heal us could we obtain it He saith that any one that hath seen them knoweth it to be a mistake to say it was published by John Fox Ans His Reader must be a strong believer and take much on his word 1. I have seen them and spake with men of great understanding that have seen them that yet judge it no mistake 2. The Preface of the publisher is like his Style 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox 4. Ordinary Tradition saith it was Fox's And what should I sooner believe in such a case Instead of proving that they have all a power to their condemnation which we see they exercise not let him procure a real power declared and granted and it will do more than these words Sect. 23. But when it comes to the question whether me may so much as call a sinner to repentance by name before the Church who rejecteth all more private admonition he puts the question 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 c. Ans The first question is whether Christ have not made his Church so different a thing from the World that they should be openly differenced by a Communion of Saints 2. And whether he hath not instituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it And 3. Whether any man have authority to suspend this Law or Office And then 4. I shall grant that not only Discipline but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic nunc in the present exercise when else the exercise would do more hurt than good 5. But are these Laws good that forbid it and should we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercising true Discipline which is most true and seems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us Answ I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Christ's ends and that he would have it continued to the last and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith and that making small difference between the Church and the World tends to Church destruction and to the reproach of Christianity and the utter undoing of millions of Souls And though Pope and Prelates have abused it to captivate Princes and Nations the just use of it he knoweth is mentioned by the Universal Church and visibly recorded in the Canons of the several ages Though some Erastians are of late against it And Jesuits and worldly Protestants can dispense with it when it would hurt their worldly Interest and turn it chiefly against Gods Servants that displease and cross them Sect. 25. p. 284. He saith The want of Discipline in the Parish Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists destructive to the being of them Answ They did not confound the Power and the Exercise Nor what the Ministers office is indeed and from God and what it is by the Bishops Mind and Rules of Conformity I say as they 1. The Exercise may be suspended without nulling the Power or Policy 2. They are true Pastors and Churches by Gods will against the will of those that would degrade them Sect. 26. But supposing every man left to his own Conscience for Communion 1. He saith the greatest Offenders generally excommunicate themselves Answ 1. And is it your way to leave all the rest to their Consciences and yet to preach and write against and lay in Jail dissenting godly People that communicate not with you 2. And are not all these Offenders still Members of your Church Albaspineus complaineth of their Roman French Church that he never knew any further cast out than from the Sacrament and left still to other parts of communion as Members And so do you by thousands who are all Sons of your Church but we are none He is again at it what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough CHAP. VIII What the National Church of England is Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controversie so long and loudly called for viz. what the National Church of England is which we must obey and from which we are said to separate p. 287. And the answer is such as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it Sect. 2. Our question is of the Church Policy and Political Form All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community from a Political Body This is essentiated of the two constitutive Parts the Pars Regens and Pars subdita the former is much like the Soul and the later the Body The Ruling Part is called the Form by most and the sorts Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical or mixt the form in Specie as the rational or sensitive Soul to Animals But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order Such a body Politick is a Kingdom a City a Church in the proper and usual sense But in a loose sense many other things may be called a Church As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form not yet received 2. An occasional Congregation about Religion as Prisoners that pray together Men that meet about a Religious Consultation or Dispute c. 3. Many Churches as under one Christian Magistrate as an accidental Head 4. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord without any governing Head Either of one Kingdom or of many 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love in distant parts of the World None of these are Churches in the political Sense but are equivocally so called But Politically 1. All the Christian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Christ the Head 2. All single Churches that have Pastors to guide them in the Essentials of the Pastoral Office are true Churches formed by this mutual Relation These two are undoubted 3. The now Roman Catholick Church is one by Usurpation as informed by one Usurping head 4. A Patriarchal Church is one as Governed by a Patriarch 5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan or as mixt where Aristocratically others are joyned with him 6. An Archiepiscopal or Diocesan Church that hath particular Churches and Bishops under it is one as headed by that Diocesane Jure an injuriâ I dispute not 7. A Diocesane Church of many score or hundred Parishes having no Episcopus Gregis or true Pastors and Pastoral Churches under him but only half Pastors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclesia is one even of the lowest sort in their opinion as headed by that Diocesane 8. A Presbyterian Classical Church is one as headed by the Classes 9. A
one have been the generation of another how many Churches of England have you had 4. The whole Nation did not consent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bishops and Liturgy was there then no National Church 5. How shall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England and to alter it 6. What men make they may destroy May not the Nation withdraw such consent and the Parliament unmake their creature § 7. Next p. 300 he saith The Representative Church of England iâ— the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm to consult and advise about 〈◊〉 of Religion The consent of 〈◊〉 Convocations of Caâ—â—erbury and York Provinces â—â— the Representative National Church of England Answ 1. So here we have a Diffusivâ— Church and its Representative but no Government of either as a Church mentioned but the Civil 2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Representing those that are no Governours themselves Not as the peoples Representatives foâ— they are no Church Governours whatever elsewhere he saith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as representing the whole Church Not as the Presbyters representatives For 1. They are denied Episcopal power 2. And they are Governours at most but of their particular Churches and not of the whole 3. Not as the Bishops representatives for 1. They are there themselves 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as such 3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they consent become the One Common Constitutive Governing Power of the National Church this is intelligible but 1. He after denieth any such 2. And then their dissent would dissolve the Church and one Convocation not oblige it with much more such § 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not answered me and therefore comes to it page 300 saying It 's a false supposition that where-ever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part a standing Governing power which is an essential part of it Answ A true notion belongeth to equivocals The true notion and the proper political notion are words of various signification I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full a Prison full a House-full of Christians as such and to our Parliament and to the Common-Council of the City But not the notion now in question 2. Is not Government essential to a Governed Church Fixed Government to a fixed Church and transient temporary Government to an answerable Church Deny this and few will follow you § 9. He adds Which I will prove to be false from Mr. B. himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church as a Troop is of an Army and a City of a Kingdom Then it will unavoidably follow that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Bs Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness But there are some men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery so they may but vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. B. say that the Universal Church is headed by Christ I grant he doth But the Question is of the Visible Church of which particular Churches are parts And they being Visible parts require a Visible Constitutive Regent Head therefore the whole Visible Church must have likewise a Constitutive Visible Regent part This is to make a Key for Catholicks Answ I am glad he speaketh so intelligibly in denying a Constitutive Regent part though sorry that he speaks so ill 1. When I have written against Johnson alias Terrae the Papist two Books on this subject especially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Christ to be that visible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members Can the Reader think I should write it over again because this Doctor will talk over a little of the same with that Priest and take no notice of my proof or answer 2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not visible parts of God's Universal Kingdom and yet God invisible 3. Dare he say that all true Churches are not real parts of Christ's Universal Church as a Governed body and yet are not they visible Is it necessary then that the Universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so 4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie from the necessity of a Regent head to the necessity of his visibility As if our question had not been Which is the Regent part of the Church of England but whether it must be visible Is this edifying 5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible 1. In its parts and members on earth and their profession 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World Thus far and no further save as seen extraordinarily to Paul Stephen c. is the Universal Head Visible And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously § 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope Why first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope Will he turn Papist if this be proved and the Christian World be not deceived Is this our Champion against Popery now I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it and therefore thither refer the Reader Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts Christians will reject me for the former and Politicians deride me if I hold the last § 11. He proceedeth 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Regent Constitutive part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Universal consent to make a Catholick Answ No consent maketh a Catholick Church but consenting to one supreme Head Christ But I
