comes to the point in question whether they have the Pastoral Power of the Keys over their own Flocks And 1. He saith One would think the objector had never read over the office of Ordination for them For the Epistle is read the Charge given by St. Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act 20 or the third Chapter of 1 Tim. concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great Impertinency had this been c Ans This is like the rest I must not suppose that he never read it himself See Reader whether any of this be true Indeed heretofore it was in the Book of Ordination but we shewed the Bishops that thence Bishop Usher in his Reduction argued that the Presbyters have some conjunct Power with the Bishops to govern their own particular Flocks and some true Pastoral Power of the Keys I was one that oft urged it on them And they told us that the Bishop was the Pastor and they but his Curates and to confute us put out both these parts of Scripture from the Book which he saith are in it so that neither of them is there And presently they also put out the very name of Pastor given to Parish Ministers in almost all places of the Liturgy Doth not all this shew their mind Sect. 17. Next he tells us of the Bishops Exhortation calling them the Messengers Watchman Pastors and Stewards of the Lord. Ans It was so in the old Book But the word Pastors here also is purposely put out to shew their judgment Is this just dealing And doth it not confute himself 3. He tells us of the Promise to Minister Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Ans The truth is neither in the exhortation nor collation of Orders is there any mention of any power given him to govern but only to administer the Word and Sacraments and thus far the people are called his charge But in the question Discipline is named thus as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God so that 1. The Priest hereby owneth that as it is received in this Church and Realm it is according to Gods Commandments and 2. Then promiseth so to use it which is 1. To be an Accuser 2. And as a Cryer to publish the Bishops or Lay-Chancellors Excommunication and Absolutions This is the promisé Sect. 18. And what if the name of Government or the Keys had been put in when it is denyed in its essential part I have proved out of Cousins Tables Zouch and the Canons and actual Judgment and Practice of the Bishop that Government or Jurisdiction is denyed to them And instanced in many and most acts in which it doth consist in my Treatise of Episcopacy And this being my question whether the English frame depose not the ancient Churches which had every one their own Pastor with the power of the Keys and so the ancient Offices and Discipline I am not now concerned about the General Archiepiscopal Power of the Diocesans Sect. 19. p. 269. He saith that while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few Ans Mark this Reader 1. If so then while they lived there were but twelve or thirteen Bishops in the World if any And were then no more Churches that had governing Pastors 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apostles were fixed Bishops but ambulatory Apostles there were none in the World in their times 3. Then the Angels of the seven Churches were Apostles reprehended by Christ or meer Presbyters or of the few excepted Bishops Why then doth he himself elsewhere argue that there were Bishops then because these Cities were Metropoles 4. See what concord is between the chief Doctors of the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters but Bishops in Scripture times and supposeth the Episcopal Party of his mind This Dr. saith It 's probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few And so they differ 1. Of the sence of the Texts that mention Presbyters and Bishops 2. And about the guidance of the Churches de facto in those times 3. And if the Arpostles were not fixed Bishops of single Churches they have no Successors as such If they were we must have but twelve or thirteen Bishops as their Successors in the World And which be those Seats and how prove they their claim Sect. 20. To prove the Parish Ministers Pastoral Power p. 272. he tells us of that he is judge of the Qualification of those that are to be confirmed Ans 1. Had I ever taken a Parish Charge under them I would have taken more advantage from the new Rubrike about this than any thing else and then the Bishops intended But 1. There is not one of a multitude confirmed and desire of Confirmation proveth not any understanding of Christianity 2. And if the Minister doubt whether they be Ready or capable they may refuse to give him any account 3. He is to send in the names of such as he judgeth fit But 1. it 's only when the Bishop Summons them 2. And the Bishop is no way obliged to confirm no more than the Priest approveth of To prove this 1. Their ordinary practice is to confirm without the Curates hands 2. When the Kings Declaration was debated at Worcester House 1661 before the K. Lords Bishops and Ministers I laboured almost only for this that day to have got in the word Consent of the Minister of the Parish for such as should be Confirmed supposing that one word would have partly restored the Parish Pastors power and so have made our Bishops tolerable Archbishops that if possible we might have been healed But the Bishops rejected it with all their might and got the King to refuse it But because I laid so great a stress on it the Lords and others that were to collect and publish the Concessions when we were gone put it in for that time and at the Convocation the Bishops cast it all away Did they not tell us then their sence And they call him only the Curate of the Parish and not the Pastor And 4. If this were practicable some good men would practice it at least this Doctor himself But I never heard of one that pre-examined his Communicants whether they were ready and willing to be Confirmed 5. And if he did he would keep away many fit Persons that scruple our sort of Confirmation 6. And what is all this to the many thousand Noncommunicants who quietly remain members of your Churches Sect. 21. As to his words p. 275. of power to keep the scandalous from the Sacrament I have in so many books proved it next to none and utterly insufficient that I will not wast time to repeat all here Sect. 22. He tells me that in Can. 26 is not in Reformatio Legum Eccles Ans But I have before told him how much more and better is which would go
doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient power which is only levelled against Princes and Lay Patrons Impositions and deposeth the English Clergy and Church The same is repeated Can. 25. which it's likely is that which he meant viz. That according to the old Canons the promotions and consecrations of Bishops be made by the choice and decree of the College and that no Lay Princes or men in power potentuâ— do mix themselves in the election or promotion of Patriarchs Metropolitans or any Bishop lest hence there be inordinate confusion or contention specially seeing that it is not convenient that any Potentates or other Lay men have power in such matters but rather attend with silence And if any secular Prince or Potentate men in power or Lay men of other dignity strive against the common and consonant and Canonical Election of the Ecclesiastical Order let him be anathema till he consent and obey in this which the Church shall shew its will in in the Election and Ordination of its Proper Bishops Here 1. The Churches will is made the determiner of the Election and Ordination of their proper Bishop 2. The Canonical Order is established which ever required the Clergies and Peoples consent 3. Nothing of the Laity but acts of Princes power and dignity is excluded 4. And hereby our English Clergy deposed The Doctor had been better to have let alone his History and Antiquities § 36. His 4th note is Christian Magistrates did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient Answ Hitherto he hath produced the Testimonies of Councils and Bishops against Magistrates choice or medlings mistakingly thinking it had been against the Flocks Receptive power And now he will prove that Magistrates interposed as you shall hear § 37. And first So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch Soz. l. 2. c. 19. Answ What did he He motioned a Bishop to end the difference And who opposeth that § 38. Next Constantius put by two that the people strove about and set up Euseb Nicom Answ An unhappy testimony Socrates whom he citeth thus relateth it Alexander dying commended Paulus to the chusers as the fittest but if they would have a man of prowess to chuse Macedonius The people were divided in the choice and made a greater stir than formerly But the Orthodox carried it for Paulus against the Hereticks that were for Macedonius Constantius being the first persecuting Arian Emperour was offended and got a Council to depose Paulus and he got in his great favourite Eusebius Nicomed the head of all the Arians Doth not this shew 1. That the people were chusers 2. That the Emperour deposed him not but by a packâ— Council of Bishops which we know had a deposing power 3. That this is Recorded as an Act of two Hereticks a Prince and Prelate wronging the Church § 39. Saith he When Eusebius was dead the Orthodox party again chose Paulus and Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force Answ 1. I doubt he will next cite Valens Gensericus Hunnericus c. for murdering and persecuting the Bishops Was an Arians Tyranny a note of right 2. The story in Socrates cited by him is this Euseb the Arian being dead the People again went to the choice and chose as before But some were kill'd in the tumult The Arian Emperour sends Hermogenes to force out Paulus the chosen Bishop The people tumultuously fight for their Bishop and priviledge and set Hermogenes Lodgings on fire and kill him The Emperour comes from Antioch amerceth the City and puts Paul out and yet is angry that Macedonius was chosen by the other part without his advice but consenteth to him 1. Doth not this shew that the people were the chusers 2. And even their murderous tumult moved neither an Heretick Prince nor the Bishops to deny their right of choice 3. Murder and such violence was a fair colour for more severity 4. Yet all this was by a Heretick noted as an act against the Church 5. And all this was but about a Patriarch and not an ordinary Bishop and that at his Imperial seat where it concerned the Emperours to have most regard 6. And I told you that Princes are the Judges whom they should tolerate whoever have the choice § 40. He adds When Athanasius was restored Constantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his consent Answ 1. If he meant here to intimate the exclusion of the peoples consent or choice he could scarce have named in History an instance more against himself than that of Athanasius who thereby was brought in upheld and oft restored 2. This History tells you the Arian Emperour was forced to this consent to avoid a threatned War from his brother 3. This was not to make him Bishop but to call him to his flock from his banishment 4. And doth not all this confirm what I plead for as to the Peoples Synods and Princes several parts § 41. Nectarius case is next about whom Historians disagree but the most credible say that the Council named Nectarius with some others in a paper and in honour to an excellent Emperour bid him take which he would But all this excluded not the peoples part who would not have left Gregory but by his own request and were glad to accept one from such a Council and Prince § 42. Next he saith out of Sozomen That the People and Clergy chose Chrysostome and Arcadius consented and then he affroâ—teth Sozomen with Palladius Answ 1. Palladius denyeth nothing that I plead for but only tells us of the Emperours premotion and endeavours in his Royal City about a Patriarch to prevent the division of the people Nor is Palladius credit to be equalled to Sozomen's herein much less preferred 2. Socrates the most credible of all in this saith l. 6. c. 2. It seemed good to them to send for John Chrys Wherefore not long after Arcadius with the general consent both of Priests and People sent for him And did not the Doctor think I needed help by such Citations § 43. The choice of Nestorius was just such another The people had no reason to deny consent to one out of Chrysostom's Monastery nominated by so good an Emperour who was judge whom to tolerate in his Royal City But both he and they after repented of the choice § 44. His last instance is Theodosius getting in Proclus before Maximianus was buried Answ Reader 1. All this is a good Emperours care about one Patriarch of his own City to avoid division and nothing to the common choice of Bishops 2. The true case Socrates cited thus describeth The people were the chusers They were for Proclus but some adversaries objected a Canon that a Bishop might not be removed from one Church to another and he being a Bishop already they could not have him Socrates pleadeth for the dispensableness of this Canon but the people were fain to take Maximianus The Emperour being for dispensing with that Canon and gratifying
A SECOND TRUE DEFENCE OF THE MEER Nonconformists AGAINST THE Untrue ACCUSATIONS REASONINGS and HISTORY of Dr. EDWARD STILLINGFLEET DEAN of St. PAULS c. Clearly proving that it is not sin but duty 1. Not wilfully to commit the many sins of Conformity 2. Not Sacrilegiously to forsake the Preaching of the Gospel 3. Not to cease publick worshipping of God 4. To use needful Pastoral helps for salvation though men forbid it and call it Schism Written by RICHARD BAXTER not to accuse others but to defend Gods Truth and the true way of Peace after near 20 years loud Accusations of the silencing prosecuting Clergy and their Sons With some Notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and Impartial Protestant and Dr. L. Moulins Character 1 Tim 6. 5 6. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self But godliness with contentment is great gain LONDON Printed for Nevil Simons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls 1681. AN Historical Preface § 1. THE matter of fact occasioning this second Defence hath been formerly and is after here opened in part I need now but briefly tell the Reader that after the long difference between the English Prelatists and those that desired Reformation and Discipline the most of the English Ministers who were in possession of the Parish-Churches from 1646 till 1660 obeyed the Parliament so far as to disuse the English Book of Common-Prayer and Subscription and Obedience to the Diocesan Episcopacy some of them being most for Church-Government by Synods of Parochial Pastors and assisting Elders and most for a Reconciling of the several divided Parties thinking somewhat in the Episcopal Presbyterian and Independent Parties to be good and somewhat in each of them unwarrantable 1. They were so far Independent as to hold that particular Churches associated for Personal Communion in faith worship and holy living were of Divine Institution such as true Parish-Churches are and that each of these Churches ought to have its proper exercise of that Discipline which is described by Christ Mat. 18. and by St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. and in other Texts of holy Scripture and was exercised in the days of Ignatius and so on for many hundred years some part of it still remaining even to the times of Popery Therefore they held that the Pastors of such Churches must be such as had power to exercise the said Discipline And they held that Parish-Bounds were of great convenience against disorder though not of Divine Institution not taking all that dwell in a Parish to be eo nomine of the Church but such of them as were capable by continued owning their Baptismal Covenant not nullified by proved Heresie or inconsistent wickedness And they held that no unwilling person was capable of a sealed Pardon of sin and so of Church-Communion nor yet of the true receiving of the use of the Pastoral office And therefore that none but free Consenters should have the Sacrament nor be related to the Pastor as his Flock of that Church but the rest should be constrained to live as Catechumens or Hearers as they were capable in peace and quietness and such as the Magistrate found meet to be tolerated in other Churches who only were uncapable in that 2. They were so far for Presbytery as to hold that 1. If men of competent sufficiency were made by ordination Elders ejusdem ordinis with the chief Pastor to be his Assessors and Assistants though they seldom or never Preached publickly but helped him in Catechizing or private over sight and in judging persons and cases and though in necessity they laboured with their hands it would not be unlike the ancient Government 2. And they judged that all Gods work should be done in the greatest concord and with the best mutual counsel and help that might be and therefore that Synods are to that end of great use and if they were appointed at stated times and places it would by order be a furtherance to their