to Primitive Institution To give some Instances How many Reformations do we read of in the Jewish Church which no doubt were approved of God and rejoiced in by Good Men in so far as they were a casting off of false Gods and a worshipping of Jehovâ—h and yet had this nigrum Theta set on them by the Spirit of God that the high plâ—ces still remained and the People still Sacrificed in them yet only to Jehovah This is noted even of Sâ—lomâ—n 1 Kin. 3. 2 3. and it 's like it was one of his first Steps of Degeneracy tho' the want of a Temple might seem to have excused it yet it is noted as a Fault as Pisâ—aâ—â—r observeth and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attamen only importeth no less It is also noted of Manesseth in his last and best daies 2 Chron. 33. 17. and of Azariah 2 King. 15. 5. and of Jotham 2 King. 15. 35. and of many others which need not be mentioned Now is it imaginable that none of the Godly in Judah were dissatisfied with this Depraâ—atiâ—n of God's VVorship nor scrupled to leave the Temple and to go to the high places to worship and if there were any such Might not all this be applied to them Was it for the Honour of the Reformation Was that the way to preserve the Worship of Jehovah Mast Reformers be charged with a wrong Way of Worship If this had been an insigâ—ificant Declamation against them so is it now against us To come nearer home Do not all the soundest Protestants rejoice in the Lutheran Reformation as to the main and yet blame it in some things Were not all English Protestants glad of what King Hen. 8. did against the Pope and in some other points of Religion and yet they thought not fit so to applaud that Setlement as to look after no further Reformation Why then should it be thought in us a disgracing of the Reformation that we desire some things to be still mended Sect. 17. We thank him for his Charity that he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuites but misregard his Saying That we do their Work a groundless and unproved Assertion I wish there were no Ground for Recrimination which I shall forbear If his Forty Years Meditation have enabled him to prove the present Episcopacy agreeable to the Institution of Christ and to the best Churches we must yield the Cause but we intend to hear his Proofs first It is a needless Question that he asketh Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Setlen â—ut Seeing he knoweth that we blame the first Setlement eatenus tho' we applaud it in the main and what he cited out of Dr. Taylor the Martyr p. 11. saith no more but that some Holy Men discovered the Evil of Popery and laid down their Lives in opposition to it but had not yet come to see the Evil of some of the Appurtenances of Popery Dr. Taylor and others rejoiced to see God worshipped in English which had been in Latin as by Parrots but did not see the Evil of such a Frame of Worship having known no other So the same Dr. Tayâ—or when Bp. Bonâ—er was about degrading him Swore by St. Peter Acts and Monuments p. 174. as Joseph by the Life of Pharaoh but that doth not justifie such a practice Sect. 18. He now undertaketh p. 11 c. to make it appear that the Jesuitical Party had a great hand in the beginning of the Separation as he calleth it How doth this consist with what he had said That he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuits That Papists did not Separate at first in Queen Elizabeth's Daies we can give no Account knowing that Policy not Conscience often governeth their Actions That Non-conformists did go along with the Church in all her practices he largely insisteth on afterward and there it is to be considered whether it was so or not and if o what is our Concern in it He telleth a long Story of Jesuits imployed under the Disguise of more zealous Trotestants to oppose the Liturgy c. and to set up a Separation the truth of which I shall not dispute for it hath alwaies been the way of that active party to endeavour the Dividing of them that are not of their Communion But I know not what Blame that can reflect upon the Non-conformists or their practices I do not doubt the same party had a hand in the Divisions of Calvinists from Lutherans and are willing to take all occasions to divide that they may ruin but if the Lord turn it to Good and to their Disappointment and if his Servants keep his Way while they part from the way of other Men let the Jesuits do their worst and let us do our Duty there is neither harm nor blame in it Were it not very easie for us 〈◊〉 we had any confidence in such Arguments to shew what a hand Jesâ—its haâ—e in setting on our Adversaries in such peremptory cleaving to their Indifferent Ceremonies that they will rather see the Church torn in a thousand pieces than part with one of them and in prosecuting Men tho' never so found in the Articles of the Church's Doctrine and Innocent and Holy in their Conversation because they cannot yield over the Belly of Scripture-Light and of their Consciences to the Use of these Trifles Doth not this look more like a Design of Jesuits to embroil the Church that they may ruine her while such measures are unaccountable and the Admiration of all the Reformed Churches that behold our Differences Sect. 19. Whether the Papers he speaketh of and the Confession of Heath