am glad I understand you § 12. Saith he Quest By what way this National consent is to be declared By the Constitutions of this Church the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their judgments in matters of Religion which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National consent as to any Law And all the Bishops Ministers and People make up this National Church Answ Now we are come to the bottom And 1. Our question is of the Constitution of the Church and the Doctor tells us the Administration makes it To consult and advise and make Laws are acts of Administration and follow the Constitution Men must have Power before they use it and must be a Church before they act 〈◊〉 Church 2. Yea to Advise and Consult are not so much as acts proper to administring Government but belong to those that are no Governours also 3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them such then either the Parliament are your Church Head or you have none that 's Ecclesiastical But having your plain Confession that you have no such Regent part and so are no Church Political save Civil but a meer Association I ask § 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England or that we vent our spleen against it or deny it who deny not Associated Churches in England under one Civil Government 2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformists disagreed Read Mr. Dodwell and many such others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and see what they will judg of you 3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England who agree what it is than you and those Bishops and Doctors that speak of two different things and agree not so much as what it is 4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair issue by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned political sense 5. What made you before talk of being under one Government If you meant only Civil Is your Governed Church as such only Civil or a Kingdom only 6. Do you not now absolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England aâ— such and from all guilt of disobeying them How can men Govern that are no Governours and how can we obey them It 's only the Civil power then that we herein disobey If you say that all the Bishops are Governours and altogether govern the whole I answer Yes per partes but not as a whole or Church If twenty Families in a Village agree as Masters and Servants to go one way as Consenters this maketh no one Government of the Village If the Physicians of London consent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick If twenty Sea Captains consent to go one Voyage by one rule each one is a Governour of his own Ship but this maketh no Government of the whole All the Justices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes by the same Law But all together make not one Aristocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole Unless your Bishops c. are United in One persona Politica or Aristocracy they may rule their several Churches but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such An agreement of the Emperour Spaniard and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick 7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours 8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them yea and declare their own dissent as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy yea and their chosen representatives Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves 9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives or that as such they make them Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them 10. And as to Convocation consent how binds it all those that never consented to them How is the City of London so bound to Conform when they had not one chosen Clerk but only the Dignitaries in the Convocation that made us our Conformity the two chosen by them being refused by the Bishops 11. Will not you pass for an asserter of the Principles of Independency that not only say The Keys are given to the whole body and the Convocation represent the People c. but also that England is one Church but by consent without consenting to any one Constitutive Regent Church head The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and consent without National Government of it 12. You go further from the Episcopal Politicks than the Presbyterians do For they make an Aristocratical Regent Part but you make none 13. I doubt some Statesmen will be angry with you that say there is no power of Church Government in England but from the King as Head as Crumptâ—â— before Cousins Tables and others ordinarily 14. Do you make England in essentials any more one Church than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one Did the Synod of Dâ—rt make us one with them Do large Councils make many Nations one Church Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom when seven Kings Governed the whole by parts but none the whole as such 15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England Have none of these have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico You dare not say No. If they are You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole by which I bring in the Pope because you think Christ will not serve the turn And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England And if you deny it to have one Regent part do you not then either destroy the rest or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal 16. I pray you tell us from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power If you say from the Bishops and so Inferiours or Equals may give power why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops and generare speciem If it must come from Superiours the Church of England hath none such 17. If the Peoples consent can make a National Church why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church 18. If the Nations consent as such make the Church of England it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament 19. Do the Clergy represent the King or is he none of the Church 20. How prove you that the
men that thus make you agents for a Pope 3. Doth this Political description of Parochial Diocesane Provincial Patriarchal Churches also bring in Popery 4. Then either our Archbishops have no power or they have it from no superiour or else they infer a Pope 5. I again tell the Doctor as I did Mr. Cheny It is disingenious to say this to me when I have written so much against Johnson the Priest in my first and specially my second answer which none replyeth to without any confutation or notice of it I have fully proved that Christ's Catholick Church hath himself for an Essential Head sometime visible on earth leaving visible Laws and now visible to the Courtiers in Heaven and coming visibly to judge all and there is no other Indeed if the doctrine of Mr. Dodwell and many such hold who deny that the power floweth immediately from Christs Law or Charter to the Church and not from the Ordainers or Electors who do but determine of the Receiver and Invest him then all the Doctors in England cannot answer the Digression Cap. 14. of the Book called The Catholick Hierarchy proving that such a Prelatical subordination of Churches inferreth a Pope But I have fully shewed the vanity of that inference as to us But remember that the Doctor and I are agreed that A Nation consenting in an Association of particular Churches may be called a National Church equivocally Though it can make no Laws unless its consent also set up a Supreme Church-Government Meet Agreements are not Laws § 16. He next would make the unwary Reader think that he answereth my Question 1. What is the same Rule that all must walk by viz. that the Scriptures are the Foundation of our Faith 2. But our Church requireth Conformity to the Rules appointed by it agreable to the word of God Answ But it seems the Scripture then is not the whole rule but part the fundamental part 2. Which did Paul mean Was your Churches Rule then made 3. Doth your Church require this ad esse or but ad melius esse If the first all Canon-breakers are dismembred And is that according to God's word If the later why am not I of your Church 4. But how comes that Church to command and bind which hath no such Ruling power CHAP. IX Of the Peoples Consent to the Pastoral and Church-Relation § 1. PAge 307. Saith the Dean The next thing to be considered is the interest and power of the People as to the choice of their Pastors for want of which great complaints are made Mr. Baxter is very tragical on this Argument and keepeth not within tolerable bounds of discretion in pleading the Peoples Cause against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws Answ 1. That is tolerable to some men which others cannot bear Silken ears must have soft words The Land cannot bear all his words was an old Complaint And Speak pleasing things Prophecy deceit was an old Mandate It 's no wonder if that sort of men that must judg whether our Preaching and Worshipping God be tolerable and must write us down the words which we must say to God in Prayer or not be tolerated do also think themselves the meet judges whether our indiscretion be intollerable 2. But let us try whether he state this Controversie any more Logically or truly than the rest and whether he intimate not hurtful though tollerable untruth 1. It 's a crooked insinuation to put the word Power instead of Right and Liberty as if Power of Consenting in the People and Power of Rulers were univocal and not equivocal terms But this is tolerable For experience hath convinced me how little Logical strictness is from this Doctor to be expected I doubt lest next as some men instead of Learning maintain their reputation by deriding it we may expect some such defence of the Doctor◠Logick to prove that he is none of the Disputers of this World who deceive men by vain Philosophy 2. And the word choice instead of consent is somewhat more crooked For choice usually includeth the first nominating Vote And he knoweth that I pleaded for the necessity of no more than the Churches consent though it were subsequent to the choice of Magistrates or Patrons 3. But the next is worse that I plead the Peoples Cause against Magistrates Patrons and Laws when I do but desire their Conjunction § 2. His repetitions call me tediously to repeat the state of the Controversie a business quite below him I. I Have oft said that God hath not made either Magistrates or People the Judges who is fit to be and shall be a Minister of Christ in general but the ORDAINERS and the PERSON himself conjunct This is evident 1. From Scripture Instances of all that were Ordained 2. From the nature of the thing 1. Who is supposed so fit to judge as men and Seniors of the same Office Who but Physicians are fit to judge who is meet to be a Licensed Physician And who but Philosophers judge of Graduates and Professours in Philosophy 2. And no man can make me a Minister against my will nor know me to be fit if I know my self to be unfit § 3. II. I have oft said that the Supreme Civil Governour is the Judge whom he must countenance maintain and tolerate The proof is easie 1. Because to do it is his work and every man must be a discerning judge of his own work 2. Because it is a publick act of Government and he is the chief publick Judge therein § 4. III. I have oft said that the Disposal of the Tythes and Temples is in the power of the Prince and Patron by his grant But with these bounds 1. His power is not Absolute but Under Christ and limited by him and therefore he hath no power against him nor to cross his Laws or to contradict his ends 2. If the Tythes and Temples were given only for publick Teachers of Catechumens or for meer Lecturers the Magistrate must dispose of them to such as are capable of that Office 3. If the Tythes and Temples were given for the Pastors of the Churches the Magistrate is bound to give them to such as are lawfully called to be such Pastors and not by the advantage of his Trust overthrow the way of entrance instituted by Christ 4. However if they were devoted to God it is God who is the proprietor and it's sacrilege to alienate them And an intolerable ill disposal is alienation § 5. IV. I have oft said that it being supposed that their Ancestors gift of Tythes or Glebe and Temples is the reason of our common Patronage and presenting power the will of the dead Donors is to be observed and their gifts given to none but on the termes by them determined But their gifts are supposed to be for the Churches good and not against it Nor had they any power on pretense of beneficence to destroy or to take away more than they give But the Trusting of our Souls Conduct