ends But they were not for their assuming a proper Regent Power by Majority of Votes over the minor part or the absent Pastors and thought that when sixedness occasioned that usurpation occasional Synods pro re natâ were better And 3. They judged that Presbyters are ejusdem ordinis with Bishops and that no Bishops have a divine right to govern without the Presbyters assistance nor to deprive them of any of their power nor their Churches of true Discipline or Worship nor the people of their Rights much less to use any forcing power of the sword on any 3. They were so far for Episcopacy as to hold it lawful and convenient that the particular Churches have one that shall have a Priority and in many things a Negative Vote as the Incumbent in each Parish hath among his Curates a sort of power And that the Presbyteries and Synods have their Moderators and if they were fixed durante vitâ and had a Negative Vote in Ordinations they could consent sobeit they were duly chosen as of old and had no forcing power by the sword but only a Ministerial teaching guiding power And some of them thought it of Divine right that the Apostles and Evangelists have Successors in the ordinary parts of their office and that to have a special caâ—e of many Churches and their Bishops and Elders are some of that ordinary part 4. And to the Erastians also they granted that the King is the Supreme Governour of the Church by the sword or force and that we must obey him not only when he enforceth the Commands of Christ but in all acts of outward circumstance and order left by God to his determination and not appropriated to the Ministers office These were the thoughts then of the far greatest part of the Ministers that I had then knowledge of § 2. Before the King returned many Episcopal Doctors and great men perswaded these Reconcilers that thus much would be accepted to our common concord if the King were restored But some said They do but decieve you there are such men now got into chief credit on that side that will silence you all and ruine you unless you will follow Grotius or be of the French Religion or unite in the Pope as Principium unitatis and obey him as the Western Patriarck c. And when you are all turned out what men have they to supply your places § 3. But when the King came in and encouraged the Reconcilers with the promise of his help they made the attempt in 1660 and 1661. the History of which I need not repeat Since that foreseeing what the silencing of so many Ministers and the afflicting of the people of our mind would unavoidably cause we pleaded we petitioned the Bishops to have prevented it by those necessary means which they might have yielded to to their own advantage But it was all in vain § 4. When the Act of
without an imposed form in the Pulpit and yet they never durst forbid it to this day so I know who shewed his desire of a new Book of Homilies of his own making its like to have been imposed instead of preaching and of the old ones on those that had not special license to preach But interest ruleth the world They durst not so far disgrace their Clergy as to make them meer Readers nor lose the advantage of talking out of the Pulpit for their Cause where none must contradict them Mr. Lob hath ask'd you already whether our Spiritual Prayer as you call it or your Liturgy and Bishop Cousins and Dr Taylors Prayer-books c. be liker to the Popish Mass book and many other Offices and Devotions Indeed Mr. Austins hath so much gravity as excepting his excursions to Saints c. it may compare with many of yours And for that sort of spiritual Devotion in which they flie too high I have found more of it in the Friers Franciscans Benedictines c. such as Barbanson Benedictus de Benedictis c. than in the Jesuits And the Oratoriana Phil. Nerius Baronius and the rest and of their sober or Religious men as Sales Mr. Roâ—ti c. and of old John Gerson Kempis c. have more of spirituality than the Jesuits But enough of this § 6. As to the rest of his Prefatory discourse of the Advantages of Popery 1. We doubt not but the Papists play their game among all Parties as far as they are able and put on divers sorts of Vizors But doth he that is a Historian not know that all over the world their cheif design is upon the Rulers and Leaders and they Cry Fight neither against great or small but to win one Court Card signifieth more than many others 2. Doth he think the Papists take the Conformists or the Nonconformists to be nearer to them and less against them 3. Did the Papists think Bishop Lauds reconciling design described by Doctor Heylin entertained by Sancta Clara Leander c. or the Parliaments fears of his introducing Popery in those times to be more against them 4. Are they liker to help in Popery that are so apt to be over-averse to any thing that favours of it in Doctrine Discipline and Worship and account the Pope Antichrist Or they that hold as followeth 1. As Grotius That a Papist is but one that flatters the Popes as if all were just that they say and do and so there are few Papists I hope in the World 2. That the Church of Rome is sound in Faith 3. And so are all the General Councils even Trent 4. That Rome is the Mistress of all Churches or as Bishop Bromhal that for Concord we must all obey the Pope as Patriarch of the West and Principium Unitatis Catholicae ruling according to the old Canons a Foreign Jurisdiction and all those pass for Schismaticks that refuse it of which more after 5. That the validity of our Ministry must be proved by the derivation of it from the uninterrupted succession of the Roman Ordainers and Church 6. That the Church of Rome by that succession is a true though faulty Church of Christ but so are none of the Reformed Churches which have not Bishops or have them not by such uninterrupted succession 7. That the only way of the Concord of Churches and all Christians is saith Bishop Gunning to obey the governing part of the Church Universal which 〈◊〉 Collegium Pastorum all the Bishops of the universal Church in one Regent Colledge governing all the Christian World per literas formatas 8. That its safer and better for the Protestants in France to be of the French Church of Papists than to continue without Bishops as they are 9. That we should come as near the Papists as the Greek Church doth or as both Greek and Latin did at the rupture of the two Churches or as in Greg. 1st daies say others or as in Char. Mag. daies say others receiving say some the first six General Councils say others the first 8. 10. That we must amend the Oath of Supremacy for the Papists as Thorndick saith and so many Doctrines as he intimateth 11. That its desireable that the Papists had continued in our Churches as in the begining of Queen Eliz. And if they come as Church Papists do should be received in our Communion 12. That if the Pope have not as some hold a right of such Primacy as belongs to Saint Peters successour at least His Primacy is a very prudent humane constitution 1. That there may be a Common Father to care for all the Church 2. And one to be a Head of Unity and order 3. And one to call General Councils 4. And one to rule between when there are no such Councils which are rare 5. And one to give power to Patriarcks and Arch-Bishops who else will have none over them to authorize or Govern them 6. And one to decide controversies when Countries Churches and Arch-Bishops disagree 7. And one to send out Preachers among Heathens Infidels and Hereticks all over the world 8. And one boldly to reprove admonish and if need be excommunicate Kings which their own subjects dare not do I do not mean that all these things or any of them are the Doctrine of the Church of England or held by all or most that conforme But if some of it have been published by the Chief Prelates and some by their chief defenders and some in conference with us by Clergy men I only ask whether all this please not and advantage not the Papists more than Nonconformists any way do And whether Arch-Bishop Usher and his Successor Arch-Bishop Bromhal Bishop Downam and his Successour Bishop Taylor differed not as much as you and I do And whether the multitude of Parish Priest that were Papists in Queen Elizabeths daies and Bishop Godfrey Goodman a Papists Bishop of Gloucester with all the rest mentioned by Prin Rushworth Burnet c. tell us not that the Papists had a hopeful game to play among the Bishops and Clergy of the Church § 7. As to his note out of Mr. Jo. Humpheries book disclaiming Cruelty to Papists it s known Mr. Humphery is a man of latitude and universal Charity and tyeth himself to no party or any mens opinions He openly professeth his hope of the Salvation of many Heathens and I so little fear the noise of the censorious that even now while the Plot doth render them most odious I freely say 1. That I would have Papists used like men and no worse than our own defence requireth 2 That I would have no man pat to death for being a Priest 3. That I would have no writ de excommunicato capiendo or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments For I would not give it them if I knew them if they came § 8. As to his Accusation of my first Plea for Peace he hath it after and it is after answered
some excess of kindness to me V. With this Defence against Doctor Stillingfleet I at once pubblish in another Volume An Apology for the Nonconfirmists Preaching with an Answer to a multitude of their Accusers and Reasons to prove that it is the Bishops and Conformists great Duty and Interest to seek their Restoration Which is the most material part of the Confutation of Doctor Stillingfleet who would persuade us that our Preaching is a sin and make us guilty of silencing our selves FINIS Books lately Printed for Nevil Simmons â—â— the Three Cocks at the West and of St. Pauls 1. CHurch-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils abbreviated Including the Chief part of the Government of Christian Princes and Popes and a true account of the most troubling Controversies and Heresies till the Reformation Written for the use especially of them 1. Who are ignorant or misinformed of the state of the Ancient Churches 2. Who cannot read many and great Volumes 3. Who think that the Universal Church must have one visible Soveraign Personal or Collective Pope or General Councils 4. Who would know whether Patriarchs Diocesans and their Councils have been or must be the Cure of Heresies and Schisms 5. Who would know the truth about the great Heresies which have divided the Christian World especially the Donatists Novatians Arians Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites c. 2. A Treatise of Episcopacy Confuting by Scripture Reason and the Churches Testimony that sort of Diocesan Churches Prelacy and Government which casteth out the Primitive Church Species Episcopacy Ministry and Discipline and confoundeth the Christian World by Corruption Usurpation Schism and Persecution Meditated in the Year 1640 when the Et-câ—tera Oath was imposed Written 1671. and cast by Published 1680. by the importunity of our Superiours who demand the Reasons of our Nonconformity 3. A Moral Prognostication 1. What shall befall the Church on Earth till their Concord by the Restitution of their Primitive purity simplicity and Charity 2. How that Restitution is like to be made if ever and what shall befall them thenceforth unto the End in that Golden Age of Love All three by Rich. Baxter 4. Memorabilia or The most Remarkable Passages and Counsels Collected out of the several Declarations and Speeches that have been made by the King his Lord-Chancellors and Keepers and the Speeches of the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament since his Majesties happy Restauration Anno 1660. till the end of the last Parliament 1680. Reduced under four Heads 1. Of the Protestant Religion 2. Of Popery 3. Of Liberty and Property c. 4. Of â—â—rliaments By Edward Cooks of the Middle Temple Esq READER I Must take this opportunity for the avoiding of mistakes to give thee notice that whereas against them that plead for the necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Episcopal ordination I have in the Preface to my Book for Universal Concord and in the beginning of my Breviate of Church-History said that our Northern English Episcopacy was derived from such as were no Bishops but Scottish Monks and Presbyters and that Aidan and Finan Tromhere Coleman were such lest I be misunderstood I must further explain my meaning viz. 1. The Culdees that were no Bishops first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius 2. These Culdees chose themselves for order sake some few to be as Guides and Governorus to the rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos but were no Bishops in our controverted sense but as an Abbot among Monks and as the Presidents or Principals of Colledges rule those that are of the same office or order with them Nor had they any limited fixed Diocesses 3. And if any will call these Bishops and the question be but de nomine let them call them so and spare not I contend not against them 4. Afterwards Palladius sent from Rome began a higher sort of Bishops But the Culdees still kept up the greater part against him 5. Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength And the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal ordination Or if you will call their ordainers Bishops they were not only ejusdem ordinis with the Presbyters but also not ordained by Bishops themselves but made such by mission from the Monastery and bare election and ordination of Presbyters 6. Out of this famous holy Monastery was Aidan first and Finan after and Tromhere c. and Coleman after sent into Northumberland where they aresaid to be made Bishops And they were the first Bishops that came thither and so had no ordination in England from any Bishops that were there before Nor is there any probability that the Palladian Bishops did ordain them Bishops But that their own order of Senior Monks and Presbyters only ordained them 7. Beda was such a votary to the Church of Rome that his testimony runs more for the Romish interest than most of the Scottish or English Historians of those times yet lib. 3. c. 5. saith of Aidan but that his approbation was in Conventu Seniorum and sic illum ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunt And c. 25. that Finan pro illo gradum Episcopatus a Scottis ordinatus missus acceperat qui in insula Lindisfarnensi secit Ecclesiam Episcopali sedi congruam Quam tamen more Scottorum uno de lapide sed de robore secto totam composuit arundine â—exit Et defuncto Finano qui post ipsum fuerit cum Colmannus in Episcopain sucâ—ederet ipse missus a Scotia c. And the King Oswi himself was taught by the Scots and was of their Language and for their way And Cedda was ordained by the Scots And at a Synod three or four of these kind of Bishops with the King and his Son and Hilda a woman Abbesse were the Company that made it c. 25. And c. 26. Tuda also was ordained by the Scots And c. 4. The Bishops themselves were under the Government of the Abbot juxta exemplum primi Doctoris qui non Episcopus sed Presbyter extitit et Monachus 8. Li. 3. c. 28. he saith that non erat tune ullus excepto Wini in totâ Britania Canoniee ordinatus Episcopus 9. And as there is no word of proof that it was the Palladian Roman Bishops that ordained these Northumbrian Bishops so there is enough to the contrary in that all these foresaid Bishops continued the stiffe enemies of the Roman Power and order which Palladius came to introduce Insomuch that Beda oft mentioneth their utter aversion to the Roman party and that the Brittons and Scots were all of a mind and Daganus and the rest would not so much as eate with the Romanists no nor so much as eat in the same house or Inn with them lib. 2. c. 4. 10. And lastly even that sort of Episcopacy which they took in Northumberland was but Equivocally so called as to that which we dispute about and not Ejusdem Speciei For. 1. They never pretended to a distinct order from the Presbyters 2. They had but one poor Church made of Wood and thatcht with Reeds and no possessions else And from theâ—â—e they went from village to village to instruct convert and pray with the people And that our English Episcopacyâ—eriâ—eth â—eriâ—eth its succession from these Scots and the Brittaineâ— and not frome Rome by Augustine and Palladius I refer the Reader to Mr. Jones and to the Preface before Knox his Church-History Thus much I thought needfull to prevent being misunderstood about the Episcopacy of Aidan 〈◊〉 c. Such an Episcopacy as the Bishop of Hereford pleade th for in his Naked Truth I meet with few that are against any more than that the Colledge of Physicians or Philosophers or Divines have â— President FINIS a The new Church since Bishop Laud's change b Note that the Bishops Book as against me runs upon a mere fiction p. 76. that I traduce him as a Factor for Popery when I had not a word to that purpose yea expresly excepted him by name though I argued against his too neer approach c No such thing but of the Churches within the Empire then d was there no necessary cause till after An. 1200 e So then these Protestant Bishops give the Pope Patriarchal Power and Primacy of Order and as much as the Greeks But 1. They had by Councils of old no Patriarchal Power over other Kingdoms out of the Empire 2. Obedience to the Pope as a Patriarch is against the Oath of Supremacy and on the matter little differeth our case from obeâ—ing him as Pope f So that this Arch-Bishop also was set on the pious design of joyning with the Papists on these terms and may not we have leave to worship God on better terms g That is 1. The Pope is not to govern us arbitrarily but by Canons Which what they are is hardly known 2. And all will be Schismaticks that so obey him not h 1. Thus for union with Rome all Protestants must pass for self made Schismaticks that cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch And doth this tend indeed to Concord It would open Protestants eyes did I but tell you all that is in the Canons which the Pope as our Patriarch must rule us by as these Doctors do desire i 1. If this Doctrine be true no wonder that Mr. Thorndike thought we could not justifie our Reformation till we alter the Oath of Supremacy then we are bound in conscience to a Foreign Jurisdiction 2. I have fully proved many great errors and sins to be decreed by many of the Councils by which the Pope as Patriarch must rule us all 3. Is it any easier to do evil In obedience to a Patriarch than a Pope 4. In my last Book against W. Johnson alias Tenet I have fully confuted all that he saith of the universality of Councils and the Patriarchs power over the Abassines and others without the Empire and shewed they were then all but in one Empire as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England ☜ Page 22. A vain Writer and malicious if not mad and distracted p. 11. he will magnifie the very worst of men if they be of his mind and vilifie the best if they be of another p. 27. He hath full liberty to vie with the Devil himself in his Calumnies with more such