the Jesuit and the Letter mentioned have any thing of Truth or be a Sham as many such things have been in our daies it were such a wild-Goose chase to follow forth the Enquiry as I do not hope to come to the end of it and it were not Operae pretium to find the Truth of it That Coleman Hallingham and Benson are named in the Letter and also recorded by Mr. Fuller and others as forward Non-conformists proveth no more but that the cunning Jesuits knew how to insinuate into the most Unwary as these with Button are represented to be by their forwardness beyond others as appeareth Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book 9. Pag. 81. Pag. 108. Where he saith they cut-did all of their own Opinion And was there ever a Party among whom some might not be found fit Tools by their Indiscretion to be imployed by cunning Artificers for raising Troubles without casting a Reflection of Blame on the whole Party But our Author should have at the same time taken notice out of the same Historian p. 76. that the Bishops in 5 Eliz. 1563. being impowered by their Canons began to urge Subscriptions to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and by so doing gave Rise to these Mens and others appearing as they did and branded the Refusers with the odious Name
Scripture or solid Reason He judgeth p. 3 4. That East and West may meet and the most furious Antagonists of Popery may become of the easiest Converts Deus avertat omen If we may form any Conjecture of what may be from the Observation of what hath been easie Conversion to Popery is liker to be found among his own party who are tame and gentle towards Popery and no way furious And if any be furious against it let them bear their blame We applaud and practise Rational Zeal against it but not Fury for The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God. He cannot get out of this fear concerning many Thousand zealous Protestants I deny not but there is cause of Fear for many have got sound Principles in their Heads without saving Grace in their Hearts and the Knowledge and Fortitude of most is very weak and the best have Cause to fear themselves and look to him who is able to make them stand but I hope all the Ground of Fear is not on our side Sect. 7. But now the Learned Author cometh closer to his Design viz. To lay down Grounds of his Opinion that he is so confirmed in That the principles and practice of Non-conformists do tend to re-introduce Popery among us one is That they mistake what Popery is being as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony and of the Cross as of real Idolatry and of Kneeling as of Adoring the Host. Ans. 1. The Dr. might have known that the learned Labours of some Non-conformists against Popery do sufficiently testifie that they are not ignorant what it is 2. We generally know that the Ceremonies are not Popery but loâ—k on them as a part of Popery but are far from equalling them with some other parts of Popery that are far 〈◊〉 re grosly evil 3. We never counted even the nocent Ceremonies used in England for innocent Ceremonies we know none but those of God's Institution so bad as real Idolatry nor Crossing and Kneeling so bad as worshipping Images tho' we count both sinful and dare practise neither Therefore if we should come to see our Mistake in the one Case which we expect not yet there is no Ground for the Consequence of this alledged by him viz. That we should suspect our selves deceived in the other also unless he would say that every Discovery of a Mistake that Men make about the smallest matters in Religion will shake the very Foundation of their Faith which I hope he will be very far from asserting left they that have read his Irenicum in former years and now read his Sermon and this Defence of it should inferr that which Good Men will be far from imputing to a person of his worth especially when he doth not deny but rather own a Change in some things now debated p. 72. of the Preface Sect. 8. It looketh like another Ground that Non-conformists serve the Designs of Papists that When they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can trace it so very near the Apostles Times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves Ans. 1. Here is still a confounding of something that is Popish with Popery a part taken for the whole an Accident without which Popery can well consist and which doth subsist without Popery with the body and substance of Popery He looketh on his Antagonists according to his wonted Esteem of them as very mean Logicians when he will have them conclude the Antiquity of Popery in those things that he and we do jointly dislike it in from the Antiquity of some Rites that were used under that Apostasie and which we have continued among us under the Reformatiom 2. It were still as bad a Consequence from our traceing some things near to the Apostles times to inferr that they were setled by the Apostles For we can make it appear that not only soon after the Apostles times but in their times some things were in the Church that they did not setle as the Love-Feasts which they reproved and abolished after that abuse of them was observed 3. To call those things that Non-conformists Scruple Viz. The Ceremonies the undoubted practices of the Ancient Church which may be