is a matter of more weight than Tythes and Temples If Tythes be proved not to be of Divine Right all that can be expected is that if the flock cannot trust him whom the Patron chuseth they let him give his Tythes and Temple to whom he please and they will trust their souls with such as they dare and safely may But if he will chuse and offer them one whom they can safely and comfortably accept so as Tythes and Temples shall preponderate in case of small difference in the men prudence obligeth them to accept of the advantage The same I say of the Magistrates countenance and approbation But if the difference be very great it 's better stretch our purses to build new Temples and pay our Pastors than trust our souls on the Pastoral Conduct of ignorant malignant unfaithful or heretical men § 6. V. I have oft said that mutual consent is necessary to the being of the relation of Pastor and Flock And though sometimes the Rulers imposition and the Patrons choice may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to consent when the good preponderates the hurt not else yet till they consent the Relation is not existent As if Children were bound to take Wives and Husbands by the Command and fore choice of Parents yet it 's no Marriage till they consent § 7. The common objection is from the inconvenience if the several parties agree not To which I answer 1. The mischief of the contrary way is worse than that inconvenience 2. There is nothing in this World without inconveniences where all things and persons and actions are imperfect 3. If Parents and Children agree not about their Marriage it hath great inconveniences And yet neither Parents Government nor Childrens consenting Liberty must be denyed 4. In so weighty a Case divers Locks and Keys keep the Churches treasure safe Prince Patron People and Ordainers will not so often agree on a vile person as any one of them alone may do § 8. And now judge how Logically how honestly the Doctor hath stated the Case and made me Intolerably indiscreet and tragical against Magistrates Patrons and Laws And try if you can understand what it is instead of this that he would have I tell him again that if he deny the necessity of the flocks consent to the mutual relation he notoriously opposeth the judgment and practice of Antiquity and the Universal Church of Princes Patriarchs Prelates Councils and People and fights against the full stream of Historical evidence for a new crooked way that would make as many modes of Religion as there are different Princes And here he wonders what he said that occasioned such undecent passion It seems he felt some passion in reading it and thought he must have the like that wrote it And so let any man obtrude any pernicious thing on the Church and he can easily prove the detector to have undecent passion for giving a bad Cause its proper name § 9. But he cannot find out the reason of my inference that then Princes may impose what Religion they please Answ Not understanding with some men goes for confuting To put Religion for the mode of Religion is too little a slip of his to be insisted on But is not my inference necessary I urged him to tell me in what Countries and under what sort of Princes the Rule holds that the People must not judge whether the offered Pastors be Hereticks nor refuse them if Prince and Patron present them He will not be entreated to tell me I tell him that if the Rule be universal when a Papist Socinian Anabaptist Antiepiscopal c. Prince and Patron present men of their own mind and they are instituted the People must take and trust them as their Pastors And is not this to set up in all the Churches what modish Religion Prince and Patron please Is this hard to be understood Yet he calls this Railing on him for suppositions of my own making And here he steps over to another man § 10. Before I come to his undertakings I will repeat anothers railing and undecent passion against his Cause And I desire the Reader to note how well the Doctors of the Church of England agree and to learn which of them it is that we must believe both as to History and Right It is Mr. Herbert Thorndike in his Treatise of Forbearance of Penal It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation in the Church to regular Government without restoring the Liberty of chusing Bishops and the priviledge of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and People of each Diocess So evident is the right of Synods Clergy and People in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be Governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it Yet these two are Doctors of one Church but we are no Members of it § 11. I again say that either the Reader hath read the Church History and Canons or not If not how can he tell who to believe that report them the Doctor or me But if he have I will no more dispute this Case with him than I would do whether English Parliaments used to make Laws He is past my conviction if he be not convinced § 12. And I will again say that I will yet suppose the Doctor so humble as to acknowledge himself much inferiour to Paulus sarpi servita venerunt in point of Church History At least I say to the Reader peruse what he hath said of this Controversie and of the alteration of Church Government in his History of the Council of Trent and his Book of Church Benefices lately translated by Dr. Denton and doubt if you can § 13. And in general I add I. I suppose no man of such reading maketh any doubt of the first 300 years whether any Bishops were made over any Church without the free Election or Consent of the Flocks and the whole Clergy and the approbation of the Ordainers I will not for shame stay to prove this having said so much of it in my first Plea for Peace and Episcopal Church History which are unanswered II. And since the first 300 years it 's so notorious in History that it 's a shame to need proof of it that the Christian Emperours confirmed the Churches in this right and use and for many hundred years after permitted and ordered that Bishops should be chosen by the People Clergy and Synods and when the Peoples Election was infringed the necessity of their consent long continued And it was only in the choice of the five Patriarchs that the Emperours used to meddle and that not always nor at all chusing them alone but commending some one to the People and Clergy to chuse or confirming some one that they had nominated And this held on till Popery sprung up III. And even then the Popes long continued it But 1. They strove specially in Hildebrand's days and
which setleth humane Government and obedience chosen the name of Parents rather than Princes because Parents Government is antecedent to Princes and Princes cannot take it from them nor disoblige their Children But Self-government is more natural than Parents and Parents and Princes must help it but not destroy it 7. When persons want natural capacity for Self-government as Infants and Ideots and mad-men they are to be governed by force as bruits being not capable of more 8. Family Government being in order next to personal Princes or Bishops have no right to overthrow it at least except in part on slaves of whose lives they have absolute power If the King impose Wives Servants and Diet on all his Subjects they may lawfully chuse fitter for themselves if they can and at least may refuse unmeet Wives and Servants and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks 9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impose on all men the Bishops and Pastors to whose charge care and Pastoral conduct they must commit their Souls the people having the nearest right of choice and strongest obligation must refuse as discerning Self-governing judges such whose heresie negligence ignorance malignity or treachery is like either apparently to hazard them or to deprive them of that Pastoral help which they find needful for them and they have right to as well as other men 10. The gain or loss is more the Patients than the Imposers It is their own Souls that are like to be profited and saved by needful helps or lost for want of them And therefore it most concerns themselves to know what helps they chuse 11. If all the Kings on earth command men to trust their lives to a Physician who they have just cause to believe is like to kill them by ignorance errour or treachery or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them they are not bound to obey such mandates Yea if they know an able faithful Physician that is most like to cure them they may chuse him before an unknown man though the King be against their choice 12. Scripture and experience tell us that God worketh usually according to the aptitude of means and instruments and learned experienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant rash and slothful and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do And skilful able experienced holy Pastors convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men And means must accordingly be chosen 13. If the Pastoral work skilfully and faithfully done be needful it must not be neglected whoever forbid it If it be not needful what is the Church of England good for more than Infidels or at least than Moscovites And for what are they maintained by Tythes Glebe and all the dignities honours and wealth they have And for what do men so much contend for them 14. It is natural to generate the like and for men to do and chuse as they are and as their interest leadeth them Christ tells us how hard it is for a rich man to be saved and how few such prove good And the Clergy themselves do not say that all the Patrons in England are wise and pious Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accused And most Parliament men I think are Patrons Others say that most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments are worse Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication drunkenness excess idleness yea Atheism or infidelity If many or any be such are they like to chuse such Pastors as all godly men may trust in so great a Case Or would not such Princes chuse such Bishops 15. Men are as able and as much obliged now to take heed to whose conduct they trust their Souls as they were in all former Ages of the Church forecited 16. The Laws and Bishops of England allow all men liberty to chuse what Church and Pastor that Conformeth they please so they will but remove their dwellings into the Parish which they affect And in London thousands live as Lodgers and may easily go under whom they will chuse And if they like him not may shift as oft as they please 17. Parish bounds are of much use for Order But Order is for the thing ordered and not against it And Parish bounds being of humane make cannot justly be preferr'd before the needful edification and safety of mens Souls though such humane Laws bind where there are no greater obligations against them 18. The Law of keeping to Parish-Churches where we dwell and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Pastors and Princes of Bishops are of the same efficient power and strength 19. Casuists usually say even Papists that are too much for Papal power that humane Laws bind not when they are against the end the common good especially against mens salvation And a Toletan Council decreeth that none of their Canons shall be interpreted to bind ad culpam but ad poenam lest they cause mens damnation And many Casuists say that Penal Laws bind only to do or suffer and bearing the penalty satisfieth them save as to scandal 20. Yet we still acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety and so to see that due places countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Ministers and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers and submit to hear and learn And that they should restrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers from the sacred Office-work and judg who are to be maintained and who to be tolerated 21. But this power is not absolute but bounded And if on the pretence of it they would betray the Church and starve Souls like the English Canon that binds all from going to an able Pastor at the next Parish from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader men are not bound to obey it but to provide better for themselves unless materially not formally for some time when not obeying would do more hurt than good or as a man must forbear publick assemblies in a common Plague-time And so much to open the true reason of the case in hand And Paul's words to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 16. tell me this care is not unnecessary Take heed to thy self and to the doctrine and continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee § 17. come now to the Doctor 's words who p. 312. undertakes to prove 1. That the main ground of the peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon A Bishop must be blameless Ans The word main may do him service but no hurt to my cause Main signifieth not Only who doubts but the People were to discern the Lives of chosen persons But without coming to the Ballance among many causes which is the main I have proved that there were more And among others that Christ and his Apostles bid them take heed how they hear beware of false Prophets and their leaven beware of the concision A man