total and positive separation is lawful and convenient P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism P. 119. Let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same argument that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to Conform to any suspected or unlawful practice c. They lay the imputation of Schism on all them who require such Conditions of Communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to Conform for Conscience sake A Premised explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH THE word CHURCH being Equivocal is unfit for our disputation till explained It signifieth being a Relative several sorts of related Assemblies which are distinct I. In their Matter A Church of Jews Turks Christians of Orthodox and of Hereticks being not one thing II. In the Efficient A Church of Gods instituting or a Church of mans III. In the Fnds. 1. A Christian Assembly at a Fair or Market or Court or Army c. is not the same with an Assembly for Religious exercises 2. Nor an Assembly for Legislation about Religion in Parliament or Consultation in Synods or Disputation in Schools the same thing as an Assembly for stated worship c. IV. In the Form or Constitutive Relation to the Correlate And so the great difference which now concerneth us to note is that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing and a Political Society related as Governours and governed is another The first is either an accidental Assembly or else a designed Assemby by consent This last is either an Assembly of Lay-men which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government and may meet to worship God without a Pastor and this in Politicks is usually called a meer Community 2. Or an Assembly of Rulers or Pastors in equality as to Government there And this is called a Council Synod Dyet Parliament Convention c. V. A Governed or Political Church is of Three several Species at least as there are three Species of such Government I. A Christian Family consisting of the Family-Government and Governed living together in holy faith love worship and obedience to God the Master being their Teacher Ruler and Guide in worship II. A Pastoral-Church consisting of one or more Pastors and Christian people correlated as his flock for the benefit of his Pastoral office which essentially containeth a power to teach them lead them in worship and govern them by the Keys as a Ministerial Judg who is fit for that Commmunion All together is called also the Power of the Keys and is subordinate to Christs Teaching Priestly and Ruling Office III. A Royal or Magistratical Church consisting of a Christian Soveraign and Christian Subjects to be ruled by his sword or forcing power under Christ and his Laws for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the society and the glorifying and pleasing the Lord Redeemer And IV. The Universal Church comprehendeth all these three as parts and is most excellently properly and fully called the Church consisting of Jesus Christ the chief Pastor Teacher Priest and King an eminent perfect Policy with all Christians as the subject part It is visible in that the subjects and their profession and worship are visible aod Christ was visible on earth is visible in the Court of Heaven his Laws and Providence are visible and he will visibly judg the world and reign for ever And it is no further visible The constitutive essential parts are only Christ and his subject-body The noblest organical parts of that body are Prophets Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers In all this note 1. That we have no difference that I know of about the Church in any of these senses before mentioned except 1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods service without Gods particular prescript or institution 2. Whether it be true that the King is so persona mixta as some hold as to be King and Priest and to have the power of Church-Keys and Word and Sacraments 3. Whether over and above the lowest Pastoral Churches Christ hath instituted a direct superior Pastoral sort of Churches to rule the inferior in Faith Worship and the Keys of Discipline over Pastors and people And if so what are these superior Pastoral Churches whâ—ther Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Papal or all And if Christ made no such whether men may make them 2. And note that we are certainly agreed that the Magistratical form of forcing power and the Pastoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys are two though the subjects should be the same though usually the Church is in the Commonwealth as part And none of us deny a Christian Common-wealth Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and though this power be over the Pastoral Church it is but Accidental and not Essential to it 3. And note that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this were 1. What is the Pastoral specifying form of the Church of England And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Institution And I have brought him to maintain that there is no such Church of England at all And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he 4. And Lastly Note that as to a Pastoral Church we agree I suppose in distinguishing a Transient and a fixed relation And as he that is a Licensed Physician acteth as such where he cometh though related fixedly to no Hospital so if a lawful Minister of Christ either fixed in another Church or in none but the Universal be called pro tempore for a day to do his office in another Church he acteth as Christs Minister and their Pastor for that dayâ— And if a travelling Christian joyn with them he is a Member for that day Yea if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the same relations to the same ends it is a temporary transient Pastoral Church But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification ought to fix their relation and practice Though most of this be said after where he calls me to it I thought meet here to premise the Explication of the word Church as in divers books largely I have done of the word Separation lest I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part and we should dispute about a word which the Reader and perhaps our selves understand not But we have a greater controversie than this risen since A. Bishop Laud's and Grotius's Reconciling design v z. what the Catholick visible Church is 1. Protestants have hitherto held as the first point of difference from the Papists that the Universal Church hath no constitutive Head or supreme regent Power but Christ He hath setled no one
that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Christianity And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours and corruptions be left out And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
Church wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some corruptions though if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it followes not that I am separated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches 'till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the Communion of all Mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again And if several other persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own safety And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say we do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant no one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssins may have some errors or corruptions yet if they be not fundamental and be not joyned as necessary to be approved in order to their communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully communicate with them it doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from error and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the communion of the Catholick Church Because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errors conditions of communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches Pag. 336. To rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwaies imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin But besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawfull that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary for separation is not lawfull but when it is necessary Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose beleif is necessary to Salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the beleif of fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is just and reasonable And it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause which is pleaded for it Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free like a Common field to all inhabitants Now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to that right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yeild their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Page 358. Although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herself and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the Party so limiting Communion As it was in the Case of the Donatists who were therefore charged with Schisme because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge that they were The sum of this discourse is that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsical and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church But still what ever Church makes such extrinsical things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yeild not to them is Schismatical in so doing For it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church And the saparation from it is so
I think not invalidate and yet this goeth for no justification of us so is it with others § 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as described by their Cannon that must make us Separatists which is of men that call themselves of another Church But that 's not it Mr. Gouge Mr. Poole Mr. Humphrey and my self and abundance more that never gathered any Church nor called our selves of any other then their own are nevertheless separatists in these mens account § 11. They that remembred what was called Separation in England of old supposed it had these two degrees which made men called Brownists First falsly taking the Parish Ministers and Churches for no true Ministers and Churches of Christ and therefore not to be Communicated with Secondly or in the lower rank falsly taking the faults of the Parish Ministers and Churches to be so great that its a sin to have ordinary Communion with them But they that have still disclaimed both these are Separatists still in our Accusers sence § 12. Some thought that ordinary Communicating in the Parish Churches and pleading for it would prove us no separatists with them But this will not serve as my own and many other mens Experience proveth § 13. I am called after to say more of this The sum of my separation is this First that I take not the Parish Churches to be the only Churches that I must Communicate with and will not confine my Communion to them alone as if they were a sect or All But will also have Communion with Dutch French or Nonconformists 2. I take not the Order Discipline and mode of worship in the Parish Churches nor the Preaching of very many Parsons Vicars and Curates to be the best and most desirable 3. I take those to be no true Political Churches which have no Pastors that have all the Qualifications and Call and Authority which is Essential to the Office and therefore can communicate with them but as with a flock without a Pastor or an Oratory Community or Catechized Company 4. I live peaceably under such Bishops as have many hundred Parishes and no Episcopos Gregis true Bishops and Pastoral Churches under them as they think But I own not their Constitution 5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Associated for mutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prescribeth and in all the Protestant Religion and all that all Christian Churches are agreed in and all that is truly needful to the ends of Christianity But not absolutely in all which their Canons Liturgy c. conttaine Especially their sinful Impositions and their Presumtious Canonical Excommunications of dissenters ipso facto 6. I am one of the Christian Kingdom of England as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command But not for obeying them in sin against God nor for believing all to be Lawful because they command it nor for their taking down Family Government or self Government and discerning private Judgment of the subjects This is my measure of separation § 14. And I think in cases that concern our own and many mens Salvation we should have leave freely to speak for our selves and not be used as we are that must neither be endured to be silent or to speak Let this Dr. open our case to you himself saith he Pref. p. 36. Speaking of my first Plea for Peace As though it had been designed on purpose to represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and orders established among us For there are no less than thiâ—ty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity set down in it and all this done without the 〈…〉 provocation given on oue side And elswhere he saith he shall less regard my aggravations Ans 1. If I do that which you think as bad I would gladly be told of it though false accusations I desire not And impenitence is too soon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees and I had rather be saved from it 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reason and humanity as well as Christianity to decide the case of this Accusation 1. We did in 1660. and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durst for fear of sin and Hell to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Episcopal party 2. When our labour and hopes were frustrate and two thousand of us cast out of the Ministery and afterwards laws made against us as Conventiclers first for our Fining Imprisonment and then Banishment and after besides Imprisonment to pay twenty pound the first Sermon and forty pound the next and so on when after this the Law that banished us from all Cities Corporations c. and places where we lately Preached did most deeply accuse us as the cause I never wrote so much as the reasons of our dissent When by the execution of these Laws we were by Informers and others used as is well known I was still silent My not conforming shewed my dissent but I durst not so much as once tell them why lest it should more exasperate them 3. At last I was often told that the Bishop that first forbad my Preaching and many others after him oft said to Great men Mr. Baxter keeps up a Schism and yet holds all our conformity lawful save renouncing a rebellious Covenant And I yet continued silent 4. At last they wrote against us that we durst not say that any part of Conformity was sin but only inconvenient 5. Then many pulpits and books proclaim that we against our Consciences kept up a Schism for a baffled cause which we had nothing to say for 6. All this while Lords and Commons used to ask us what is it that you would have and what keepeth you from Conformity In private talk but would never allow us to speak for our selves and give the world or Parliament our reasons 7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy cryed out to the Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and as one said set fire to the Fagot and blamed them for not doing it 8. When the King gave us his Licence they were greatly offended as aforesaid 9. At last one great Bishop told me that he would desire the King to constraine us to give our reasons and not keep up a Schism and not tell for what And another greater told me that the King took us to be not sincere that would not give our reasons And all this while I durst not give them as knowing how they would be received 10. When the Bishops kept me from Preaching and gave me leisure I wrote 1. An Apology for our Preaching 2 A Treatise of Episcopacy and divers other such and yet durst not Print them
