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
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
Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto and not restored untill he repent and publickly revoke these his wicked Errours The Dr. hath a subtile distinction here between but affirm which term Mr. B. had used and affirm One would think that affirm and no more added to it signifieth no more than but affirm But the Dr. saith that affirm signifieth these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve Excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism I know not I am sure his citation out of Augustine that a man is born with till he find an accuser or obstinately defend his opinion saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable being asked why he doth not Conform shall say he cannot do it with a good conscience he falleth under the plain letter of this Law and goeth against the express words of it and this is the least that a modest man can say unless he will say I will not do it and that will be called obstinacy and so bring him under the Law in the Dr's own sense But if the man as a modest man may give reasons for his Non-conformity when men require him to Conform every word he saith will bring him under this Excommunication Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea is pag. 368 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists that such an excommunication is but a commination and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past applying it to him and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves by withdrawing from the Church I shall not contend about this though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth were rather ipso Jure than ipso Facto and that excommunication ipso Facto bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed But to let that pass this excommunication declareth what we are to expect and the frequent yea general execution of it putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported sure such excommunication and the fact which we neither deny nor are ashamed of are enough to loose our tie that we had to the Church Sect. 4. He answereth a question Can these be called Schismaticks who are first excommunicated by the Church He saith they may in two cases 1. When there is just cause for the sentence Reply I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismaticks but to call men Schismaticks for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out seemeth to be such a figure as when men are called Fugitives who are justly banished but I will not contend about words If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth make nothing for that none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion imposing mens devises in the Worship of God and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them His second case in which excommunicates are Schismaticks is if they set up New Churches which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned Reply He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust else this case were coincident with the former And in that case I distinguish his assertion The unjust excommunication is either for an alledged personal fault or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false Again it is either past against one or few or it is against a great multitude a considerable part of a Church or Nation If it be for an alledged personal fault where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned I do not say that such may set up new Churches It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine Worship or Discipline but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle falsly called errour and it also reacheth a great part of the Church Ministers and People I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves let men call it setting up of new Churches or what they will. For 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation or near so many should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God for the Caprice of some ambitious Church-men who excommunicate them because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case the Orthodox had been Schismaticks when they were excommunicated by the Arians and set up New Churches 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances because of their love to the purity of them What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes not for any thing of their Faith for he bids them keep the true Faith without Separate meetings Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth in the end of page 371. and forward to consider another Plea made for separation to wit scruple of Conscience which I think none do make the sole ground of separation but they have a ground for their scruple If that ground be good it will warrant the scruple and the separation too if not it can do neither And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea distinct from what I have already defended I suppose the Author that mention it intend no more than I say only they may rationally maintain that a scruple not sufficiently warranted in a person otherwise sober and sound about a matter indifferent or not intollerably evil tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant nor a Casuist but of somewhat else that I shall not name For when it had been pleaded that these scruples are great of long standing not to be removed without very over-powering impressions on mens minds He answereth by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries that a little impartiality and consideration would do it but that