people are bound to reverence the judgment of neighbour Pastors herein and not causlesly to oppose 4. When the People have chosen or they and the Clergy if the person were not before Ordained the Ordainers still are judges for their own act 5. It was not usual to Ordain sine titulo and the Ordainers did two things at once 1. Judge absolutely who shall be a Minister of Christ 2. Judge with the Church to which he was Ordained Elders and People who was fit for that Church and should be theirs And a threefold lock was safe 6. By all this it appears that all the Doctors talk against the peoples unfitness to discern who are sound or Heretick fit or unfit is to no purpose And that if unmeet men are Ministers or Bishops the fault is ten times more in the Ordainers than in the People seeing it is not the People but the Ordainers that are trusted to take into the Ministry indefinitely but only among many to judg who shall be theirs supposing them either before Ministers or next to be made such by the Ordainers And doth the Doctor think that the judgment of all parties is not as sure as of one alone or that my refusing a Physician is any wrong to his Licensers or him § 30. The Laodicean Canon cited by him speaketh for me as the rest Did he think I wanted his help to cite more for my self Who doubteth that the People being not the sole judges if they took in an un-Ordained or un-approved man without the Synods consent it was void By the way do either Synods or People the old chusers chuse our Bishops or Priests § 31. Yet more for me he citeth the Chalced. Council turning out Bassianus and Stephanus from Ephesus two men that strove and sought for the Bishoprick unto blood in the Church and both pleaded they were lawfully called by Clergy and People And yet had the People no right But they were both proved to be violent Intruders and another chosen And who doubts but a great General Council had the greatest power then § 32. Next he tells us of a Law of Justinian that made the Clergy and better sort of Citizens chusers And indeed Nazianzene once wisht the more religious sort were chusers but doth not this prove still the peoples power though so long after by an Emperour the poorer were so restrained I will not stay to search the Book but take it as he citeth it § 33. But his next seemeth to be downright against us Can. 13. Conc. Laodic But it is not so Crab hath two translations The first saith Quod non sit permittendum turbis electiones eorum facere qui sunt ad sacerdotium provehendi It is not sufferable to chuse by tumults ergo not for the people to chuse at all no nor dissent I deny the consequence To forbid disorder is not to forbid choice or free consent § 34. His next proof is Nic. Conc. 2. c. 3. which he saith restrained the election only to Bishops Answ Such dealing tells us that Protestant Doctors are not to be taken for infallible no more than Papists I cited the Canon before The doubt is whether it drive us not to more separation than we are willing of by nullifying our Bishops and Priests calling It is every election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the Canon which saith If any Bishop use the secular Magistrates to obtain by them a Church let him be deposed and separated and all that communicate with him Doth not the Doctor unhappily chuse his testimonies Had it not been better to have past over this Council Where now is all the Church of England by this Canon if Bishops coming in by the King and Parsons by the Patrons be all void and null and the people separated that communicate with them Such events are the fate of an ill cause And the next Canon doth not amend their matter which calleth it madness for gain or any affection of his own to drive any from the Ministry or segregate one of his Clergy he shall have Lextalionis and his work shall fall on his own head § 35. He adds Which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church as Can. 28. Const against Photius and the people are there excluded with an Anathema so far were popular elections grown out of request in the Eastern Empire Answ 1. Had this been true it would not much move me that these two Councils that set up Image-worship and shewed much wickedness should contradict the Apostolical and Catholick constitutions and practice But 1. I thank the Bishops I am not able to buy the French Volumes of the Councils and therefore what is there I know not and my own Library is ruined to avoid their Agents distraining it for my Preaching And Doctor James and others have taught me to prefer the oldest Editions of the Councils and to take heed how I trust the later and the Jesuits pretended Manuscripts I have now none but Crab who medleth not with this and Binnius And in Binnius there are but 14 Canons in the last Action and 27 in the antecedent Fragmenta and no such thing as a 28th Canon to be found Nor is there in the 27th any such thing as the Doctor citeth 2. But if there were if it were but the confirmation of the 2. Nicene Canon it were much against the Doctor 's cause and nothing for him 3. But unhappily here also he sends us to find out much against him For besides that the 8th Can. in Fragm condemneth requiring subscriptions to stick to the Patriarch though they were not yet oaths of obedience the 12th Canon is indeed the same with those forecited viz. That the Apostolical and Synodical Canons flatly forbidding promotions and consecrations of Bishops by the power and command of Princes we concordantly define and sentence that if any Bishop receive the consecration of such a dignity by the craft and tyranny of Princes he shall be altogether deposed as one that desired and consented to have the gift of God by the will of carnal sense and from men and by men I suppose this is the Doctor 's Canon which deposeth all the English Bishops unhappily cited And the Can. 14. requiring Princes to honour Bishops and condemning the Bishops that debase themselves to go far from their Church to meet a Prince and that will alight to them from their Horses and that will basely kneel to them or will come to their tables unless with purpose freely to reprove them expoundeth both these Bishops hearts and words And so doth Can. 17. which condemneth such as come not to Synods because the Prince forbiddeth them and saith That Princes have no right so much as to be spectators of the matters which at Synods fall out among Priests And here indeed an Anathema is pronounced against the obstinately disobedient Bishops that will not obey their Patriarch before the forbidding Prince And
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth
superstition c. I named many Cases in which an Image may be used and say that it is not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image in a Room where they are placed only for Ornament c. Is this to say worship may be directed to it or that we may kneel before a Crucifix when I had before excepted the Images of God Christ c. in worship on several reasons Doth any Protestant doubt of what I assert My Parlour hath on all four sides the pictures of our living friends must I not pray in that room because my face will be still towards some of them Doth he doubt of this Or is not his citing one half of the words as he doth to deceive his credulous Reader if not worse § 10. He saith Kneeling before a Crucifix is lawful to him supposing the mind be only excited by it Answ A Calumny made up by setting together two scraps of remote sentences 1. Because I say it 's lawful to pray in a room where pictures not any are before me for meet ornament therefore he feigns me to say It 's lawful to kneel before a Crucifix 2. And elsewhere I say It is lawful to be excited to a good thought by seeing a Deaths-head or any of Gods works and so it is by seeing a Crucifix which no sober Christian doubts of he feigns me to make it an exciting sign to him that kneels before it § 11. Yea he makes so much use of his own calumny as p. 354. to prove me strangely partial Allowing it to be lawful to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans as an object that stirs up in us worshipping affections and so excuse all Papists from Idolatry that profess they use a Crucifix for no other end Answ Meer repeated forgery not becoming his profession I never spake for praying before it much less as an object to stir up worshipping affections But only that I am not bound to fly at prayer from a room that hath only ornamental pictures and that as in the Geneva Bible there be Historical pictures and few but Turks are against them it is lawful I say not kneeling before them at prayer but out of cases of scandal and danger to be excited by them to good affections and indeed good affections are worshipping affections Dare any Christian say that it is a sin to think reverently of God when we see his works or see but a picture of Scripture History as Abraham offering Isaac Christ dying and rising c. Nonconformists have still taken them for Lyers that said they were against Historical pictures and shewed it in the Geneva Bible I have seen in many pious country Houses all the story of Dives and Lazarus painted over their Tables and never heard the good use of it accused But I desire the Reader to peruse my words which he citeth Quest 113. and judge with what honesty we are accused I there say 1. It is unlawful to make any Image of God 4. It is unlawful to make place or use an Image as is like to do more hurt than good or to tempt to sin And all such Images of creatures as others use to give unlawful worship or honour to when like to tempt others to the like as among the Papists the Image of the Crucifix the Virgin Mary and Angels may not be made placed or used so as may tempt any to worship them sinfully as they do 11. It is unlawful to place Images in Churches or in secret before our eyes when we are worshipping God when it tendeth to corrupt the mind which is the ordinary effect of Images 12. It is unlawful to use Images scandalously as any of the aforesaid sinners use them though we do it not with the same intent that is so as in outward appearance is the same with their use Because so we shall dishonour God as they do and harden them in sin Therefore Images in Churches or in Oratories in those Countries where others use them sinfully or near such Countries where the same may harden men in their sin is evil 21. I think it unlawful to make an Image or any equal instituted sign to be the publick common symbol of the Christian Religion though but a professing sign as they make the Cross Doth this doctrine justifie the Papists And p. 876. § 14. I largly prove the use of a Crucifix as they do the Cross in baptism to be unlawful which he answereth not Is it not consistent with all this that I say That it 's not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image in a room where Images are placed only for ornament and we have no respect to them as a medium or object of our worship except as by accident it 's made unlawful And that not kneeling to them nor in prayer but in transient meditation it is lawful so to use them historically as to stir up in us a worshipping affection If the Papists do no more no Protestant would call them Idolaters for it But if they use them Idolatrously it makes our use of them unlawful when even but outwardly it is like theirs And so I say of the Cross This is the Doctors zeal against Idolatry that it seems would have us all used as his Books intimate till we dare use the Transient Image of the Cross much worse than he maketh the Papists to use Images and Crucifixes in particular For to use them as a dedicating common badge of Christianity in our great Covenant with Christ is more than to use them historically and in meditation or more than to pray in rooms adorned with common pictures But he knoweth that the Papists give more to Images § 12. Obj. But what need had you to say all this of Images Answ That men may understand it I 'le tell you that you may see the Candor of our accusers Dr. R. Coxe Bishop of Ely consulted with Cassander to have had Images in our Churches The Lutherans so use them Our new Church of England began to set up Crucifixes over Altars and to plead more for Church-pictures than heretofore In 1642. the Parliament ordered the defacing all Images of any Person of the Trinity in Churches or Church-yards before the King went from them Because I read this Order and the Church-warden attempted to obey it the rabble of drunken swearing Journy-men who were all for Conformity rose in a tumult with clubs seeking to kill me and the Churchwardens and knockt down two Country-men because they were our friends who carried the hurt to their death And the Conforming Clergy were so much for them that one of them indicted me at the Assizes and I was forced to leave the Country Such rage for Images tempted some religious men that were against them to be more censorious against the Conformists than I would have them and to run too near the other extream And after it grew a dispute whether the Lutherans were not Hereticks of which see Caspar Streso