nor indeed could do it 11. At last after about seventeen or eighteen years silence by such importunity and the Press being more open I ventured first but to write my first Plea for Peace which only nameth matter of Fact and our bare Judgment enumerating the things which we think sin without our Arguments lest it should provoke them more And therein professed that knowing mens different Educations studies interests c. I did not by this accuse the Conformists nor the Law makers but only tell 1. What I thought would be sin in us 2. And how great a sin if we conformed Reader should I have stayed longer the smal Tract of Sacrilegious desertion of the Ministry came out when we were licensed but ventured not to name the matters of our Nonconformity what could we do less I staid till I think half the silenced Ministers were dead Is the call of superiours the Interest of our Ministry and Consciences of so little regard as that I must not tell men that so loud and long had asked what 's the matter Must we neither be silent nor speak And now see here 1. If Dean Stillingfleet be a man to be believed in such accusations All this was done by me without the least provocation on their side wonderful difference Is my naming what I think God forbids me so great a provocation to them and is all this for seventeen years before named not the least provocation to us on their part What shall one think could bring such a man to such a word 2. And that which I profest that I wrote not to accuse them he tells you was as if designed to represent them as a Company of notorious lying Perjured Villains This Collection I feared But how could I avoid it Must not I tell them that urge me what sin I fear least they say you represent us as such 3. See here how they talk of us contrarily as the Barbarians of Paul that now make him a Murderer and anon a God For many years together our Lords and Masters perswaded men that we took Conformity to be no sin save renouncing the Covenant And now how Contrary It s the representation of a Company of notorious lying perjured Villains with thirty tremendous aggravations Repent O England saith Bradford at the stake But who would have thought that Repentance had been so hard a work in a case called so heynous and that to the Preachers of Repentance as it is either to them or to us which ever it be that is found in the guilt CHAP. IV. Of his History of the case of the old Nonconformists § 1. AS to what he saith of the sameness of the former Case and ours I shall tell him the difference after where he more calls me to it And shall shew him so much difference as will discredit this assertion § 2. As to the case of the old Nonconformists 1. It must be premised that we take them not for any of our rule but cleave to Gods word and the example of the Primitive Church looking still at the great ends of order and Government 2. We maintain as well as he that the Chief Nonconformists were against that called Brownism or Separation and wrote more against it than the Conformists did 3. I still profess my self to be of their Judgment in this and have practised accordingly 4. But they were not against such Preaching or any such sort of separation as I have either practised or defended § 3. Here therefore it must be known what the Controversie between them and the separatists was 1. The higher sort of separatists said that the Church of England was no true Church The Nonconformists said it was a true National Church both as a Christian Kingdom and as an Association of Churches and as represented in National Synods were they made one 2. The said Brownists said that the Parish Churches were no true Churches nor to be owned as such nor joyned with The Nonconformists held that they are true Churches that have capable Ministers though faulty 3. The separatists said that the Parish Ministers were no true Ministers because ordained by Diocesans and not chosen by the people c. The Nonconformists said that the capable were true though faulty Ministers owned by the peoples consenting communion and the ordination valid though culpable 4. The separatists said that Ministers and people must gather Churches that are purer and set up better discipline in them whatever Rulers say or do against it or whatever they suffer as far as they are able The Nonconformists said this is to be done where it may be done without doing more hurt than good but else it is no duty but a sin viz. To do it Tumultuously Seditiously or so as by running on the Magistrates sword by improbable attempts to lose their own advantages for doing and getting good and hinder the common parish reformation 5. The Separatists said that no prohibition of the Magistrate will warrant a Minister to forbear the publick work of his office The Nonconformists held that it belongeth to the Magistrate to restrain deceivers and all false Teachers who do more hurt than good and such should obey when they are forbidden to Preach and Administer Sacraments Yea if the Magistrate wrongfully forbid a worthy Minister to Preach for order he is bound to obey unless the need of the Church and Souls and the probable benefit plainly weigh down that matter of order and make the Magistrates prohibition invalid as being against the common good and the ends of the Ministry and so against Christ 6. The semi-separatists Robinsons party after held that though the Parish Churches may be called true Churches as a Leper is a true man and it may be lawful to hear a Sermon in them yet the Common-prayer is so bad and the people and Ministers so bad and discipline so cast out that it is unlawful to joyn with them in Common-prayer or Sacrament or to become setled members of them but all must attempt though in Forreign Countreys that are able to set up purer worship and discipline The Nonconformists held that those that can have better without more hurt than good should cheose it But they that cannot may joyn in member-ship Common-prayer and Sacrament with such Parish Churches as will admit them without their own actual sin and consenting to their faults § 4. I shall now give you so full proof that the Nonconformists were for more which the Doctor calleth Separation than my Preaching or practice ever reached to as I shall tell the Reader what credit this Doctors history deserveth and what inhumane usuage the Nonconformists have from that sort of men § 5. Anno 1593. Was printed against them Bishop Bancroft's book called Dangerous Positions and Proceedings c. Or English Scotizing for Discipline by force c. In the first book he maketh their Reformations so odious as that Page 30. He saith that in Scotland it hath wrought more mischief in Thirty years
priviledged peculiar places or little Chapells at least Few Counties had not some Gentlemen that sheltred them The Earl of Huntington kept in Mr. Hildersham at Ashby Mr. Slater and Mr. Ash even in the big Town of Bremicham Mr. Mainwaring kept in Mr. Ball at Whitmore Mr. Knightley kept in Mr. Dod Judge Bromley and his humble holy Lady kept Mr. Brumskill at Sheriff Hales and entertained many more Mr. Nicols c. Sir Richard Graves at Moseley had Mr. Pateman and divers others seldom without a Nonconformist One would think Doctor Stillingfleet should know that his own Patron under whose wing he lived Sir Roger Burgonie was seldom without a Nonconformist at Roxhall in Warwickshire Mr. Hering had long liberty at St. Maries in Shrewsbery Mr. Ford who wrote on the Psalms had the School Lecture there Mr. Atkins at 〈◊〉 kept in to the last even the Lord Dudley favouring him Abundance such I might name Mr. Barnet at Uppington whom I oft heard Catechize Dr. Allestree Mr. Tandy at Bewdley Mr. Langley Mr. Paget Mr. Hind Mr. Lancaster Mr. Rowle Mr. Nicols Mr. Mather Mr. Rathband Mr. Barâ—â—n Mr. Gee Mr. Wright Mr. Smart c. had their liberties for some time And when one Bishop silenced them the next oft gave them liberty as Bishop Bridgman did after Bishop Mortons silencing some and when they were silenced they went oft into another Diocese where they rubd out a year or more and then to another And so were still in some hope of publick liberty And when silenced they used to keepe private fasts And where they lodged to preach on pretense of expounding to as many as they could They obeyed the Bishops as Magistrates but not as Pastors They knowingly broke the Law in their private and publick Ministry They obeyed not the Canons used not much of the Liturgy And many of them did as some do now get into publick Pulpits for a day and away where they were not known § 12. But yet there are more undeniable evidences of the falseness of what he saith he is certain of as the judgment of All the Old Nonconformists One is the known judgement of the Scotch Reformers and the common accusation of the English as being of their mind He that will affirm that the Scotch Presbyterians thought it unlawful to preach or hold Assemblies when forbidden by Magistrates or Prelates will incur a very sharp censure from their own Leaders who have written so many Books which charge them with the contrary and make them Rebels and Seditious for it Such as Bancroft Heylin Beziers and multitudes both old and new especially these last twenty years And though the Nonconformists in England did not justifie all that the Scots did and they that took Knox Buchanan Melvin and such other for very pious men yet thought some words and deeds too rash especially Knox's publick opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit and refusing her offer to come at any time and tell her of them privately yet it s known that in the Rules of Discipline they were mostly of the same judgment And they often joyned in defending the same Cause See their several demonstrations of Discipline and the several Defences of them how little they differed when Bancroft preacht against them at Pauls Cross Feb. 8. 1588. An English man wrote a Brief Discovery of his untruths c. And a Scoth man J. D. Bancrofts rashness in railing against the Church of Scotland printed 1590. And how little differ they if at all and Dr. Reignolds wrote a Letter against it to Sir Francis Knowles printed with Sir Francis Knowles his account to the Lord Burleigh of his Speech in Parliament against the Bishops keeping Courts in their own names as condemned by Law And in many of their writings the English own the Scotch Discipline and Church And yet even these Scots have rejected Brown as a Schismatick and the English Confuter of Bancrofts Sermon tells him Pag. 43 44. Brown a known Schismatick is a Fit man to be one of your Witnesses a-against the Eldership His entertainment in Scotland was such as a proud ungodly man deserved to have God give him and you repentance And Giffords Pagets Bradshaws Brightmans Rathbands Balls c. words against the Brownists proved not them to be against their own doctrine and practice no more than the Scots rejecting Brown proved them against theirs § 13. And another proof is the common doctrine of the Nonconformists of the difference of the Magistrates and the Churches Offices The said confutation of Bancroft hath it pag. 45 and forward and abundance of their publick writings viz. That the Magistrate only hath the power of the Sword and of Civil Government and to restrain and punish Ministers that offend by Heresie or otherwise But that as Preaching Sacraments and the disciplinary use of the Keys are proper to the Ministry so the deciding of Circumstantial controversies about them and about the due ordering of them doth primarily belong to Ecclesiastical Synods Therefore if these Synods were for their Preaching they were not for ceasing it meerly in obedience to the Magistrate that silenced them § 14. And it is proved by the many Volumes which they wrote against the Power of our Diocesans that it was not any Ecclesiastical Authority of theirs which they thought it a sin to disobey § 15. And Mr. Fox a Nonconformist and many more of them own the Doctrine of Wicliff and John Husse and the Bohemians for which the Synods of Constance and Basil condemned them who affirm that it is a heynous sin to give over Preaching because men excommunicate us and that such are excommunicated by Christ § 16. And it is not nothing that the most Learned Conformists agree with them as I have oft cited Bishop Bilsons words that the Magistrate doth not give us our power nor may hinder our use of it but is appointed by God to protect and encourage us and if he forbid or hinder us we are to go on with our work and patiently suffer And even now I believe most of the Leading Clergy think that if a Synod bid us preach and hold assemblies and the King forbid it we are to obey the Synod rather than the King Mr. Thorndike and many others that write for the Church thought so And Mr. Dodvel thinks so even of a particular Bishop The difference then is but this One party giveth this power to a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters perhaps conjoyned and the other to a Synod of Parochial Pastors Doctors and Elders But both agreed that the Magistrates prohibition in that case is not to be obeyed And the Conformists will not take it well if I should say that the Nonconformist are more for obedience to Magistrates than they I still except the Erastians and such as own Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicon § 17. There is a most considerable book called A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majesty shewing a meane how to compound the Civil Dissentions in the Church
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
Gospel be dealt with by sober men whose admonitions if they receive they shall give God thanks But if they go on in the Crime they shall be sharply punished as the Gospel prescribeth 5. De Concion Cap. 3. Preachers shall name no guilty person before the multitude unless such as have contemned Ecclesiastical Admonitions such may be named 6. De â—xc Excommunication for none but horrible Crimes c. Cap. 4. and after oft admonition But you Excomunicate all Godly men that do but say your Conformity is not lawful ipso facto by your Canon 7. Cap. 6. We permit not the power of Excomunication to be in any one person Though the consent of the whâ—le Church be specially desirable yet because it is hard to gather and take it let Excommunication thus proceed that the Arch-Bishop Bishop or other lawful Ecclesiastical Judge call one Justice of peace and the Minister of the place where the guilty person dwelleth or his deputy and two or three other Learned and well man â—ered Presbyters in whose presence when the matter hath been most diligently handled aud gravely weighed the sentence of Excommunication shall pass Cap. 7. And be written Cap. 16 There is written a large pious form like a Sermon to be used at the Reconciling of the penitent and his form of confession and petition to be received and then the Pastor of that Church is to ask all the flock whether they will forgive the offender and pray for him and whether they will have him received into their Congregation as a brother And then the Pastor is to exhort the penitent and then absolve him A great and solemn work most unlike your Discipline And then to give God thanks and pray for him and the Church Should we now but move for thus much in order to concord with the Cconformists we have reason to think no importunity could prevail for it were the consequents of our division as dismal as they are now by most proclaimed Yet verily we are most unexcuseable wretches if we have learned no more to this day than they did in so few years or under full power and opportunity will resist that good which they that wanted such opportunity wished for and go back as fast as they went forward Sect. 14. To p. 8. I never said that the troubles at Frankford were so much about free or formal Prayer as that the Presbyterians refused all forms Sect. 15. p. 19. He confesseth that Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of preferment and employment in the Church the Bishop shewing them kindness for their forward zealous Preaching and this being without their subscribing to conform is it any wonder then that they gathered not Assemblies elsewhere Had the Bishops so tryed us we should never have put them to talk so of our separation but might have done our best to build more Churches Doth none of all this difference their case and ours Sect. 16. p. 20. He confesseth