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
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
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
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
and more than all the Conformists did And yet they were not more against it than Bishop Bilson who saith If the Magistrate forbid us our work we must go on and patiently suffer Mr. Hildersham was called Malleus Schismaticorum and yet he and I are Schismaticks with these men Mr. John Pagets Arrow against separation Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Gifford Mr. Ball c. have said enough But he that knoweth their controversie knoweth that it was none of the question whether it be lawful to Preach when the Magistrate forbids it or whether our Parish Churches and Diocesan be to be prefered before more Reformed Churches when they may be had But whether 1. The Parish Churches be no true Churches 2. Or such as it is unlawful to communicate with occasionally 3. Or constantly when no better can be had without greater hurt than benefit 4. Whether it be a duty to gather Churches or Preach publickly when it is like to do more hurt than good by the Magistrates opposition 5. Whether we should not quietly bear with that in a Church which we cannot reforme while no sin is put on us and the Communion of it is no worse than that of our Parish Churches In all these they were against the separatists and so am I. 6. Yea they pleaded the duty of obeying the Magistrate by forbearing to Preach when their Preaching was not necessary And so do I. § 10. One would think they that take Homilies for Sermon◠should consess that the Nonconformsts writing against the prohibition of the Law was a Preaching or much more as it is more publick And did the Nonconformists write when forbidden so much as Cartwright Parker Sandford Fenner Gilby Ames and aboundance more have done yea and writ against Diocesanes and Conformity as these and Bradshaw Nichols Brightman Bayne Travers and aboundance more have even many hundreds as the Millinary Petition and the Country Complaints c. shew and yet did these men every one of them take it for sin to Preach because it was disobedience But nothing will convince some men § 11. But I appeal to the reason and humanity of mankind into what hands the silenced and persecuted Ministers are fallen Is it humane first to charge them with resisting the Laws by Preaching gathering Churches and administring Sacraments and making Canons and setting up new Discipline and to publish this to the land and world by such Authority as Arch Bishop Bancrofts Doctor Heylins c. till it is become their Common Charge to render them suspected and odious and till this be taken for undoubted truth And yet when it may serve for the silencing of us to maintain it with Dr. St. as that which he is certain of that the old Nonconfor mists were against such Preaching and assembling At this rate we have been hitherto accused and confuted Yea upon the foresaid Accusations their Canons were formed against the Nonconformists forbidding their Assembling Preaching calling themselves a distinct Church and a great deal more such and yet now the men that conform to these Canons are certain that they were made upon safe suppositions and not one of the Nonconformists were so guilty But doth not the Doctor thus grievously accuse the Church which he would defend Were they such men 1. that would so falsly accuse the Innocent 2. and use them so cruelly on such false accusations many of them dying in Prisons and many lay there long c. 3. and to form Canons on such false suppositions § 12. And I do not think I shall prevail with him to tell me whether he that thinks their Case and ours was so much the same doth verily believe 1. That if they had been in the Plague at London and seen the forsaken people crowding for instruction to prepare for death the Nonconformists such as Bradshaw Gifford Hildersham Greenham c. would have refused to Preach to them 2. And if the next year they had seen the Churches burnt and the City in ruins and few Parish Ministers officiate they would have thought i◠a sin to Preach to the desolate City to assemble them to worship God and would have let them under so dreadful judgements live and dye like prophane Atheists 3. And if shortly after the King had Licensed them to assemble and Preach would they have refused it as a sin 4. And if the Prelates had prevailed by such a Parliament against the Kings License and he still had shewed the clemencie of his mind by his conivence and Magistrates were loth to execute the rigorous Laws and people would not inform and the informers repented and thousands more called to the Nonconformists for help than did there when Popery stuck still in the peoples hearts would they have thought all this no alteration of the Case to judge whether their Preaching would do good or hurt § 13. He tells us of the fewness of Nonconformists in King Edward's days And it is a wonder that so many in so short a time went so far in the Reformation as they did But so fast were they then in progress that even the Reformation of Church Laws then by the Commissioners agreed on was in many things so much better than our Canons as could we now but obtain the same would go far to heal us Let me instance in some and anticipate by it my answer to his after discourse against Parish Discipline 1. Cap. 18. de Heres They determine of the Salvation of the unbaptized Infants of believers the contempt only being damning 2. They define the Church visible Cap 22 to be the Congregation of all believers in which the Sacred Scripture is sincerely taught and the Sacraments at least in the necessary parts administred according to Christs institution But your Canons deny all such here to be true Churches save theirs as settled by Law 3. De Sacram. Cap 5. None to be admitted to the Sacrament till in the Church he have professed his faith And de Div. Off. Cap. 7 They that will receive the Communion must the day before come to the Minister that he may have time to excusse their Consciences and deal with them if they have done any thing ungodly or superstitionsly in which the Church is offended and also may try their faith that so he may either correct their ignorance or terrifie their Contumely or confirm their doubting For none ought to be admitted to the Holy table of the Lord that hath not a perfect belief The words need a gentle exposition but we have no power now to try mens knowledge or belief thus 4. Cap. 10. After evening prayers the Parish Minister Deason and Elders with the people shall call those that have been publickly perverse and scandalous to confess their sins and to be publickly corrected that the Church may be conformed by their wholesome correction And the Minister and Deacon with some Elders shall consult how the rest that are of vitious lives may first by brotherly love according to Christs prescript in the