c. 3. That many of them deny all proper Sacramental causality of Grace 4. Specially Physical And Protestants make them not meer signs but investing signs 5. And ponere obicem is to want necessary moral qualification and action as aforesaid And now the Dr. had done well to tell me wherein I was very much mistaken § 15. He next saith The Cross is in no sence held to be an instrument appointed for conveying Grace Answ 1. Not by God for it is none of God's Ordinances 2. But that by men it is I have manifested if a moral objective moving and teaching means may be called an Instrument If not the word Instrument is noting to our case 1. To work on the soul of the adult by representation signification excitation as the word doth is to be an operative moral cause or means And this the Church ascribeth to it Pref. to Liturg. c. 2. The death of Christ and the benefits of it and reception into the Church and State of Christianity and the sense of our Engagement to fight under Christ's banner c. are Grace some of which is given by excitation and some the Relation by investiture § 16. And now whether I have only invented these objections to amuse and perplex mens consciences and this Dr. hath made all so plain that all may venture on it and he and all Ministers may deny them Christendom that dare not venture and cast out all from the Ministry that be not as bold as he I leave to consideration He next turneth to Mr. A. about bowing and so goeth to their Excommunication CHAP. XI Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicated for not Communicating when Excommunicated be guilty of Schism § 1. THeir Canons excommunicate ipso facto all that say Conformity is unlawful and many such like 1. He saith The excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but those who obstinately affirm it Answ Reader trust neither him nor me but read the words Can. 3 4 5 6. Whosoever shall affirm that the Church of England by Law established under his Majesty is not a true and an Apostolical Church let him be excommunicated ipso facto Whosoever shall affirm that the form of God's worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common-prayer is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful worship of God or containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till c. Whosoever shall affirm that any of the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till c. Whosoever shall affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law established are wicked antichristian or superstitious OR such as being commanded by lawful authority men who are zealously and Godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them OR as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till he repent and publickly revoke such his wicked errours Can. 7. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE IN the same is antichristian OR repugnant to the word of God let him be excommunicate ipso facto c. Can. 8. Whosoever shall affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the word of God let them be excommunicate ipso facto c. Can. 11. Whosoever shall affirm that there are within this Realm other Meetings Assemblies or Congregations of the Kings born subjects than such as by the Law of this Land are held and allowed which may rightly challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches let him be excommunicate ipso facto c. And now if the Reader will no more believe the Doctor it is not long of me If all this be no more than to excommunicate them that obstinately affirm the Ceremonies Antichristian impious or superstitious understanding them is not possible § 2. But I confess they excommunicate not men for secret thoughts We thank them for nothing It is but for telling their judgment And Dissenters may have many occasions to tell it The Kings Commission once allowed some of us to tell it The Demands Accusations calumniating Books and Sermons c. may call many to it § 3. He saith All Excommunication supposeth precedent Admonition Answ 1. They should do so The worse is yours because it doth not so It only alloweth admonition to repent for his restoration which made M. Anton. Spalatensis say so much against it 2. If it did oblige you to admonish us as you have done by your Books you know that this changeth not our judgments So that to be excommunicate before the admonition and after comes all to one But indeed when the Law ipso facto excommunicateth the Law it self is the admonition § 4. He addeth General excommunications though they be latae sententiae do not affect the particular persons till the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but the contumacy Answ Affecting is a word that signifieth what you please Ipso facto is for and upon the fact proved without any sentence of a judge While the fact only is thus made the full cause the contumacy need not be proved It 's true 1. That the fact must be proved 2. And then the Law is a sentence and Relatively affecteth the person as sentenced 3. But no persons else are obliged to avoid him till the fact be lawfully published But the man is excommunicate And 4. Whether the man that knoweth the Law and his own Fact be not bound himself to avoid the Churches Communion is a great Controversie And the plain truth is If it be a just Excommunication he is bound to forbear Communion in obedience to it As much as a silenced Minister is to forbear Preaching But if it be a sentence unjust and injustice be not so gross as to nullifie it still he must forbear But if it be so unjust as to be invalid he may Communicate till he be executively rejected As one so unjustly silenced may preach if he can for the case is much like The Reader would be displeased if I should cite him many Casuists in so plain a case 2. But no man doubteth but the General sentence of the Canon speaketh the sence of the Church and doth all that Law-makers can do before judgment And the Law is norma officii judicii obliging Subject and Judge § 5. It 's true that Linwood saith that a Declaratory sentence that is A Declaration that such a man is already sentenced by the Law is necessary to oblige any to the
execution of it on others or the person in foro externo But still the Church hath done her part in Legislation to oblige as aforesaid § 6. He saith Persons excommunicate are to be denounced so every six months that others may have notice of them Answ 1. But are they not excommunicate then before they are so oft denounced yea or at all as far as aforesaid § 7. He saith I have fully answered my own Objection by saying I am not bound to execute the sentence on my self Answ 1. He would not say that he approveth the answer For if he do he confuteth himself that would have us execute the silencing sentence on our selves and the sentence against publick worship in any way but theirs 2. My reason is because I take the unjust sentence as invalid else I were bound in foro interiore 3. But sure the Church at least relaxeth that mans obligation to present Communion by shewing her will if she did not oblige him to withdraw Read over the words of the Canon and see whether they make them not as unintelligible and flexible to what sense they please as they do the words of the Act of Uniformity and Liturgy § 8. As to his two cases in which the excommunicate may be schismaticks for not communicating 1. We question not the first Just excommunication excludeth none but the guilty Here then indeed is the state of our Controversie Had he proved that in all the cases before cited it is just to excommunicate us he had done somewhat when now for want of it he betrayeth his cause 2. His 2d is If they form new Churches Answ 1. Is forming new Churches and not communicating with the old ones all one Our present question is of the later So that this great Accuser seemeth plainly to absolve all from being bound to Communicate with them who are unjustly excommunicate and gather not new Churches 2. But may not the unjustly excommunicate that cannot on just terms be restored worship God in some publick Church Doth such a wicked sentence bind men to live like Atheists till death or deprive them of their right to all God's Ordinances even many Papist Doctors and Councils say the contrary And how else do you justifie the Church of England against the Papists charge of Schism § 9. p. 372. He still seemeth to think that His own and others reasonings may change all the truly honest Christians in the Land to hold all the things imposed lawful Answ These thoughts of the Bishops in 1660. and 1661. have brought us all to the pass that we are at And if after 20 years so great experience of the inefficacy of all their Disputes yea and Prisons and after the notice of the nature and different cases of men they still trust to bring us to Concord on these terms disputing with such men is in vain The Lord deliver us from them CHAP. XII Of the English sort of Sponsors and the exclusion of Parents duty § 1. PAge 380. He saith I several times mention this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with us yea as the greatest objection Answ Four places of my writings are cited and all will testifie to him that will read them the untruth of the Doctors words This is an unhappy course of accusations I can find no word of The unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground On the contrary I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful viz. By getting if possible credible Sponsors of the old sort and agreeing with them to be the Parents Representer and promise as in his name or at least but as his second undertaking the Education of the Child if he die or apostatize which was the old sort and himself to be present and signifie his consent by gesture though he may not speak But I have shewed 1. That this must be done besides the Churches order that hath no such thing 2. That subscribing to the Churches order herein is unlawful 3. That the Church which refuseth the Child lawfully offered ought not to blame that person that cannot or will not make such shifts but getteth another Pastor to Baptize him whom they sinfully refuse But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you But it 's lawful to use better also when they can being thus repulsed by you § 2. He saith The Parents are to provide such as are fit to under take that office Answ 1. No one is fit for it as used by the Liturgy but an Adopter that taketh the Child for his own For he undertaketh the Parents work And it 's lis sub judice whether any others undertaking besides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered and have right to the seal and benefits Atheists and Insidels Children are unholy 1 Cor. 7. 14. 2. If any were sit few Parents can get such as will understandingly and deliberately and credibly promise them to do all that Godfathers must by the Liturgy undertake I never knew one in my life that seemed to the Parent to mean any such thing much less to do it I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Witnesses and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy without Crossing and never more in 6. or 7. years after because of the imposed corruptions Mr. Kettilby the Bookseller unless his Father had another Child of the same name baptized the same year was one But his Father gave him his name and promised all his own duty and his Uncle and Aunt standing as Sponsors we before agreed that they should signifie but Witnesses and friendly helpers in case of need 2. But what if the Parents are bid provide such that is no discharge of their own part nor are they bound to cast their duty on others § 3. He saith as to the Child 's Right to Baptism that the Godfathers stand in a threefold capacity 1. Representing the Parent in offering 2. Representing the Child in promising 3. In their own as undertakers of his education c. Answ 1. I will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's sence the Godfathers are not the Parents representatives at all nor speak in their name 2. If they were then when the Parents both are Atheists Infidels Hobbists scorners at Godliness Hereticks the Godfathers can represent them but as they are and their own faith entitleth not the Child because they stand in the persons of Atheists Infidels c. your Church doth not like this doctrine 3. And as to their representing the Child quo jure is the doubt It cannot be done without some representing power given them And who gave it them 4. And as to the third Person in this multiform