when they were silenced they began to have separate Meetings and yet were all the old Non-Conformists against such Sect. 17. As to Beza's Letter have not I said more against Separation than he doth Doth the Dr. think the Reader so blind as not to see that Beza's words are just of the same importance with the account I gave and contrary to his viz. He trembleth at the thoughts of their exercising their function against the will of the Queen and Bishops for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them It s easie indeed to see what he trembles at and why he named them not which he would sure in charity have done had it been because it is sinful disobedience to preach when forbidden It was easie to see what hurt it would have done in the ruine of Preachers and hearers and shaking all the begun Reformation It s not so with us Gualter and Zanchy say not so much against Separation as I do nor John Fox nor Bullinger whom he citeth we say the same Sect. 18. The same I say of Parker and Gifford and I again tell him that he may name many more Hildersham Paget Ame c. I am of their judgment in their opposition to the Brownists but it is a notorious untruth pag. 33. that the force of all the Non-Conformists reasonings against Separation lay in two Suppositions 1. That nothing could justifie Separation from our Church but such corruptions which overthrew the being and constitution of it c. And 1. It must be remembred that Separation being a word of very many sences they held indeed that none ought to separate from a Church accusing it to be none but for that which proved it to be none 2. But did they deny that which all the Christian World confesseth viz. 1. What if our English Divines gathered by Bishop Hall against Burton be in the right that the Church of Rome is a true Church as a Thief is a true man though I think otherwise must not such Bishops or Conformists therefore separate from them 2. What if a Church impose some Lye false Oath or Subscription or some actual Sin in Worship as a condition sine qua non of her Communion is it not lawful to separate into better Assemblies 3. What if they put down all preaching save reading some dry Homilies and all Discipline is it not lawful elsewhere to serve God better But of this more after where he repeateth it The Brownists case was quite other before described Sect. 19. to p. 36 37. We also hold that whosoever separateth from the Church of England 1. As having not that Preaching and Sacraments which are of necessity to Salvation 2. Or as not professing true saving Faith doth by consequence separate from all Churches in the world because they have all the same Word Sacraments and Christian Faith And to this Mr. Jacobs Argument is good p. 38. though he was the man that answered Downam's Sermon for Bishops and esteemed one of the first Independents And Mr. Balls words to the same purpose and the second Supposition p. 39. we grant and think verily that the late Conformists have said more against the truth of the Church of England than we yea that we are the defenders of it against the Brownists and them Ball Bradshaw Gifford Hildersham c. cited by him defend it as we do and better than such as Dr. Heylin Thorndike Mr. Dodwel and such others Did he think any of this concerned me Sect. 20. Yes for p. 74. he saith We would blind the Reader by finding out the disparity of some Circumstances but not one of us can deny that it was their judgment that the holding separate Congregations for worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was unlawful and schismatical Answ It s pity so seeing a Dr. should tempt men to be so blind 1. As to think all the differences which I have named inconsiderable 2. And to go on to
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-Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
mind by citing four of their Books against Brownists and were four or forty times four all But Mr. Rathbands is said to be the Nonconformists Doth he believe that he meant that all or the twentieth part of the Nonconformists wrote or subscribed it One of the Names to it is Mr. Simeon Ash my intimate dear friend whose judgment in these matters was the same with mine whom I was with even in his sickness almost to the last hour of his life and was buryed Aug. 23. 1662. the day before the Law had else silenced him and he was to me a better Expositor of his own mind than the Dr. can be He was so much for going on to preach that his Motto in his Funeral Ring was I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ I yet keep my Ring and can shew it you And as to old Mr. Langley another of them I heard him my self preach in Albriton Church in Shropshire a Thanksgiving Sermon for the hopes of deliverance from the silencing Bishops when the Law forbad him And for old Mr. Slater I heard him preach at Trinity Church in Coventry when the Law forbad him And did they not understand their own Writings better than the Dr. doth Sect. 23. And I would I knew how to prevail with him to tell me whether the Law and Canon did not forbid all the Ministers in England to worship God according to the Directory and neglect the Common Prayer Book which yet almost all did for many years in the times of usurpation And yet of nine thousand or more of these seven thousand since conformed to the Church of England and they say that this Dr. is one of them If mere disobedience then be the sin all these lived so long in sin and he with others Sect. 24. But all that can be gathered out of the four Books â—â—â—ed and such others is but this which is our judgment 1. That Churches and Pastors are under the Kings Government as well as other Subjects 2. That it belongeth to him to punish them for evil doing and encourage them in doing well 3. That as to this his own execution he is the publick Judge whether they do well or ill 4. That if he justly forbid any to preach or assemble he must be obeyed 5. And if he mistake in particular cases not destroying the ends of his Government the common good he must not be resisted nor in such a manner disobeyed as tendeth more to the common hurt than his mistake doth nor disabled to Govern by their dishonouring him much less by Rebellion or Confusion 6. Nor are men bound to cast away their great advantages for Gods service which they then had on pretence of doing better when by accident it would do more hurt than good nor as Bradshaw saith to run on the Sword or oppose Sword to Sword or raise Sedition and ruin themselves in vain Their advantages were many 1. Lawful Communion in the Parish Churches 2. Most of them either constantly or by sits had publick Churches or Chappels to preach in and were still in hope 3. The Magistrate protected them and the Reformation 4. They hoped for a progress of it whereas had they openly done as the Brownists they had endangered the Reformation by the exasperation and ruined themselves and lost most of their labour So that it is plain that preaching in that imprudent manner which is like to do more harm than good they took to be a double sin as hurtful and as disobedience for obedience is due in such a case But in case the manner and circumstances be such as that these evils are not consequent but more good than hurt to be expected they thought the bare breach of the Law no sin Sect. 25. Which I yet further prove 1. Because it s agreed by all that Governing Order is a medium for the thing ordered and never obligeth when it overthroweth the end power being given to Edification and not to Destruction None have power to forbid the necessary preaching of the Gospel and probably to damn Souls 2. Because else the Nonconformists should be more against preaching when forbidden than the Conformists who say as Bishop Bilson We must go on with our work suffer and as Bishop Andrews Tortur Torti Cohibeat Regem Diaconus c. 3. Yea the Papists who on pretence of Obedience are tyrannical yet mostly agree as I have elsewhere proved that humane Laws bind not beyond the case of scandal when they are against the common good And a Toletane Council decreed that their Constitutions should not be taken to bind ad pâ—câ—atum to hazard Souls but only ad poenam 4. As I have said their own practice fully expounded their words who constantly broke the Law and Canon in preaching in Houses and in Chappels without or contrary to the Liturgy or a part of it So did Mr. Ball at Whitemore Mr. Hind at Banbury Mr. Geree and Mr. Fox at Tewksbury John Rogers at Dedham Mr. Taylor Mr. Harvy Mr. Bourne at Manchester Mr. Gee Mr. Johnson Mr. Hancock Mr. Barlow Mr. Broxholme Mr. Cooper and abundance more besides those mentioned before And now I leave it to the Dr.'s further thoughts whether he spake truly of the sence of All the Nonconformists and have proved what he undertook To abuse the Magistrate or do his part for publick Reformation they were against and so are we Sect. 26. As to his question Was there less necessity then or now I answer 1. There was then more necessity as there is of you or me in America where we cannot preach the people lately Papists desired not their helps nor scrupled hearing others as many thousands do now 2. There was necessity then and so there is now but opportunity must joyn with necessity to oblige which they had more than we by connivence in Chappels where was necessity and they had less than we in other places Sect. 27. As to the Answers of Mr. Sprint on my knowledge the usual answer was That evil must not be done that we may have leave to do good and that if others hinder me because I will not sin it is not my omission of any duty yet the disparity of the Apostles case and ours may be mentioned to shew the difference of obligations Positive Precepts bind not ad semper but Negatives do and it s too gross a shift to turn a Negative to a Positive and then pretend that the comparison is between two duties preaching is a duty when we can do it but not when we cannot do it unless we will swear subscribe profess or practise a forbidden thing Sect. 28. I conjecture that to what I have proved of the practice of the Nonconformists it will be said that Their preaching in peculiar places Chappels or Churches though in a manner against Law and Canon was but a partial joyning with the Church of England and not a separation and the connivence of the Bishops was a kind of Toleration Answ 1. And
Nor do I find in the New Testament any political Church form but the Universal headed by Christ and particular ones governed by Pastors The General is the constitutive Head of his Army and the Colonel of his Regiment and the Captain of his Troop as distinct subordinate Bodies but the Major General General of the Ordnance Quartermaster General c. may be only under Officers to the whole and the noblest integral parts but as such no constitutive Head of any Body of Men whatever So that General Pastors prove no superior proper Church But because it was lawful in prudence for the Apostles to have taken several Provinces limited severally to each so may men now and if any call such Churches I strive not so the matter be agreed on 8. I ever owned a Christian Kingdom and the agreeing Association of as many Churches as can for mutual help and concord and the King to be their Governor by the Sword And if any will call a Kingdom a Church or an Association that hath no constitutive Government a Church as if he called a Diet or Assembly of many Kings or Princes a Kingdom or Republick let him enjoy his Equivocation so we understand each other 9. According to these Principles I own my self a Member of the universal Church of the Church of England and of the Parish or particular Church where for the time I am called to be that is as they are But I think I may remove from Parish to Parish as I have cause as a dweller or a lodger may and I take not all the Parish to be the Church and take Parish bounds to be no Divine Institution but a humane mutable point of order convenient when by accident it crosseth not the end nor doth more harm than good 10. I think if any Nobleman in London confine his ordinary communion to a just assembly in his happel or any that have a Minister utterly unsuitable to their needs do usually hold communion in the next Parish Church for better he is thereby neither Separatist nor Sinner 11. According to all this when I was silenced I ordinarily heard Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Tillotson and communicated in several places as I had best opportunity and quickly going to Acton I there constantly morning and evening joyned at Common prayer and Sermon communicating in the Sacrament where I had best opportunity being loth for the Parson and Curates sâ—ke to tell you why it was not there once with Dr. Horton and often with Nonconformists The Plague driving me to Hambden I constantly there joyned in all the publick Worship and Sacrament Returning to Acton I did as before and sometime repeated Dean Rieve's Sermon till he got me sent to Gaol for teaching some willing ignorant people between the Church meetings in my house Thence going to Totteridge I many years constantly twice a day joyned in the publick worship and took the Sacrament when administred as Mr. Parre will testifie Thence removing to London and licensed by the King to preach I forbare some time and after chose only the Market house at St. James's openly declaring that we met not as separating from the publick Churches but for the need of multitudes that went to no Church for want of room Since then I have many years joyned in all the publick worship Word Prayer and Sacraments with the Parish Church when able since that I also sometime joyn with Nonconformists and preach my self Afternoons and on Thursdays in the Nonconformists Chappels being not allowed to do it otherwise In the Country in Summer I have far off got into some Parish Churches for a day and tryed neer London but could not have consent though I have Bishop Sheldon's License for that Diocess I think not yet invalidated This is the matter of fact Now Reader Qu. 1. Doth the tenth part of those counted of this Parish Church hear and communicate so oft as I do Q. 2. If not what makes them and not me to be of that Church Q. 3. What is the constancy that this Dr. maketh necessary to a member Q. 4. What are the parts of their worship which he saith I joyn not in Hath he named any Q. 5. Is this only occasional joyning Sect. 3. I do maintain that 1. When consideratis considerandis we may choose the purest Churches and most edifying Ministry it is a duty so to do And one of his answers the Rector c. hath in the Epistle cited his own words not out of the retracted Irenicon but his late Book against Popery expresly threatning us with damnation if we do not To which I find no excuse made by him yea the Papist adversary grants the same 2. I do maintain against those that separate from all Churches which they dare not be stated members of that its lawful to communicate occasionally where we may not do it statedly But is this to deny all save occasional communion with all their Churches 3. I often say that there is so great difference of Parish Ministers and of Persons cases and opportunities and Relations as Wives Children Servants under Parents c. of divers commands c. that to be constant Communicants in their Parish Church is to some a duty to some a sin and so is occasional communion Sect. 4. As to the second sort that hold all communion with them unlawful 1. I leave them to plead their own cause and I meddle only with my own part 2. But I must say that if they mistake those that wilfully give them the occasion are unfit reprovers of them And if men for worldly ends or by error will corrupt and defile a Church to the utmost that is consistent with lawful Communion or neer it they may make the question whether their Communion be lawful too hard for understandings Every one cannot tell whether one in a swoon be alive or dead and some may bury him too hastily Stretch not my similitude beyond my meaning If a Gentleman of the game should by wilful sin get the Lues Venerâ—â— and the case be disputed whether his wife may separate from him or if he beat her once a week if she will not daily eat that which makes her grievous sick and he doth it to exercise his Authority another may better plead against her departure than he If it be a fault in her so to save her self what is it in him to destroy or abuse her If we be forbidden to take poyson and one will causelesly command us to take a doubtful thing as Nightshade Hemlock Aâ—ripigmentum c. and then condemn us as disobedient for refusing he is the unfittest person to condemn us If it be lawful to avoid a house that hath the Plague a man is excusable that mistakes the spotted Fever for it Were your Congregations but full of persons that had the scabs of the small Pox not dryed away and one went to a sounder Congregation for fear of infection not at all condemning you he might be born with
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