traced near to the Apostles times is gratis dictum a bold begging of the question the proof of it we expect Sect. 9. It will saith he P. 5. be very hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so Vnanimously and so Vniversally as it must do if Episcopacy and the use of Significant Ceremonies were any parts of the Apostasie Here is still the great Antiquity of these things taken for granted but not proved But further his Considering men if they read and consider the Scripture will easily be perswaded that a Church may very early and quickly degenerate and that Vnanimously and Vniversally especially in some things that are of lesser concern in Religion How suddenly did the Church of Israel degenerate and Aaron with them when Moses was but 40 days absent in the Mount that in matters of higher moment than what we contend about even worshiping a Calf for God see Ex. 32. 1. and particularly Vers. 8. And the Lord foretold to Moses their after Apostasies Deut. 31. 16. And Moses took notice of their Apostasies while he was yet with them and how soon they would break out after his departure 27. 29. How Quickly Vnanimously and Vniversally did the ten Tribes apostatize after Solomon's decease And is not the whole History of the Church of Judah under her Kings a witness of this When ever a bad King arose presently the pure Worship of God was turned to Idolatry In the days of Joash as soon as Jehojada was gone how quickly did a Faction with a Complement to the King turn the whole Nation to Idolatry 2 Chron. 24. 17 18. These Apostasies were in higher points than we now speak of and yet How quickly did the Church thus degenerate And that this should not be thought strange even in the Gospel-Church we may see if we consider what Christ telleth us of the Tares sown while men sleep and growing up insensibly and without Observation Also the degeneracy that the Church fell into even while the Apostles were alive and faithfully watching over her and that both in Doctrine and Practice is evident in the Errours in Corinth and Galatia in the Abuses in publick Administrations at Corinth insomuch as the Apostle behoved even in his own time to make a Reformation by bringing back to Apostolick Example and the Law of Nature for reforming some Indecencies among them and to Divine Institution for reforming their Enormities 1 Cor. 11. 1. 20. 23. If these evils crept in under the Inspection of the Apostles What wonder is it if Men afterwards began in some things to deviate in Church-practice
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church
one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
apprehension can warrant us to break the Church in pieces The best grounded Scruples can only warrant our peaceable withdrawing and worshipping God apart which may consist with the Church's being whole and sound He doth exceedingly wrong Mr. B. and others in that he imputeth to them an opinion That better means of Edification is by it self a sufficient ground of separating from a Church If any have ever asserted that let them bear their blame It may be some might mention this as a cumulative inducement to join with other Societies but none of us ever held that this alone could warrant a Separation And yet the Dr. is at a great deal of pains to prove that neither the old Separatists nor the New-England-men ever held such an Opinion which he might have got us to yield to him without his spending five Pages in the proof of it but some men labour most in that which is least necessary I know not what name to give to the Dr's Assertion p. 117. That this greater means of Edification is now the main support of the present Separation Nothing can be spoken with less semblance of Truth SECT II. Of the Ministry of the Church of England FRom Sect. 7. and forward the Dr. debateth against Separation that is grounded on the Church's want of true or rightly qualified Ministers Here I shall have but little Debate with him I shall to cut off Debates as much as may be lay down mine own thoughts which I think are not different from those of most sober Non-conformists especially Presbyterians in a few particulars 1. We look on some of the Conforming Ministers as Persons of great worth and excellent Ministerial Qualifications and could live with great satisfaction under their Ministry if it were permitted to us without our Sin. 2. Others of them we know to be very bad men and ill qualified for the Work that they undertake they are Strangers in England who have not seen this 3. We are dissatisfied with some things in the Calling and Practice of all the present Clergy we think the very Office of some of them unlawful as Bishops Deans Aâ—ch-Deacons c. and their Ordination by a Bishop alone not warrantable their Call by Patrons we judge such also and their using the Liturgy and Ceremonies we look on as sinful These things I now only assert and shall debate them with the Dr. as they fall in 4. Yet we deny not any of them on any or all of these accounts to be true Ministers nor to have the substance of a lawful Calling Let this be understood of Bishops and Deâ—ns c. as Ministers not as in these superiour offices 5. Tho' we think a better and more edifying Ministry than that which most of the People of Eâ—gland live under very desirable yet we do not