thing the doubt is whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful while he is bound to do it himself 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings which I never knew one perform nor seem to mean it save such as take poor mens kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own 3. And if it be done without serious intention Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness and prophane taking God's name in vain to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation § 4. This is a great point and he doth well to handle it diligently His explication of it is this p. 382. 1. The Church hath the power of the Keys True but not as he and the Brownists say The whole Church but only the Pastors 2. They may baptize capable subjects No doubt of it 3. Infants are capable subjects Answ But what Infants All or some Is this our satisfaction If it be All Infants then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right when the Parents have none Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force When even Aquinas and other Papists say that Children may not be baptized against the Parents wills I have elsewhere at large proved 1. That Baptism is but the sealing of the Covenant and the delivering of possession by Ministerial Investiture and not the first gift or condition of our right to Christ and his benefits 2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-consent are the Conditions which Baptism after solemnly expresseth 3. That if a true penitent believing consenter die without Baptism he is saved and if tâ—…ptized adult die without faith repentance and heart-consent he is damned 4. That therefore all the adult must have an entitling condition to give them right first initially coram Deo to pardon of sin and then to be baptized which solemnly delivereth their full right before they can be lawfully baptized 5. That God dealeth not so differently with Infants and Adult as to require conditions of right in the later and none in the former as if they were all born with right 6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their seed and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers And that if both Parents be Infidels the Children are unclean but else they are holy And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World confoundeth not their Childrens case This I have fully proved in my Disp of Original sin and Treat of right to Sacraments 7. That Baptism sealeth and delivereth to the qualified subject the present pardon of sin and right to Christ and life as to adopted Children of God And therefore there must be some reason and proof of a right to it more than all Infants in the world have 8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptism and speaking feignedly in their name that giveth them right to a sealed pardon and salvation It must be one that can prove himself entitled to represent the Child which none can that cannot say He is my own 9. If it were otherwise Atheists Infidels wicked men though Baptized could give no right to the sealed pardon or to the Investiture in a state of life to which they have no right themselves And if they represent no better Parents as such they can give them no right save coram Ecclesia when they are not infideles judicati 10. Nor doth it suffice to an Infants right that the Minister or Church be Christians Therefore to tell us that Infants are right subjects signifieth nothing till either 1. He tell us what Infants 2. Or prove that all Infants have right which he can never do And if he could I would easily prove that all dying Infants are saved whether Baptized or not As I can prove that true Christian Infants are § 5. While he gives us not the least satisfaction of Infants Right he tells us of difficulties on the other side if we lay it on Parents or Owners right And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions which the Reader will be loth I should digress to try having done it so largly in my Christ Direct and Treat of Right to Sacraments 2. He nameth the qualification which I â—â—â—rt A profession of the Christian faith not invalidated and saith nothing to disable it but that Others will reject it Others wild Opinions named goes for my Confutation And now I desire the Reader to see the Catalogue of the things we account sinful in Conformity in my first Plea for Peace and try how many of them the Doctor hath so much as meddled with And whether he think by these few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful or our Preaching unlawful or our Communion with those Christians who are not of his mind herein unlawful If he say again that he meddleth not with Ministers Conformity but the Peoples 1. Note how he hath passed by even the greatest things also in their case 2. Whether he meddle not with the Ministers case who seeketh to prove their preaching unlawful and so perswades them to be silent 3. Whether their case should not be so far meddled with as to prove the things which they think sinful to be lawful or their preaching unnecessary before the endeavours used against them well known be justified as needful to the Churches Peace CHAP. XIII Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth § 1. WHat advantage to the Drs. Cause the three Letters of the French Divines annexed can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer sounds and shews I know not But could we know these things following we might better understand the judgment of the Writers Quest 1. Whether he that sought their judgment did make them understand what all our present Impositions and Acts of Conformity are and what alterations are made in the Church of England since the beginning of Bishop Lands power 2. Whether he made them truly understand the difference between the ancient Episcopacy and the English Diocesan frame in all its parts 3. Whether he did put the Case as about Subscribing â—â— Declaring Covenanting or Swearing Assent and Consent to all things and practising accordingly or only of living in Communion with them which do such things 4. Whether he put the case as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things or as denying Communion in the rest which are lawful 5. Whether he made them understand that we are ipso facto excommuncate by their Canon for telling our judgment 6. Whether he made them understand that it was about 2000 Ministers that were silenced and what men are in many of their places and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them and what men they are and what they did to prevent all our divisions 7. Whether he made them understand what measure of Communion we
still maintain with the Church of England and the Parish Churches 8. Whether he put the case to them whether we that have Communion with them are Schismaticks if we also have Communion with others whom they prosecute 9. Whether he put the question to them whether we are lawfully silenced and if not whether rebus sic stantibus we are bound to forbear our Ministry 10. Whether he made them know that all the Ministers of England as well as we were forbidden to Preach c. unless they would Conform to that we are ready to prove unlawful And if it prove so whether they should all either have sinned or been silent in obedience 11. Whether he made them understand how many thousands there be in London that cannot have room in the Parish-Churches and the Nonconformists Churches set together but live like Atheists 12. Whether he acquainted them that the question is whether all godly dissenters that are cast out or cannot joyn in the Parish way of Liturgick Worship must till their judgments change give over all publick worship of God and be forsaken of all Teachers 13. Whether he acquainted them how loud a Call we had to preach in London first by the Plague then by the burning of the Churches the people being deserted by the Parish Ministers in these sad extremities 14. Whether he acquainted them with the Kings Licences and our being accused of Schism even when Licensed 15. Whether he acquainted them with what we have said for ourselves lately in divers Books or they judg'd us unheard 16. Whether they be singular or whether it be the judgment of the Protestant Churches in France that it is a sin for any to preach or publickly worship God when the King Bishops and Law forbid them And if so How long it hath been their judgment and why all their Churches ceased not when prohibited If not so How to know that our silencing Laws and Bishops must be obeyed and not theirs There is no understanding their answers till we know how the case was stated § 2. Mr. Clodes Letter is moderate and it 's like they took the case to be about proper separation and so say no more in the main than some Nonconformists have said against the Brownists But the Dr. hath dealt too unmercifully with Mr. Le Moine in publishing his Epistle when it was so easie to know how few if any would believe his story but take it for a confirmation how incredible our accusers are I mean his story that five years ago he heard one of the most famous Nonconformists preach in a place where were three men and three or fourscore women he had chosen a Text about the building up the ruins of Jerusalem and for explication cited Plinny and Vitruvius a hundred times c. I think I shall never speak with the person that will believe him sure I am London knoweth that the Nonconformists are the most averse to such kind of Preaching And I know not one of them that I can say ever read a quarter of Vitruvius I confess I never read a leaf of him This Monsieur would do well to tell us yet the name of the man that if living he may be call'd to account But I doubt he fell into some Tabernacle of which many are erected in place of the burnt Churches and perhaps heard the Conformist who had occasion to talk of architecture But yet I will not believe that either Conformist or Nonconformist would expose himself to common scorn by an hundred or twenty such citations § 3. And his description of the mens horrible impudence to excommunicate without mercy the Church c. imagining that they are the only men in England nay in the Christian world that are predestimated to eternal happiness c. and then pronouncing them intolerable sheweth that it is not us that he speaketh of nor any company that is known to us neither our Separatists here nor Anabaptists nor so much as the very Quakers holding any such thing § 4. And though he saith He was not at all edified by the Nonconformists preaching it followeth not that no others are Nor that none were edified in England or Scotland while publick Preachers went the Nonconformists way § 5. But because the Doctor chuseth this way I will imitate him though with the Apology that St. Paul gloried and give him notice of some Epistles of men that judged otherwise of the Nonconformists CHAP. XIV Epistles or Testimonies compared with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Joseph Glanvile's Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant with a Letter of his to the Author heretofore and a Digression of Doctor L. Moulin § 1. IN general he that will read the Lives of many of the old Nonconformists Hildersham Dod and many such and Bishop Hall's Character of Dr. Reynolds and the late published Lives of Mr. Joseph Allen John Janeway Dr. Winter Mr. Macham Mr. Wadsworth Mr. Stubbs c. will see better what to judge of them than by our three French Epistles Yea Thuanus giveth a juster Character of many abroad that were of their mind And John Fox one of them of more § 2. And to our three French-men I will when it will be of more use than seeming vanity return you four French-mens Letters to my self Mr. Gaches Mr. Amyralds Mr. Le Blanks and Mr. Testards and if you will some Germans too Calvinists and Lutherans of a quite differing sense of us Nonconformists But Mr. Gaches being already in Print by the Duke of Lauderdales means 1660. and joyned with one of Mr. L'Angles I leave the Reader that desireth to see both § 3. But because Mr. Jos Glanvile was one of themselves here though an Origenist a most triumphant Conformist and not the gentlest contemner of Nonconformists and famous for his great wit I will repay the Dr. with the annexing one among many since of his Letters to my self which yet indeed I do not chiefly to ballance the Drs. but to help the Reader to understand Mr. Glanvile and his posthumous Book which I think not meet to pass by without some Animadversions Though I have great reason to hope that dying so soon after it and his preferment the experience of the Vanity of a flattering World might help to save him from impenitence As I have read in divers credible writers it was with Dr. Matthew Sutliffe that on his Death-bed he repented that he had written so much against the Reformers called Puritans I perceive Dr. Stillingfleet marvelleth that my own expectations of approaching Death do not hinder me from writing what I do for the Nonconformists whereas the truth is had not pain and weakness kept me from my youth as in the continual prospect of the Grave and the next life I had never been like to have been so much against Conformity and the present Discipline of this Church that is their want of Discipline as I have been For the World might have more flattered me and byassed my Judgment