in all Cities Corporations or Places aforesaid though their example might have drawn many as mine did where I was 11. Ministers and Corporations and Vestries were not then bound to swear or subscribe that it is unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to resist any commissioned by the King when the Keeper of his Seal may sign Commissions to seize on the Kings Forts Garrisons Navies and Treasuries to deliver up the Kingdoms to Foreigners to destroy Parliaments Cities and Laws I am sure Hooker Bilson or Arch-Bishop Abbot subscribed not this nor were such Conformists Are all these no difference of case Sect. 8. There is 2. a great difference in the drift and tendency of the Impositions They were at first to quiet a Popish Nation while the true Doctrine took possession and rooting and to avoid the cavils of those Papists that charged the Reformers with forsaking all the Church But what they have been used for these last forty or fifty years I leave the Reader to judge 1. By the Complaints of all the Parliaments since then save one 2. By the History of Arch-Bishop Laud's Tryal 3. By Dr. Heylin's History of his Life 4. By the writings of Divines such as Mr. Thorndike Dr. Parker Dr. Pierce Arch-Bishop Bromhall and many more such and by the Papists historical collection out of such See Dr. Heylin's description of the Reconciling Plot Anno 1639. Arch Bishop Bromhal saith Vindicat. p. 19. c. Whereas Mr. Baxter doth accuse Grotius as a Papist I think he doth him wrong nay I am confident he doth him wrong And I have read all that he alledgeth to prove it but without any conviction or alteration in my judgment I will endeavour to give some further light what was the Religion of Grotius He was in affection a friend and in desire a true Son of the Church of England And on his Deathbed recommended that Church as it was legally established to his Wife and such other of his Family as were then about him obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it The said Bishop though no Papist saith pag. 81. I know no members of the Greek Church who give them the Papists either more or less than I do Compare this with the Council at Florence and the Patriarch Jeremiah's Writings and the present sence of the Greek Church and we may know his mind But my ground is not the authority of the Greek Church but the authority of the Primitive Fathers and General Councils which are the representative Body of the Universal Church P. 82. To wave their last four hundred years determinations is implicitly to renounce all the necessary causes of this great Schism And to rest satisfied with their old Patriarchal power and dignity and Primacy of Order which is another part of my Proposition is to quit the modern Papacy name and thing Pag. 84 85. That Christians may joyn together in the same publick devotions and service of Christ 1. If the Bishop of Rome were reduced from the Universality of Soveraign Jurisdiction jure divino to his principium unitatis and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sence of the Councils of Constance and Basil and is desired by many Roman Catholicks as well as we 2. If the Creed were reduced to what they were in the time of the four first General Councils with only necessary explications and those made by the Authority of a General Council 3. And some things whence offences have been given or taken be put out of the Divine Offices Whether Christians ought not to live in holy Communion and come to the same publick worship of God free from all schismatical separations Pag. 93. 1. That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Antioch and after at Rome is a truth 2. That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apostles is the unanimous voice of the Primitive Church 3. Some Fathers and Schoolmen who were no sworn Vassals to the Roman Bishop do affirm that this Primacy of Order is fixed to the Chair of St. Peter P. 97. Though the Bishop of Rome had such a Primacy of Order by Divine Right or Humane it would not prejudice us at all nor is worth the contending about But 1. It is not by Divine Right in foro exteriore 2. Nor elsewhere interiore but executive according to the Canons Whereas I said that Protestants that consent not to the Popes Patriarchal Power over us in the West will fall under the reproach of Schism he saith p. 104. c. Must a man quit his just right because some dislike it Their dislike is but scandal taken but the quitting of that which is right for their satisfaction should be scandal given If they be forced to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks it is by their own wilful humors or erroneous Conscience other force there is none 2. Whether is the worse and more dangerous condition to fall under the reproach of Schism or to fall into Schism it self Whosoever shall oppose the just power of a lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding is a material Schismatick at least P. 107. It 's unsound arguing to deny a man his just right for fear lest he may abuse it as a Patriarchal Power was the Bishop of Rome's just right They who made the Bishop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers not excluding the Apostles and Christian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils what Laws they made in this case we are bound to obey for Conscience sake till lawfully repealed by vertue of the Law of Christ Much more he hath to this purpose and p. 112. for uniting the Church Catholick on humane terms and p. 117. against the peoples liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture and after at large that concord must be on humane terms p. 122. Grotius judgment was and mine is moderate but had not this man been so owned by many now I had not cited so much of his And for Grotius I have over and over cited his own words and shall not now repeat them And was this the drift of Conformity of old 3. Sect. 9. Another difference is in the effects for with us things not universally or absolutely determined by God are to be used or refused as they do more good or hurt 1. Then open Preaching and gathering Assemblies by Nonconformists would have greatly offended the Prince but our King at Breda and in his three first Declarations and by his Licenses and connivence shewed such wisdom and clemency as intimated less displeasure at our liberty 2. It would have deprived most of the Nonconformists of their hopes of publick liberty in the Parish Churches which most of them enjoyed but we had neither possession nor expectation of such a thing 3. It would have hindred and hazarded the progress of the Reformation but our preaching hath done more to stop the progress of the Syncretism or of Popery Others know this whatever you frivolously
to the Anabaptists and Quakers Answ Alas that such things should be the best to such a man By May go you mean 1. lawfully 2. or eventually 3. or for want of due hindring The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the first on me as if I said that so to go to the Quakers were no sin whereas I still say that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their sin 2. And as to the Event many not only may but do turn Quakers Papists and Athiests 3. And as to the third it 's all the question here not whether we should seek to save them but which is the true reasonable and allowed means Whether it be the Patrons choosing for all England the Pastors to whose care they must trust their Souls and laying them in Jail that will choose others Or whether there be not a righter way And again I say Kings and Patrons choose not mens Wives or Physicians or Food and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge Sect. 6. But why saith he P. 11. v. 115. must the King bear all the blame if mens Souls be not provided for c Answ He that is the chooser must bear the blame the King for Bishops and the Patrons for Parish Priests if they mischoose And do you think in your conscience that all the Patrons in England of so various minds and lives are like to choose only such in whose pastoral conduct all that care for their Souls should rest Yea though the Bishops must Institute them as they Ordained them When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of grosly ignorant drunken Priest their answers were 1. Their Chaplains examined them 2. They had certificates 3. A quare impedit lay against them if they required higher knowledge than to answer the Catechism in Latine And now experience will not warrant us to know what such men are P. 115. He asketh How it is possible on these terms to have any peace or order in an established Church Answ I have fully told him how in a whole Book of concord And hath their way caused greater peace and order Yes to themselves for the time So Popery keepeth some Order and Unity with them that hold to it But it kept not the Greeks or Protestants from forsaking them Sect. 7. P. 119. 120. He saith They only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve Answ Equivocal words 1. If they approve not those whom they should approve it is their sin 2. Approving is either of the necessaries ad esse or only ad melius esse They must not put the later for the former 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a discerning private Judgment The first they have not but the later In good earnest would he have all the people take those for true Pastors who they verily think are none Can they at once hold contradictions And if they must not judge as dissenters what meaneth Mr. Dodwels and such mens Arguments to prove all no Ministers that have not Succession of Episcopal Ordination Must not the people on that account disown them by his way Sect. 8. p. 119. He brings in against us my words I take those for true Churches that have true Pastors and those for none that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves the essential Power Answ He knoweth that I speak not of equivocal but proper political Churches And is it possible that such a man should dissent in this 1. Can he be a true Pastor that is uncapable of the Office Shall I abuse time to confute gross Contradictions Or if he be a profest Infidel Can he be a Christian Pastor 2. Is a Layman a true Pastor that is not truly called to it why then do they argue as Mr. Dodwell or Re-ordain men 3. Can a man be a Pastor against his will or that conâ—enteth not but renounceth it or can that be a true Pastoral Church that hath no Pastor Verily we are but upon low works if these be the things which we must prove Sect. 9. He adds And one or other of these he thinks must if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under Answ I read these words of the Dr. to a Papist To speak mildly this is a gross untruth Therefore I hope it were no Rage for me to have said the like How doth he prove it Nay in the place cited by him I not only profest the contrary but gave the Reason p. 65. Because I judge of their Office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which deprives them of an essential Part. And 1. He citeth my confession that those that I hear preach well and therefore are not uncapable men 2. That their Ordination hath all essentially necessary and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Parishes consent though not Election and therefore are called 3. And many of them as he thinks they have all essential to the Office and disown it not though I think others deny it them where there is the truth of what he saith Sect. 10. p. 120. Because my practice disproveth him he finds out a Subtilty that I joyn not with the Parish Churches as true Churches but only as Chappels or Oratories he accounts not our parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists Answ Deliberately to print such untruths seems tolerable in him but to say they are such would seem passion in me and what other answer are they capable of What I expresly say of the three forementioned excepted sorts he feigneth me to say of all or most of the Parish Churches and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Exceptions 1. Do not all those men take the Parishes for no proper political Churches but only for Parts of the Diocesan Church such as we call Curates Chappels who say that a Bishop is a constitutive Part of a true political Church and entereth the Definition and that it 's no Church that hath no Bishop and that Diocesan Churches are the lowest political And do I need to tell him how considerable these men are among them 2. Doth he himself take any one of these for a true political Church When I was young divers Laymen by turns were our publick Reading Teachers Among the rest one was after proved to counterfeit Orders This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not but when we knew of such must we take them for true Pastors and it for a true Church Sect. 11. p. 221. He saith Any Parochial Church that hath such a one a Bishop or Pastor over them that hath the power of the Keys and owns it self to be Independant he allows to be a true Church and none else Answ
and next parts were all to communicate with the Bishop and were no more than could meet to choose the Bishops and to be present as to the main body of them and disciplinary debates to give consent 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage a place of greatness and great numbers of Christians the Church was grown very great but not beyond the exercise of such personal Communion as I described And the Bishops there and round about being worthy men kept up the life of the former Discipline And as great as their Church was we would be glad of such an Episcopacy Order and Communion For I oft told you that by present Communion I meant not that all must meet in one place at once For the tenth part of some Parishes cannot But that as Neighbours and Citizens may have personal Converse and Meetings per vices of some at one time and some at another as different from meer mental Communion or by Synods or Persons delegate or as their Governours or Representatives and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine Worship and Conversation And that the footsteps of this remained long when worldly Reasons had made a change And all this I have proved so fully in my Treatise of Episcopacy besides what 's said in my Abstract of the Episcopal History that till some man shall confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought I have no more in Reason to do upon that subject And though the Doctors History of this be the most considerable part of all his Book yet so far doth he leave what I say uncontradicted that I find not one word that he saith against any of my Testimonies nor any for his own cause for the first two hundred years But when he should have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years he begins his historical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World and so proceeds to Augustine at above four hundred and Victor Uticensis about four hundred and ninety Theodoret four hundred and thirty where he supposeth me to say that of his City which I said of the Diocess of that City And to confute all Impertinencies and groundless Suppositions while my full proofs are unanswered is but loss of time Sect. 3. His chief argument is that no City how great soever was to have more Bishops than one Ans 1. He can prove no such Rule in the first two hundred years 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree Gratious de Imperio in Anotat and Dr. Hammond I cited who say that Cities at first had two Bishops in each Rome Antioch c. one of Jewish Christians and one of Gentile Christians and saith D. H. Peter at Rome was Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles and they had two Successors and saith Gretius The Churches were formed to the manner of the Synagogues and there were divers Churches with divers Bishops in the same City in 1 Tim. 5. 17. de Imp. p. 355 356 357. 3. In the fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Bishops with their several Churches at Antioch Flavian's and Evagrins should live together in Love and Peace 4. This was a good custom while there were in the Cities no more than one Bishop might take care of And the custom held when times altered the case and reason of it And Possession and the Desire to avoid division made it held up by good men 5. I have at large in my Treatise of Episcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Bishops to Cities and so did the old Churches that set up Chorepiscopos Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars Ans 1. Yes no doubt after the second Century and perhaps in two Cities a little before but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question But when I told him how this would agree us and hurt his cause he will quickly fall under his own censure and became a stranger to the history of the Church asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop This Sermon was written since his Irenicon And now he feigneth a distinction between An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop and for the place at which Christians did communicare But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop Was it not the material place of Communicn And so the members of the distinction are co-incident Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes corporis sanguimis Christi Each Church had long but one of these The best Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion but honorary of some Martyrs The truth is the phrase of unum Altare was taken up when each Church had but one but to set up Altare contra Altare continued after to signifie Anti-Churches But I have fully answered this in my Treatise of Episcopacy His conjectures from the numbers of Officers c. he may see there also sufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hist And the odd instance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popish Feigners And were that Epistle genuine a Cypher is easily dropt in by Corrupters It hath need of better authority that shall be so singular from the case of all other Churches And I suppose he knoweth that Cyrus was not a simple Bishoprick but a Metropolitane Seat and might have 800 Parish Bishops Yea whereas there were under Antioch seven Dioceses and fifteen Provinces or as others say thirteen that yet had many Bishops under them as Seleucia twenty four c. that were more dependant on Antioch Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per se subsistentes And therefore when Theodoret said how many Churches were under hands it 's like he meant Bishops Churches and not meer Presbyters and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account or else the Bishops had but single Congregations But for my part as the case so late concerneth me not so I see nothing to perswade me that that Epistle is genuine and uncorrupt But I would not have a Diocess which then had many Provinces or a Province which had many Bishops Churches be taken for a single Church Sect. 5. The same I say of Carthage which was the Metropolis of Africa and the first of six Provinces before