think that any defect that is in their Ministerial Call or in the Truth of their Ministry is a sufficient ground for separating from the Church Sect. 2. These things being premised I am resolved not to take the defence of all that some have written of the defects of the Ministry as a ground of Separation tho' I find many things cited by the Dr. that at first view may seem to have that tendency aâ—d he improveth them with all the advantage that he can and yet were not so meant In the very entrance of this discourse I meet with a most unjust Imputation laid on us by the Dr. In general saith he they declare that they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors as they approve and for this citeth not oâ—e Author but Mr. Baxter Is this fair dealing Did ever the Non-conformists make Mr. Baxter their general Representative or Hath he so much as pretended to write in the Name of them all Were it candid in us if we should pick out some passages out of Dr. Sherlock's Book of The Knowledge of Christ and impute those opinions to the Conformists as their Doctrine in general Beside Mr. Baxter nor no Non-conformist never made their Approbation the Rule by which Ministers are to be judged the having of whom maketh a true Church But the Dr. looketh on us as a Company of silly Rediculous Men and is pleased often so to expose us Mr. Baxter's Notion about true Pastors and true Churches I know he himself can best defend And therefore I leave him and the Dr. to debate that Case Sect. 3. He saith Sect. 8. If the People judge their Ministers to be unworthy or incompetent they allow thâ—m Liberty to withdraw and to separate from them and promiseth to prove it from many passages in several Books of Mr. Baxter's and others Still he representeth us as making the Peoples Judgment the Rule and that this Judgment is sufficient ground of Separation not considering whether their Judgment be right or wrong or that there is a Superior Rule by which all Judgment whether of people or others is to be governed All this we disown neither can the Dr. prove that any of us ever owned it Yea we further deny that we own a Power in the People to withdraw and separate from every Pastor who is really unworthy and incompetent But what he asserteth he endeavoureth to prove by three Arguments 1. Saith he p. 122. They leave it to the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit This we deny And the Proof he bringeth of it is Mr. B. speaketh against the right of Patronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases for the unalterable right of the People Mr. A. saith every particular Church hath power to chuse its own Pastors Dr. Owen maketh the depriving the people of this Right a Ground of Separation If Dr. Owen hath done so let it pass for a part of the Independent Judgment which was the mistake of that Eminent Servant of God others are not of that mind For Mr. B. and Mr. A's words no such consequence can be drawn from them The People and neither Patron nor any other by the Laws of the Gospel have the right of Election of their Pastors but it doth not follow that they ought not to bear with being hindred the Exercise of this right for the sake of Peace and Unity Sect. 4. The 2d Argument is The People are made Judges of the Worthyness and Competency of their Ministers This saith he followeth from the former Ans. I have disowned the former and therefore this falleth with it Yet I here distinguish The the people have a discretive power of judging the fitness of the Man that is to be set over them with respect to their Souls so as he ought not to be obtruded on them without their being satisfied with him But the Peoples power of judging is not Authoritative nor Supreme much less absolute in this matter but Subordinate to the Pastors of the Church who have power of trying the Person Elected by the People and rejecting him if unqualified For the Spirit
the Magistrate to protect those that did break off from them but to suppress them who should have done so and would not If he will not own this he doth more to over-throw the Reformation than all that he can charge Non-conformists with can amount to We are far from questioning the Magistrates Power over Ministers to inflict civil Punishments on them if he do it on good Grounds he is approved of God if otherwise he must answer to him for it But our Magistrates do not own any power of inflicting Church-censures by themselves whatever some Flatters do on their behalf The Objection from the Old Non-conformists I have answered above By what hath been said it will appear whether he saith truly p. 137. That not one word of our Plea but might equally serve the Papists Sect. 18. What followeth p. 137 138 and 139 of the Peoples Power of chusing their Pastors and the Nullity of their Title to that Charge without the Peoples Consentt he Dr. it seems thinks that Recitasse is Refutasse for he saith no more to disprove it but Asserteth That it layeth a Foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Separations which we deny And enough I have said above to evince the contrary He maketh another of our Grounds of Separation to be the Persecution of the Prelatists and their having a Hand in silencing of Ministers This we disown Indeed their Persecution for our not submitting to their Impositions is a Barr by which we are forcibly kept out of the Church but it is not the motive that determineth us to leave the Church we are willing to wait on Gods Ordinances even Administred by them that persecute us if they will suffer us to do it on sinless Terms And if Mr. B. whom he only citeth in this matter mean any thing else I cannot answer for him SECT III. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church AFter Examination of other Pleas for Non-conformity the Dr. cometh Sect. 13. to examine that which he confesseth to be the most colourable Plea that hath yet been used to wit their imposing of unlawful Terms of Communion with them And this I look on as not only the most colourable Plea but is the causa sine quo non that without which no Separation can be made from a True Church which is sound in the Faith without Sin and as the very Foundation of that Cause that I now plead and if the Dr. can beat us out of this Hold we shall become his willing Proselites Let us hear then how he taketh this Plea from us Sect. 2. His first assault is by a distinction which is really true but very ill managed tho' by amost Learned hand but the Dr. being Master of so much Learning as few men are doth I suppose sometimes make him consider less what he writeth than they find need to do who move in an inferiour Orb. His distinction is between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fansied to be so through Prejudice and wilful Ignorance or Error of Conscience That there are some Terms of Communion with a Church really sinful and others that are not so tho' they be fansied by some to be so I think none ever doubted and therefore the Dr. might have better imployed his pains to say nothing of his Ink and Paper that he hath taken to prove this by a multitude of instances And I grant that when the sinfulness of the Terms is only fansied the Sin of Schism that followeth on that apprehension lieth not on the Imposers but on those that separate Only I must add an Exception of a Case in which it may lie on both that is when the thing imposed is unnecessary and is made a ground of Separation by the mistake of persons otherwise orthodox and sober and who pretend to no other cause of Separation If the Imposers will not yield in that case that is the wiser to the more wilful they shew not that moderation nor love to Peace that they should If the Quakers could be gained by forbearing preaching by an Hour-glass the Dr's instance I would think it hard to lose them for that for whom Christ lost his Life Sect. 3. As the Dr. manageth this distinction it is hard to tell what to make of it for he confoundeth two things that are most distinct yea different to wit Terms of Communion plainly sinful and Terms of Communion in themselves sinful And in the other Lemma of the distinct on he hath set nothing in opposition to plainly for fansied to be sinful through Prejudice wilful Ignorance Error of Conscience are all opposite to those that are sinful in themselves He should then have told us if Terms of Communion imposed be sinful in themselves but not plainly but only obscurely so what censure he would pass on them that could not comply with them also what degree of plainness he would require about the sinfulness of imposed Terms of Communion that it might be lawful to Separate rather than yield to them My opinion is that if Terms of Communion be imposed that are in themselves and really sinful and if the sinfulness of them can be known by diligent searching of the Scripture and depending upon God for Light and Guidance tho' there be not such plainness as the Dr. had above called glaring Evidence that all the world may see they that are consciencious ought to withdraw from any Church whatsoever rather than submit to those Terms There is an Ambiguity in the Term that he useth In themselves sinful for I know that it is their usual Plea for the Ceremonies the imposed Terms of Communion now under debate that they are things in themselves indifferent This may either be understood that they are in their general nature such which we grant Habits and Postures and Gestures importing neither good nor evil as such Or as considered under the circumstances that they are cloathed with as they fall under our debate and so we think them sinful Now the Dr. should have told us whether he meaneth of Terms of Communion that are things imposed which are really evil under the circumstances with which they are imposed or Terms of Communion which are things in their general nature evil We think the sinfulness of Terms of Communion even in the former and not only in the latter sence may warrant our withdrawing Sect. 4. He telleth us That the Magistrate of Church may lawfully determine and impose Time and Place and such-like circumstances of Worship which we grant tho' we think it inconvenient to be rigorous in these Impositions or too frequent and universal in them but about these our Question is not conversant Therefore if any Separate from these Impositions he saith the Sin of Separation is on their part This we do not deny We also grant his Hypothetick Proposition that followeth to wit If other things be as much in the Magistrate or Church's Power they sin who separate because of
of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should