and my Conscience might have been bolder and less fearful of sin And though I love not to displease them I must say this great truth that I had never been like to have lived in so convincing sensible experience of the great difference of the main body of the Conformists from the most of the Nonconformists as to the seriousness of their Christian Faith and hope and practice their victory over the flesh and world c. I mean both in the Clergy and Laity of mine acquaintance O how great a difference have I found from my youth to this day Though I doubt not but very many of the Passive Conformable Ministers to say nothing of the Imposers have been and are worthy pious men and such as would not perswade their hearers that the Jesuits first brought in spiritual prayer And I had the great blessing of my Education near some such in three or four neighbour Parishes § 4. It grieved me to hear of Mr. Glanvile's death for he was a man of more than ordinary ingeny and he was about a Collection of Histories of Apparitions which is a work of great use against our Sadducees and to stablish doubters and the best mans faith hath need of all the helps from sense that we can get And I feared lest that work had perished with him But I gladly hear that by the care of Dr. H. More that worthy faithful man of peace who never studied preferment it is both preserved and augmented And as for his Origenisme as I like it not so I confess in matters of that nature I can better bear with the venturousness of dissenters than hereticators can do But when I saw this Rag called a Letter left behind him my grief for him was doubled And I saw what cause we have all to fear the snares of a flattering world and what cause to pray for Divine preservation and for an unbyassed mind and a humble sense of our own frailty that we may neither over-value prosperity nor our own understandings I did not think that he that had wrote the Vanity of Dogmatizing could so soon have come to perswade men in power that dissenting from our Churches dogmatizing and imposed words formes and ceremonies was worthy of so severe a prosecution of us as he describeth and that all their danger is from the forbearing such prosecution of us and that though for their own ends he could abate us some little matters the only way to settled peace is vigorously to execute the Laws against us He that can think the silencing and imprisoning of about 2000 such Ministers is the way to bring this Land to Concord hath sure very hard thoughts of them in comparison of Conformists And that you may see how little his judgment against such should weigh with others who is so lately changed from himself I will give you here one of several Letters which I had from him and leave you to judge whether he have proved that he was much wiser at last than when he wrote this or whether his character of me agree with his motion to silence and ruine all such I am so far from owning his monstrous praises that I fear I offended him with sharply rebuking him for them But lest his wit and virulence here do harm I give it you to shew the unconstancy of his judgment or if he would have excepted me from his severities I must profess that I believe the most of the Nonconformable Ministers of my acquaintance are better men than my self and therefore his excessive praise of me is the condemnation and shame of his persecuting counsel § 5. As to his praise of the Bishops Writings against Popery I had rather magnifie than obscure their deserts But I am not able to believe that the old ones who write to prove the Pope Antichrist c. and the new ones who would bring us to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis Catholicae were of one mind because both are called Protestants and that such as Bishop Bramhall and the rest of the defenders of Grotius were of the same judgment with Bishop Usher Bishop Morton Bishop Downame c. nor that Grotius who describeth a Papist to be one that flattereth Popes as if all were right which they said and did did disclaim Popery in the same sense as the old Church of England did Two men may cry down Popery while one of them is a Papist or near one in the others sense As to the folly of calling that Popery which is not I have said more against it in my Cath. Theologie than he hath done And as to his excuse of an ignorant vicious sort of Ministers because no better will take small Livings It is not true The silenced Nonconformists would have been glad of them or to have preached there for nothing The tolerating of ignorant scandalous men were more excusable if better were not shut out that would have taken such places But it 's notorious that for the interest of their faction and prosperity they had rather have the ignorant and vicious than the ablest and most laborious Nonconformist Bishop Morley told me when he forbad me to preach that It was better for a place to have none than to have me when I askt him Whether I might not be suffered in some place which no one else will take Most of the old Nonconformists were suffered by connivance in small obscure places which was the chief reason why they set not up other meetings which Dr. Stillingfleet thought they avoided as unlawful because forbidden § 6. And as to his excuse by blaming ill Patrons I would know then by what true obligation all men in England are bound to commit the Pastoral conduct of their Souls to such men only as our English Patrons chuse § 7. And when he so blameth the tepidity and irreligiousness of the Members of their own Church I would know 1. Whether all men that are more seriously religious must be forsaken by us and ruined by them if they be not of their mind and form 2. And whether the numbers of the irreligious that are for their way and the numbers of the religious that are against it should not rather breed some suspicion in them than engage them to ruine so many such men § 8. And when page 3. he confesseth that the sword is their Churches strength and Government and how contemptible words paper Arguments and excommunications are without force doth he not shame their whole cause and shew that it is not the same Government which the Church used for many hundred years which they desire and that their whole power of the Keys which they talk so much for seems to themselves a dead and uneffectual thing while we Nonconformists desire no coercive power but to guide Consenters § 9. As to his project to save religion under a Papist King if the Dean and Chapter may but chuse the Bishop I leave it to other mâ—â—â— consideration But
Power in Erastus sense and went rather further than Dr. Stilling fleet in his Irenicum And as I was before against him so after this about 12 years ago I wrote that Book against him about the Magistrates Power in Church-matters in which I called him My sincere friend thinking sincere friendship consistent with such a difference and an open Confutation And if the contrary must be repented of I hope such charity is no crime This third Book against him also he took patiently and without breach of Love And when I laboured to perswade him to retract his Writings against Excommunication though he held still to his Conclusion and thought that the great work that God called him to in the World was to discover the Papal and Prelatical Usurpation of the Magistrates power under the name of Ecclesiastical yet I made him confess all the matter that I pleaded for and he made me see that his errour lay most in meer ambiguous words which he had not â—…ateness enough to explicate All this patience signified not uncharitableness rage or fury And I obliged him not by praise but 〈…〉 him for his eagerness for his own indigested conceptions nor gave him any thanks for his indiscreet and excessive praises afterwards given me in his Patronus bonae fidei Upon all this I would put some questions to the sober thoughts of the Author of his Picture 1. Whether there be not as great signs of sincerity humility and patience in such a behaviour and in that great love which he had to all that he thought Godly men though he too hardly judged of others for that which he thought great errour and sin as in those that cannot bear a just defence of dissenters against their unjust accusations nor endure men to tell why they rather suffer than Conform 2. Whether he that maketh him so very bad a man and incredible a lyar for too rash censoriousness of dissenters and some untruths vented in rash zeal do not tempt men to give as odious titles to those Reverend persons who go very far beyond him in untruths and uncharitable censures And whether they that were for the silencing and utter ruining of about 2000 Ministers and call'd to Magistrates to execute the Laws against them and that unchurch all the Reformed Churches which have not a continued succession of Diocesan Bishops shew not as much uncharitableness as he did that described some too hardly And whether most of the Books written against me by Conformists such as the Bishop of Worcester's Letter the Impleader Mr. Hinkley and many more be not much fuller of untruths in matter of fact than the Drs But yet I think it a sin to give them such a Character as this and render the persons as incredible lyars because errour interest and faction made some so unadvised 3. If it deserve such a Character to censure Arminians as dangerously erroneous and befriending Popery whether you do not consequently so stigmatize the old Church of England before Bishop Laud's time Even Arch-bishop Whitgift Bishop Fletcher and the rest who drew up the Lambeth Articles Arch-bishop Abbot and the Church in his time except six Bishops c. King James and the whole Church as consenting by six Delegates to the Synod of Dort And also that Synod and all the Forein Reformed Churches that consented to it And is not this more than Dr. Moulin did 4. And are they not then to be accordingly stigmatized who on the other side make the Calvinists as odious accusing them of Blasphemy Turcisme and doing as much against them as Dr. Heylin in the Life of Arch-bishop Laud tells us was done in England on that account 5. And if such hard thoughts of Arminians as furthering Popery deserve your Character whether by consequence you so brand not all those Parliaments who voted against it accordingly and made it one of the dangerous grievances of the Land And is not that as faulty as for Dr. Moulin too much to blame you 6. Yea I doubt you stigmatize thus so great a part of Christians in all the World as I am loth to mention so rare is it to hear of any Country where they are not so much guilty of sects and factions as by education and interest to run in a stream of uncharitable censures of one another speaking evil of more than they understand as I have proved in my Cathol Theolog. about this subject 7. Seeing it is above 20 years since I wrote that against Dr. Moulin which you cite and he never found fault with it nor justified his mistakes may I not think that he was convinced and repented And you that praise his death-bed repentance should not Characterize him by failings twenty years repented of 8. How do you know that the Dr. repented not of his too hard words of you till his death-bed You are mistaken In his health I more than once blamed him 1. For his censure of Dr. Stillingfleet and the other particular persons whose worth was known and had deserved well of the Protestant Churches 2. For his extending those censures to the Conformists and Church which belong to some particular persons and the most are not guilty of And 3. For his Book of the fewness of the saved as presumptuous And as far as I could then discern he repented of them all but laid the ill Title-page of the last on the Book-seller And he still thought of Causes and Parties as very different he owned not his harsh words or censures aforesaid I found him not raging nor impenitent 9. Doth not your own description of his great readiness to beg forgiveness and lothness to own any thing uncharitable shew a better spirit than your picture doth describe 10. Is not he as like to be a sincere man who asketh forgiveness of his faults rash censures and words as he that repenteth of his former duties his Pacificatory principles and Writings Surely to repent of evil is a better sign than to repent of good 11. Because you call us to acquit our selves by disowning Dr. Moulin may we not disown both his faults and our own without disowning God's grace and mens piety and worth would you be so disowned for your own faults 2. And how should I disown his rashness better than to write what I wrote against him and say what I said to him would you have a Synod called to reprove every rash word 12. Because you justly value mens repentance I will be thankful to you to further mine and give me leave to further yours Only I foretell you that your words shall not offend me by their hardness if they have but truth and you call me to repent of my sin and not of serving God I do not repent of defending Truth and Duty nor of seeking to save the Reader from the infection of false accusation and arguings which would destroy his charity and innocency by the fullest manifesting the falshood and evil of the words and deeds which are the Instruments