their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
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
which setleth humane Government and obedience chosen the name of Parents rather than Princes because Parents Government is antecedent to Princes and Princes cannot take it from them nor disoblige their Children But Self-government is more natural than Parents and Parents and Princes must help it but not destroy it 7. When persons want natural capacity for Self-government as Infants and Ideots and mad-men they are to be governed by force as bruits being not capable of more 8. Family Government being in order next to personal Princes or Bishops have no right to overthrow it at least except in part on slaves of whose lives they have absolute power If the King impose Wives Servants and Diet on all his Subjects they may lawfully chuse fitter for themselves if they can and at least may refuse unmeet Wives and Servants and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks 9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impose on all men the Bishops and Pastors to whose charge care and Pastoral conduct they must commit their Souls the people having the nearest right of choice and strongest obligation must refuse as discerning Self-governing judges such whose heresie negligence ignorance malignity or treachery is like either apparently to hazard them or to deprive them of that Pastoral help which they find needful for them and they have right to as well as other men 10. The gain or loss is more the Patients than the Imposers It is their own Souls that are like to be profited and saved by needful helps or lost for want of them And therefore it most concerns themselves to know what helps they chuse 11. If all the Kings on earth command men to trust their lives to a Physician who they have just cause to believe is like to kill them by ignorance errour or treachery or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them they are not bound to obey such mandates Yea if they know an able faithful Physician that is most like to cure them they may chuse him before an unknown man though the King be against their choice 12. Scripture and experience tell us that God worketh usually according to the aptitude of means and instruments and learned experienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant rash and slothful and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do And skilful able experienced holy Pastors convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men And means must accordingly be chosen 13. If the Pastoral work skilfully and faithfully done be needful it must not be neglected whoever forbid it If it be not needful what is the Church of England good for more than Infidels or at least than Moscovites And for what are they maintained by Tythes Glebe and all the dignities honours and wealth they have And for what do men so much contend for them 14. It is natural to generate the like and for men to do and chuse as they are and as their interest leadeth them Christ tells us how hard it is for a rich man to be saved and how few such prove good And the Clergy themselves do not say that all the Patrons in England are wise and pious Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accused And most Parliament men I think are Patrons Others say that most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments are worse Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication drunkenness excess idleness yea Atheism or infidelity If many or any be such are they like to chuse such Pastors as all godly men may trust in so great a Case Or would not such Princes chuse such Bishops 15. Men are as able and as much obliged now to take heed to whose conduct they trust their Souls as they were in all former Ages of the Church forecited 16. The Laws and Bishops of England allow all men liberty to chuse what Church and Pastor that Conformeth they please so they will but remove their dwellings into the Parish which they affect And in London thousands live as Lodgers and may easily go under whom they will chuse And if they like him not may shift as oft as they please 17. Parish bounds are of much use for Order But Order is for the thing ordered and not against it And Parish bounds being of humane make cannot justly be preferr'd before the needful edification and safety of mens Souls though such humane Laws bind where there are no greater obligations against them 18. The Law of keeping to Parish-Churches where we dwell and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Pastors and Princes of Bishops are of the same efficient power and strength 19. Casuists usually say even Papists that are too much for Papal power that humane Laws bind not when they are against the end the common good especially against mens salvation And a Toletan Council decreeth that none of their Canons shall be interpreted to bind ad culpam but ad poenam lest they cause mens damnation And many Casuists say that Penal Laws bind only to do or suffer and bearing the penalty satisfieth them save as to scandal 20. Yet we still acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety and so to see that due places countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Ministers and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers and submit to hear and learn And that they should restrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers from the sacred Office-work and judg who are to be maintained and who to be tolerated 21. But this power is not absolute but bounded And if on the pretence of it they would betray the Church and starve Souls like the English Canon that binds all from going to an able Pastor at the next Parish from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader men are not bound to obey it but to provide better for themselves unless materially not formally for some time when not obeying would do more hurt than good or as a man must forbear publick assemblies in a common Plague-time And so much to open the true reason of the case in hand And Paul's words to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 16. tell me this care is not unnecessary Take heed to thy self and to the doctrine and continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee § 17. come now to the Doctor 's words who p. 312. undertakes to prove 1. That the main ground of the peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon A Bishop must be blameless Ans The word main may do him service but no hurt to my cause Main signifieth not Only who doubts but the People were to discern the Lives of chosen persons But without coming to the Ballance among many causes which is the main I have proved that there were more And among others that Christ and his Apostles bid them take heed how they hear beware of false Prophets and their leaven beware of the concision A man
superstition c. I named many Cases in which an Image may be used and say that it is not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image in a Room where they are placed only for Ornament c. Is this to say worship may be directed to it or that we may kneel before a Crucifix when I had before excepted the Images of God Christ c. in worship on several reasons Doth any Protestant doubt of what I assert My Parlour hath on all four sides the pictures of our living friends must I not pray in that room because my face will be still towards some of them Doth he doubt of this Or is not his citing one half of the words as he doth to deceive his credulous Reader if not worse § 10. He saith Kneeling before a Crucifix is lawful to him supposing the mind be only excited by it Answ A Calumny made up by setting together two scraps of remote sentences 1. Because I say it 's lawful to pray in a room where pictures not any are before me for meet ornament therefore he feigns me to say It 's lawful to kneel before a Crucifix 2. And elsewhere I say It is lawful to be excited to a good thought by seeing a Deaths-head or any of Gods works and so it is by seeing a Crucifix which no sober Christian doubts of he feigns me to make it an exciting sign to him that kneels before it § 11. Yea he makes so much use of his own calumny as p. 354. to prove me strangely partial Allowing it to be lawful to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans as an object that stirs up in us worshipping affections and so excuse all Papists from Idolatry that profess they use a Crucifix for no other end Answ Meer repeated forgery not becoming his profession I never spake for praying before it much less as an object to stir up worshipping affections But only that I am not bound to fly at prayer from a room that hath only ornamental pictures and that as in the Geneva Bible there be Historical pictures and few but Turks are against them it is lawful I say not kneeling before them at prayer but out of cases of scandal and danger to be excited by them to good affections and indeed good affections are worshipping affections Dare any Christian say that it is a sin to think reverently of God when we see his works or see but a picture of Scripture History as Abraham offering Isaac Christ dying and rising c. Nonconformists have still taken them for Lyers that said they were against Historical pictures and shewed it in the Geneva Bible I have seen in many pious country Houses all the story of Dives and Lazarus painted over their Tables and never heard the good use of it accused But I desire the Reader to peruse my words which he citeth Quest 113. and judge with what honesty we are accused I there say 1. It is unlawful to make any Image of God 4. It is unlawful to make place or use an Image as is like to do more hurt than good or to tempt to sin And all such Images of creatures as others use to give unlawful worship or honour to when like to tempt others to the like as among the Papists the Image of the Crucifix the Virgin Mary and Angels may not be made placed or used so as may tempt any to worship them sinfully as they do 11. It is unlawful to place Images in Churches or in secret before our eyes when we are worshipping God when it tendeth to corrupt the mind which is the ordinary effect of Images 12. It is unlawful to use Images scandalously as any of the aforesaid sinners use them though we do it not with the same intent that is so as in outward appearance is the same with their use Because so we shall dishonour God as they do and harden them in sin Therefore Images in Churches or in Oratories in those Countries where others use them sinfully or near such Countries where the same may harden men in their sin is evil 21. I think it unlawful to make an Image or any equal instituted sign to be the publick common symbol of the Christian Religion though but a professing sign as they make the Cross Doth this doctrine justifie the Papists And p. 876. § 14. I largly prove the use of a Crucifix as they do the Cross in baptism to be unlawful which he answereth not Is it not consistent with all this that I say That it 's not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image in a room where Images are placed only for ornament and we have no respect to them as a medium or object of our worship except as by accident it 's made unlawful And that not kneeling to them nor in prayer but in transient meditation it is lawful so to use them historically as to stir up in us a worshipping affection If the Papists do no more no Protestant would call them Idolaters for it But if they use them Idolatrously it makes our use of them unlawful when even but outwardly it is like theirs And so I say of the Cross This is the Doctors zeal against Idolatry that it seems would have us all used as his Books intimate till we dare use the Transient Image of the Cross much worse than he maketh the Papists to use Images and Crucifixes in particular For to use them as a dedicating common badge of Christianity in our great Covenant with Christ is more than to use them historically and in meditation or more than to pray in rooms adorned with common pictures But he knoweth that the Papists give more to Images § 12. Obj. But what need had you to say all this of Images Answ That men may understand it I 'le tell you that you may see the Candor of our accusers Dr. R. Coxe Bishop of Ely consulted with Cassander to have had Images in our Churches The Lutherans so use them Our new Church of England began to set up Crucifixes over Altars and to plead more for Church-pictures than heretofore In 1642. the Parliament ordered the defacing all Images of any Person of the Trinity in Churches or Church-yards before the King went from them Because I read this Order and the Church-warden attempted to obey it the rabble of drunken swearing Journy-men who were all for Conformity rose in a tumult with clubs seeking to kill me and the Churchwardens and knockt down two Country-men because they were our friends who carried the hurt to their death And the Conforming Clergy were so much for them that one of them indicted me at the Assizes and I was forced to leave the Country Such rage for Images tempted some religious men that were against them to be more censorious against the Conformists than I would have them and to run too near the other extream And after it grew a dispute whether the Lutherans were not Hereticks of which see Caspar Streso