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
your sight How will you escape being judged no rightful Possessor of your Deanry or Prebend or the King's Chaplains place or the Parish Church of St. Andrews I know not how And yet if an Usurper accuse you here and say e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours must not the people judge which of you they will take for the Usurper and which they will joyn with and obey In the times of Usurpation many of the people judged the Bishops to be none of their Pastors nor the ejected Ministers must not the rest therefore judge that they were Where Usurpers deny the King 's Right ought not the people to judge him to have right because they may err and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Usurpers What Landlord may not the Tenants deny What Master the Servants What Husband the Wife But must they not therefore be discerning Judges who is their Landlord Master Husband What Schoolmaster may not unlearned men miscensure What Physician may they not vilisie And yet they shall judge and choose for themselves and speed accordingly who can help it deny men a judgment of discretion to guide their own choice and actions and you contradict mankind and deny men to be men What in the world is more abused than Reason and Freewill and yet men must act by Reason and Freewil It 's unworthy a Divine to cry out against a thing for such unavoidable Inconveniences as humane darkness and badness do necessitate and to swallow Camels on the other side and take no notice of the mischiess thereof nor once to tell us how to escape both Sect. 25. He instanceth in mens censure of me for the Doctrine of Justification and asketh Are men bound to separate from me Answ One would think by many such words that the Doctor did seriously believe that I had 〈◊〉 that all men are bound to follow an 〈◊〉 Judgment and to theyâ—alâ—ly â—alâ—ly judge they ought If he think not that I said so I would not name his fault lest I more offend him If he think I said so I had hoped weaker Readers could have better understood me When I read in the Books of some Conformists yet living whom I much honour that to obey Conscience though it err is to obey God I took it for my duty oft and copiously especially in my Christ Direct to open that case and to prove that Conscience is no Law-maker but only a discerner of Gods Law and that an erring Conscience involveth a man in sin whether he followeth it or not because God changeth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it But yet there are some cases in which it is a farr greater sin to go against Conscience though it err than with it The Dr. dare deny none of this And doth ill if he would perswade men that I deny it and that God makes it mens duty to do ill whenever they judge it good or forsake good when they judge it evil Sect. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that I insinuate that the whole Body of the Church is guilty of great Faults Conformity being a scandalous thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations And no wonder if men so judging prefer others c. Answ Again and again I say 1. This is unrighteous dealing To impose all those things on us To cast us out of the Ministry and Churches for not obeying To Fine and imprison us and accuse us as Schismaticks and Seditions To write and preach for the execution of the Laws against us to our Ruine To aggravate our Crime because we tell them not our Reasons To call us to tell them what we stick at To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reasons To declare in Press and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schism and have nothing to say for it To continue all this when we have been silent seventeen years as fearing that they could not bear it And after all this when we disavowed any Accusation of them and only told them what we feared our selves to come upon us with this charge of deep accusing their Conformity is injustice if there be any in the World Either it is sin or no sin which we fear If none why are we not confuted or invited yet to give our proofs If sin who should be most offended To be yet plainer with you had the case been in the times of the old Prophets and Priests I question whether to let such a Kingdom alone so long in that which we judge to be so great sins would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers And I profess that my conscience is more in doubt whether my so long forbearance was not my sin than whether saying at last what I did was sin And I had nothing to satisfie it but the men that I ought to judge wiser than my self perswaded me that it would have done more hurt than good and caused but our further rending And I think the Conformists should have been desirous to help them to try whether it were sin or not and to have been thankful for helping to save them from it if it proved such But though hence I extenuate the too great withdrawings of some men against their too deep accusations he knoweth that notwithstanding all these aggravations I neither justified nor practised proper Separation Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers viz 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers at least to the people that consent not But Law and Usurpation are contrary Answ 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper though some odd persons consent not He is the Churches Pastor though not the refusers 2. I never said that any that had the Law for them were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers many of them have the Churches after-consent though not their Election Yea I often said 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches it 's an unsatisfactory course to me to leave it unanswered and suppose himself in the right Not only the first 300 years but even under Constantius Valens Theodosius Junior Zeno Basiliscus Anastatius Philippicus Justinian c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors and other Bishops Seates the Emperors seldom meddled with as to the choice Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostomes Joannites in his imperial City were of another mind
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
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
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
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-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-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
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
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
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