I take it to be a wrong to those that I would preserve to extenuate the danger of the snare or poyson on pretence of gentleness to the Writer But I deal with the Cause and desire none to hate the person nor would I diminish the honour due to him for his parts or vertues but rather have all men love and magnifie all the good while they dislike the evil and would save the Reader at as easie a rate to the Writer as I can But that he should not be related to his false or sinful words or deeds is not in my power to effect But though I repent not of necessary truth if I any where mistake or speak more truth than is profitable or in language by sharpness more apt to do hurt than good of this I repent and ask forgiveness of God and man As I do if I speak so short of truth as with Eli to make sin seem smaller than it is And now I hope you will love your own duty of Repentance better than another mans and will not be angry if I seek to help it 1. Do you not perceive that while you paint the Dr. as an incredible raging distracted lyar and praise his repentance for rash words of others that you commit the same rashness your self against him If you cannot see your own face let any impartial Reader be your glass and ask him whether you do not that which you are condemning 2. You seem to vindicate the Book called the Friendly Debate I shall shortly further tell you of somewhat in it to be repented of And if partiality made not repentance a very difficult work you would have no need herein of a Monitor But you may think me partial though I acknowledg your civilities to me I can shew you a Manuscript of one both impartial and truly judicious even the late Judge Hale expressing so great dislike of that Debate and the Eccl. Policy as tending to the injury of Religion it self that he wisheth the Authors would openly profess that they write for themselves and no more so abusively pretend it is for Religion 3. You say in this Picture that If L. du Moulin had that honest zeal in him to which he pretends he would have handled Mr. Baxter as smartly c. Answ There may be other reasons than want of honest zeal But do you not here shew that it is the persons more than his act that offended you in his reproof Could you judge it honest zeal had it been to others pag. 16. 4. You say p. 17. He hath something of the Nonconformists in him and for that reason he spareth him Answ Do not Nonconformists differ from Erastians Did not I write against his opinion of Church-Government And did he not bear 22 years ago when Conformity was not in our Controversies 5. You say of the party that come nearest the doctrine of Calvinists and Puritans though you say you mean such as D. M. your Reader must suppose you mean the Nonconformists that they are the true Causes of all our present evils For the late War was raised by the very best of you c. If you mean as you seem it 's somewhat extraordinary to perswade men to believe this in the same Land and Age that the War was raised in And for one to do this that had the first General of the Horse in the Earl of Essex Army his Patron a few doors from him and the Lord Hollis a Colonel nearer him till lately and the Lord President of his Majesties Privy-Council a Colonel not far off him and many more known Conformists who could all quickly have satisfied him how few Nonconformists were Members of Parliament or Commanders in the Army when the War began and that it was betwnen two parties of Conformists that the Wars began as I have proved against Mr. Hinkley and can fullier do when there is need Which party is most obliged to repentance you may dispute with those that are fit for it But if your intimation be untrue it is of another nature and degree than any of Dr. Moulins I confess one party did in many Parliaments before and in that accuse Bishop Laud and his new followers 1. Of Innovations 2. Of Arminianism 3. Of promoting absolute arbitrary Government against the Subjects Property and Liberty 4. And of promoting Popery But if this party were not Conformists of the Church of England the Bishops Clergy and Gentry were not the Church in Arch-bishop Abbots days before Bishop Laud. As to the Reasons of their accusations and the publishing the Articles for Toleration in order to the Sp. and Fr. Match c. I pass them by But because you may say some such think of me as you do of D. M. for what I say in my search for the Schismaticks I only add 1. That I hope we may transcribe mens own words 2. And may judge that there is some difference between the Bishops that judged the Pope Antichrist c. and those that would have us as the way to unity to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis and the first 6 or 8 General Councils and that say our concord must be in obeying unum Collegium Pastorum ruling the whole Church per literas formatas and that say the Roman Church is a true Church but so are none of the Reformed that have not Bishops and a continued successive Ordination by such A Copy of a Letter written by Mr. Lewis Du Moulin to the Worthy Dr. Tho. Coxe With the Drs. Answer occasioned by some Reports that concerned Dr. Lewis Du Moulin Worthy Sir KNowing the natural inclination you have to oblige all men and the perticular experience I have of your unwearied goodness to my person and family did incourage me to write both before and now The occasion of both was the Reports spread abroad of my Father being informed you had made him the object of your Care during his sickness I rejoyced that Providence had ordered it so that a Person of your approved worth and Integrity was concerned about him I shall not trouble you with the Relations Fame has brought into this Country but shall only desire to know how he died Was there any advantage taken of his weakness of body or mind How far did his Reported Recantation extend Reach'd it to any material thing of his Tenets or only in reference to personal Reflections This is what is humbly desired by Honoured Sir Your most Humble and obliged Servant Lewis Du Moulin From my House at Malton in Yorkshire October the 7th 1680. The Drs. Answer to Mr. Lewis Du Moulin Sir I Had not delayed to return an Answer to your first Letter had I known how to direct mine to you which indeed I had forgotten how to do This is therefore to let you know that your Father my honourèd Friend Dr. Du Moulin Dyed as he had Lived a truly pious man a great hater of the Romish Superstition and of so
priviledged peculiar places or little Chapells at least Few Counties had not some Gentlemen that sheltred them The Earl of Huntington kept in Mr. Hildersham at Ashby Mr. Slater and Mr. Ash even in the big Town of Bremicham Mr. Mainwaring kept in Mr. Ball at Whitmore Mr. Knightley kept in Mr. Dod Judge Bromley and his humble holy Lady kept Mr. Brumskill at Sheriff Hales and entertained many more Mr. Nicols c. Sir Richard Graves at Moseley had Mr. Pateman and divers others seldom without a Nonconformist One would think Doctor Stillingfleet should know that his own Patron under whose wing he lived Sir Roger Burgonie was seldom without a Nonconformist at Roxhall in Warwickshire Mr. Hering had long liberty at St. Maries in Shrewsbery Mr. Ford who wrote on the Psalms had the School Lecture there Mr. Atkins at 〈◊〉 kept in to the last even the Lord Dudley favouring him Abundance such I might name Mr. Barnet at Uppington whom I oft heard Catechize Dr. Allestree Mr. Tandy at Bewdley Mr. Langley Mr. Paget Mr. Hind Mr. Lancaster Mr. Rowle Mr. Nicols Mr. Mather Mr. Rathband Mr. Barâ—â—n Mr. Gee Mr. Wright Mr. Smart c. had their liberties for some time And when one Bishop silenced them the next oft gave them liberty as Bishop Bridgman did after Bishop Mortons silencing some and when they were silenced they went oft into another Diocese where they rubd out a year or more and then to another And so were still in some hope of publick liberty And when silenced they used to keepe private fasts And where they lodged to preach on pretense of expounding to as many as they could They obeyed the Bishops as Magistrates but not as Pastors They knowingly broke the Law in their private and publick Ministry They obeyed not the Canons used not much of the Liturgy And many of them did as some do now get into publick Pulpits for a day and away where they were not known § 12. But yet there are more undeniable evidences of the falseness of what he saith he is certain of as the judgment of All the Old Nonconformists One is the known judgement of the Scotch Reformers and the common accusation of the English as being of their mind He that will affirm that the Scotch Presbyterians thought it unlawful to preach or hold Assemblies when forbidden by Magistrates or Prelates will incur a very sharp censure from their own Leaders who have written so many Books which charge them with the contrary and make them Rebels and Seditious for it Such as Bancroft Heylin Beziers and multitudes both old and new especially these last twenty years And though the Nonconformists in England did not justifie all that the Scots did and they that took Knox Buchanan Melvin and such other for very pious men yet thought some words and deeds too rash especially Knox's publick opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit and refusing her offer to come at any time and tell her of them privately yet it s known that in the Rules of Discipline they were mostly of the same judgment And they often joyned in defending the same Cause See their several demonstrations of Discipline and the several Defences of them how little they differed when Bancroft preacht against them at Pauls Cross Feb. 8. 1588. An English man wrote a Brief Discovery of his untruths c. And a Scoth man J. D. Bancrofts rashness in railing against the Church of Scotland printed 1590. And how little differ they if at all and Dr. Reignolds wrote a Letter against it to Sir Francis Knowles printed with Sir Francis Knowles his account to the Lord Burleigh of his Speech in Parliament against the Bishops keeping Courts in their own names as condemned by Law And in many of their writings the English own the Scotch Discipline and Church And yet even these Scots have rejected Brown as a Schismatick and the English Confuter of Bancrofts Sermon tells him Pag. 43 44. Brown a known Schismatick is a Fit man to be one of your Witnesses a-against the Eldership His entertainment in Scotland was such as a proud ungodly man deserved to have God give him and you repentance And Giffords Pagets Bradshaws Brightmans Rathbands Balls c. words against the Brownists proved not them to be against their own doctrine and practice no more than the Scots rejecting Brown proved them against theirs § 13. And another proof is the common doctrine of the Nonconformists of the difference of the Magistrates and the Churches Offices The said confutation of Bancroft hath it pag. 45 and forward and abundance of their publick writings viz. That the Magistrate only hath the power of the Sword and of Civil Government and to restrain and punish Ministers that offend by Heresie or otherwise But that as Preaching Sacraments and the disciplinary use of the Keys are proper to the Ministry so the deciding of Circumstantial controversies about them and about the due ordering of them doth primarily belong to Ecclesiastical Synods Therefore if these Synods were for their Preaching they were not for ceasing it meerly in obedience to the Magistrate that silenced them § 14. And it is proved by the many Volumes which they wrote against the Power of our Diocesans that it was not any Ecclesiastical Authority of theirs which they thought it a sin to disobey § 15. And Mr. Fox a Nonconformist and many more of them own the Doctrine of Wicliff and John Husse and the Bohemians for which the Synods of Constance and Basil condemned them who affirm that it is a heynous sin to give over Preaching because men excommunicate us and that such are excommunicated by Christ § 16. And it is not nothing that the most Learned Conformists agree with them as I have oft cited Bishop Bilsons words that the Magistrate doth not give us our power nor may hinder our use of it but is appointed by God to protect and encourage us and if he forbid or hinder us we are to go on with our work and patiently suffer And even now I believe most of the Leading Clergy think that if a Synod bid us preach and hold assemblies and the King forbid it we are to obey the Synod rather than the King Mr. Thorndike and many others that write for the Church thought so And Mr. Dodvel thinks so even of a particular Bishop The difference then is but this One party giveth this power to a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters perhaps conjoyned and the other to a Synod of Parochial Pastors Doctors and Elders But both agreed that the Magistrates prohibition in that case is not to be obeyed And the Conformists will not take it well if I should say that the Nonconformist are more for obedience to Magistrates than they I still except the Erastians and such as own Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicon § 17. There is a most considerable book called A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majesty shewing a meane how to compound the Civil Dissentions in the Church