execution of it on others or the person in foro externo But still the Church hath done her part in Legislation to oblige as aforesaid § 6. He saith Persons excommunicate are to be denounced so every six months that others may have notice of them Answ 1. But are they not excommunicate then before they are so oft denounced yea or at all as far as aforesaid § 7. He saith I have fully answered my own Objection by saying I am not bound to execute the sentence on my self Answ 1. He would not say that he approveth the answer For if he do he confuteth himself that would have us execute the silencing sentence on our selves and the sentence against publick worship in any way but theirs 2. My reason is because I take the unjust sentence as invalid else I were bound in foro interiore 3. But sure the Church at least relaxeth that mans obligation to present Communion by shewing her will if she did not oblige him to withdraw Read over the words of the Canon and see whether they make them not as unintelligible and flexible to what sense they please as they do the words of the Act of Uniformity and Liturgy § 8. As to his two cases in which the excommunicate may be schismaticks for not communicating 1. We question not the first Just excommunication excludeth none but the guilty Here then indeed is the state of our Controversie Had he proved that in all the cases before cited it is just to excommunicate us he had done somewhat when now for want of it he betrayeth his cause 2. His 2d is If they form new Churches Answ 1. Is forming new Churches and not communicating with the old ones all one Our present question is of the later So that this great Accuser seemeth plainly to absolve all from being bound to Communicate with them who are unjustly excommunicate and gather not new Churches 2. But may not the unjustly excommunicate that cannot on just terms be restored worship God in some publick Church Doth such a wicked sentence bind men to live like Atheists till death or deprive them of their right to all God's Ordinances even many Papist Doctors and Councils say the contrary And how else do you justifie the Church of England against the Papists charge of Schism § 9. p. 372. He still seemeth to think that His own and others reasonings may change all the truly honest Christians in the Land to hold all the things imposed lawful Answ These thoughts of the Bishops in 1660. and 1661. have brought us all to the pass that we are at And if after 20 years so great experience of the inefficacy of all their Disputes yea and Prisons and after the notice of the nature and different cases of men they still trust to bring us to Concord on these terms disputing with such men is in vain The Lord deliver us from them CHAP. XII Of the English sort of Sponsors and the exclusion of Parents duty § 1. PAge 380. He saith I several times mention this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with us yea as the greatest objection Answ Four places of my writings are cited and all will testifie to him that will read them the untruth of the Doctors words This is an unhappy course of accusations I can find no word of The unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground On the contrary I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful viz. By getting if possible credible Sponsors of the old sort and agreeing with them to be the Parents Representer and promise as in his name or at least but as his second undertaking the Education of the Child if he die or apostatize which was the old sort and himself to be present and signifie his consent by gesture though he may not speak But I have shewed 1. That this must be done besides the Churches order that hath no such thing 2. That subscribing to the Churches order herein is unlawful 3. That the Church which refuseth the Child lawfully offered ought not to blame that person that cannot or will not make such shifts but getteth another Pastor to Baptize him whom they sinfully refuse But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you But it 's lawful to use better also when they can being thus repulsed by you § 2. He saith The Parents are to provide such as are fit to under take that office Answ 1. No one is fit for it as used by the Liturgy but an Adopter that taketh the Child for his own For he undertaketh the Parents work And it 's lis sub judice whether any others undertaking besides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered and have right to the seal and benefits Atheists and Insidels Children are unholy 1 Cor. 7. 14. 2. If any were sit few Parents can get such as will understandingly and deliberately and credibly promise them to do all that Godfathers must by the Liturgy undertake I never knew one in my life that seemed to the Parent to mean any such thing much less to do it I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Witnesses and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy without Crossing and never more in 6. or 7. years after because of the imposed corruptions Mr. Kettilby the Bookseller unless his Father had another Child of the same name baptized the same year was one But his Father gave him his name and promised all his own duty and his Uncle and Aunt standing as Sponsors we before agreed that they should signifie but Witnesses and friendly helpers in case of need 2. But what if the Parents are bid provide such that is no discharge of their own part nor are they bound to cast their duty on others § 3. He saith as to the Child 's Right to Baptism that the Godfathers stand in a threefold capacity 1. Representing the Parent in offering 2. Representing the Child in promising 3. In their own as undertakers of his education c. Answ 1. I will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's sence the Godfathers are not the Parents representatives at all nor speak in their name 2. If they were then when the Parents both are Atheists Infidels Hobbists scorners at Godliness Hereticks the Godfathers can represent them but as they are and their own faith entitleth not the Child because they stand in the persons of Atheists Infidels c. your Church doth not like this doctrine 3. And as to their representing the Child quo jure is the doubt It cannot be done without some representing power given them And who gave it them 4. And as to the third Person in this multiform
thing the doubt is whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful while he is bound to do it himself 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings which I never knew one perform nor seem to mean it save such as take poor mens kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own 3. And if it be done without serious intention Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness and prophane taking God's name in vain to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation § 4. This is a great point and he doth well to handle it diligently His explication of it is this p. 382. 1. The Church hath the power of the Keys True but not as he and the Brownists say The whole Church but only the Pastors 2. They may baptize capable subjects No doubt of it 3. Infants are capable subjects Answ But what Infants All or some Is this our satisfaction If it be All Infants then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right when the Parents have none Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force When even Aquinas and other Papists say that Children may not be baptized against the Parents wills I have elsewhere at large proved 1. That Baptism is but the sealing of the Covenant and the delivering of possession by Ministerial Investiture and not the first gift or condition of our right to Christ and his benefits 2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-consent are the Conditions which Baptism after solemnly expresseth 3. That if a true penitent believing consenter die without Baptism he is saved and if tâ—…ptized adult die without faith repentance and heart-consent he is damned 4. That therefore all the adult must have an entitling condition to give them right first initially coram Deo to pardon of sin and then to be baptized which solemnly delivereth their full right before they can be lawfully baptized 5. That God dealeth not so differently with Infants and Adult as to require conditions of right in the later and none in the former as if they were all born with right 6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their seed and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers And that if both Parents be Infidels the Children are unclean but else they are holy And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World confoundeth not their Childrens case This I have fully proved in my Disp of Original sin and Treat of right to Sacraments 7. That Baptism sealeth and delivereth to the qualified subject the present pardon of sin and right to Christ and life as to adopted Children of God And therefore there must be some reason and proof of a right to it more than all Infants in the world have 8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptism and speaking feignedly in their name that giveth them right to a sealed pardon and salvation It must be one that can prove himself entitled to represent the Child which none can that cannot say He is my own 9. If it were otherwise Atheists Infidels wicked men though Baptized could give no right to the sealed pardon or to the Investiture in a state of life to which they have no right themselves And if they represent no better Parents as such they can give them no right save coram Ecclesia when they are not infideles judicati 10. Nor doth it suffice to an Infants right that the Minister or Church be Christians Therefore to tell us that Infants are right subjects signifieth nothing till either 1. He tell us what Infants 2. Or prove that all Infants have right which he can never do And if he could I would easily prove that all dying Infants are saved whether Baptized or not As I can prove that true Christian Infants are § 5. While he gives us not the least satisfaction of Infants Right he tells us of difficulties on the other side if we lay it on Parents or Owners right And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions which the Reader will be loth I should digress to try having done it so largly in my Christ Direct and Treat of Right to Sacraments 2. He nameth the qualification which I â—â—â—rt A profession of the Christian faith not invalidated and saith nothing to disable it but that Others will reject it Others wild Opinions named goes for my Confutation And now I desire the Reader to see the Catalogue of the things we account sinful in Conformity in my first Plea for Peace and try how many of them the Doctor hath so much as meddled with And whether he think by these few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful or our Preaching unlawful or our Communion with those Christians who are not of his mind herein unlawful If he say again that he meddleth not with Ministers Conformity but the Peoples 1. Note how he hath passed by even the greatest things also in their case 2. Whether he meddle not with the Ministers case who seeketh to prove their preaching unlawful and so perswades them to be silent 3. Whether their case should not be so far meddled with as to prove the things which they think sinful to be lawful or their preaching unnecessary before the endeavours used against them well known be justified as needful to the Churches Peace CHAP. XIII Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth § 1. WHat advantage to the Drs. Cause the three Letters of the French Divines annexed can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer sounds and shews I know not But could we know these things following we might better understand the judgment of the Writers Quest 1. Whether he that sought their judgment did make them understand what all our present Impositions and Acts of Conformity are and what alterations are made in the Church of England since the beginning of Bishop Lands power 2. Whether he made them truly understand the difference between the ancient Episcopacy and the English Diocesan frame in all its parts 3. Whether he did put the Case as about Subscribing â—â— Declaring Covenanting or Swearing Assent and Consent to all things and practising accordingly or only of living in Communion with them which do such things 4. Whether he put the case as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things or as denying Communion in the rest which are lawful 5. Whether he made them understand that we are ipso facto excommuncate by their Canon for telling our judgment 6. Whether he made them understand that it was about 2000 Ministers that were silenced and what men are in many of their places and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them and what men they are and what they did to prevent all our divisions 7. Whether he made them understand what measure of Communion we
I take it to be a wrong to those that I would preserve to extenuate the danger of the snare or poyson on pretence of gentleness to the Writer But I deal with the Cause and desire none to hate the person nor would I diminish the honour due to him for his parts or vertues but rather have all men love and magnifie all the good while they dislike the evil and would save the Reader at as easie a rate to the Writer as I can But that he should not be related to his false or sinful words or deeds is not in my power to effect But though I repent not of necessary truth if I any where mistake or speak more truth than is profitable or in language by sharpness more apt to do hurt than good of this I repent and ask forgiveness of God and man As I do if I speak so short of truth as with Eli to make sin seem smaller than it is And now I hope you will love your own duty of Repentance better than another mans and will not be angry if I seek to help it 1. Do you not perceive that while you paint the Dr. as an incredible raging distracted lyar and praise his repentance for rash words of others that you commit the same rashness your self against him If you cannot see your own face let any impartial Reader be your glass and ask him whether you do not that which you are condemning 2. You seem to vindicate the Book called the Friendly Debate I shall shortly further tell you of somewhat in it to be repented of And if partiality made not repentance a very difficult work you would have no need herein of a Monitor But you may think me partial though I acknowledg your civilities to me I can shew you a Manuscript of one both impartial and truly judicious even the late Judge Hale expressing so great dislike of that Debate and the Eccl. Policy as tending to the injury of Religion it self that he wisheth the Authors would openly profess that they write for themselves and no more so abusively pretend it is for Religion 3. You say in this Picture that If L. du Moulin had that honest zeal in him to which he pretends he would have handled Mr. Baxter as smartly c. Answ There may be other reasons than want of honest zeal But do you not here shew that it is the persons more than his act that offended you in his reproof Could you judge it honest zeal had it been to others pag. 16. 4. You say p. 17. He hath something of the Nonconformists in him and for that reason he spareth him Answ Do not Nonconformists differ from Erastians Did not I write against his opinion of Church-Government And did he not bear 22 years ago when Conformity was not in our Controversies 5. You say of the party that come nearest the doctrine of Calvinists and Puritans though you say you mean such as D. M. your Reader must suppose you mean the Nonconformists that they are the true Causes of all our present evils For the late War was raised by the very best of you c. If you mean as you seem it 's somewhat extraordinary to perswade men to believe this in the same Land and Age that the War was raised in And for one to do this that had the first General of the Horse in the Earl of Essex Army his Patron a few doors from him and the Lord Hollis a Colonel nearer him till lately and the Lord President of his Majesties Privy-Council a Colonel not far off him and many more known Conformists who could all quickly have satisfied him how few Nonconformists were Members of Parliament or Commanders in the Army when the War began and that it was betwnen two parties of Conformists that the Wars began as I have proved against Mr. Hinkley and can fullier do when there is need Which party is most obliged to repentance you may dispute with those that are fit for it But if your intimation be untrue it is of another nature and degree than any of Dr. Moulins I confess one party did in many Parliaments before and in that accuse Bishop Laud and his new followers 1. Of Innovations 2. Of Arminianism 3. Of promoting absolute arbitrary Government against the Subjects Property and Liberty 4. And of promoting Popery But if this party were not Conformists of the Church of England the Bishops Clergy and Gentry were not the Church in Arch-bishop Abbots days before Bishop Laud. As to the Reasons of their accusations and the publishing the Articles for Toleration in order to the Sp. and Fr. Match c. I pass them by But because you may say some such think of me as you do of D. M. for what I say in my search for the Schismaticks I only add 1. That I hope we may transcribe mens own words 2. And may judge that there is some difference between the Bishops that judged the Pope Antichrist c. and those that would have us as the way to unity to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis and the first 6 or 8 General Councils and that say our concord must be in obeying unum Collegium Pastorum ruling the whole Church per literas formatas and that say the Roman Church is a true Church but so are none of the Reformed that have not Bishops and a continued successive Ordination by such A Copy of a Letter written by Mr. Lewis Du Moulin to the Worthy Dr. Tho. Coxe With the Drs. Answer occasioned by some Reports that concerned Dr. Lewis Du Moulin Worthy Sir KNowing the natural inclination you have to oblige all men and the perticular experience I have of your unwearied goodness to my person and family did incourage me to write both before and now The occasion of both was the Reports spread abroad of my Father being informed you had made him the object of your Care during his sickness I rejoyced that Providence had ordered it so that a Person of your approved worth and Integrity was concerned about him I shall not trouble you with the Relations Fame has brought into this Country but shall only desire to know how he died Was there any advantage taken of his weakness of body or mind How far did his Reported Recantation extend Reach'd it to any material thing of his Tenets or only in reference to personal Reflections This is what is humbly desired by Honoured Sir Your most Humble and obliged Servant Lewis Du Moulin From my House at Malton in Yorkshire October the 7th 1680. The Drs. Answer to Mr. Lewis Du Moulin Sir I Had not delayed to return an Answer to your first Letter had I known how to direct mine to you which indeed I had forgotten how to do This is therefore to let you know that your Father my honourèd Friend Dr. Du Moulin Dyed as he had Lived a truly pious man a great hater of the Romish Superstition and of so