in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about church-Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
the Government of Churches we deny not tho' we deny that they had that Office or any part of it but then the question is whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them had that Government by themselves or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters unless the Dr. prove the former he speaketh not to the point None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself Iren. p. 308. to wit That not Bishops alone but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian Ierom and Ignatius Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters as some alledge And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted or was read in the Ancient Church We do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop and in other things to be observed in our progess In order to makeing out what he alledgeth he proposeth two things to be enquired into Sect. 12. First What power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops have â—ver them For the first he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church and that because they have a place in the convocation where rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and forms of Service are determined How small a matter this is tho' the Dr. aggravateth it I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbyassed and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation it consisteth of two Houses in the upper House are only Bishops and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing they can reject it that is 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel have no more power then any other 25 of near 9000 so many Churchs are reckoned in England take to themselves as much power as all these Then for the lower House of the Convocation it is made up of Presbyters indeed as the Dr. saith but many if not most of them such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have as Deans Arch-deacons and other Cathedral Officers here also the Presbyters are bereaved of that party of power that is their due besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted often not above two or four in a Diocess If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops and their Creatures in the Convocation let any judge He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination or giving Orders as he calleth it to wit That by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to asist the Bishop and are to examine the persons to be ordained or the Bishop in their presence and to join the Imposition of hands Here also their power is swallowed up for all the rest have equal power with these four yea with the Bishop himself which is wholly taken out of their hands and managed at the Bishops pleasure who chuseth these four beside that this is really if ever practised the person is usually examined or said to be so by the Bishops Chaplain and the Bishop layeth his hands on him Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topicks The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter to wit Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency saith the Dr. had both these been if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop A goodly Argument some think it a great Impertinency and Boldness too in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction as to any part of Church Power between a Presbyter and a Bishop His next topick is the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office and greatness of the Charge calleth them Pastors that they are to Teach Premonish and Feed and provide for the Lords Family c. This indeed implyeth their Preaching Power but there is not a word of Ruling Power which the Lord joyned with it but the Bishops do separate them and for all this saying over their cold â—esson at the Solemnity the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by vertue of this Ordination without License so that their Ruleing Power is taken away and their Preaching Power restraineâ— at the Bishops pleasure This is a crossing of Christs Institution who made them equal neither is it any more wonder that the Bishops practice should cross his own Exhortation then that he should cross the Scripture read on that occasion His third Topick is the ordained Persons Oath to miâ—ister Word and Sacraments and Discipline as this Realm hath received the same Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned but the following words shew the meaning for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers into whose hands he put it but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less then I say when he saith That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop I hope the Reader will by this time see that the Presbyters in the Church of England have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government than that which Christ Instituted or the purer primitive times knew Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth is Sect. 13. to shew what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration which he placeth in Government Ordination and Censures and he saith the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind that she did believe so I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it but the contrary I have proved above wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves and therefore there was no Bishop but Bishâ—ps and Presbyters were one but as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be setled in the several Churchs whom the Apostles setled some sooner some later if which saith he we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus And by this he would reconcile the
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
mind Also Augustine naming Eracius his Successor addeth this express caution si Ecclesia Consentiat and declareth hoc esse receptum provatumque jus consuetudine ut tota Ecclesia sibi elegat Episcopum aut in ipsum consentiat Hierom Ep. ad rustic Monachum Foll 292. cum ad perfectam aeâ—atem veneris si tamen vita comes fuerit â—e vel populis vel pontifâ—x Civitate Elegerint agito quae Clerici St. He supposeth it as the received practice that the People should elect Ambros. Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit a tota Ecclesia vere certo est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi Many more Citations might be added but these may suffice and abundance more may be seen append ad Catalog Test. veritat where this right of the People is deduced from the Days of the Apostles to the Eigth Century by Testimonies out of all sorts of Authors That Author taketh notice of this as an ordinary Clause in many of the Epistles which Tinemeras Archbishop of Rhemes in the Reign of Charlemain ab omnibus debet eligi cui debet ab omnibus obediri Sect. 9. I shall now attend to what the Learned Dr. hath to say in the contrary of this right of the People so divinely appointed so anciently universally and long approved He discourseth these three things to this purpose 1. What inherent Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficâ—ent Ground to resume it One would think that if this Power be from Christ his other two parts of his discourse mighâ— have been spared For who then could take it from them And they always had a Right to resume it being unjustly deprived of it As to the first of these his debate with Dr. O. about the Peoples church-Church-Power and the Government of the Church being Democriâ—al I medle not with we plead for this power in them not all church-Church-power But he cometh Sect. 25. to this power of Election for disproving of which he undertaketh to make out six things I shall examine them in order But I think it had been more to the purpose to have answered the Scriptures and Testimonies out of Antiquity alledged by the opposites which he hath not done The First of these is That the main ground of the Peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Ans. I have produced other grounds and not made this either the main or any ground of this Right of the People for indeed that passage of Scripture doth direct the Electors but doth not determine who should Elect. I deny not but some of the Ancients made use of that Scripture to this purpose but they made use of others also and having established the Truth on other Grounds they might well apply this place as spoken to the People to direct them how to manage that power of Elâ—ction that the Lord had given them This is a sorry Shift to shun the Dint of Arguments to pitch on that which is either no Argument or a weak one and to set up that as the only Argument and so by beating it down to Triumph Sect. 10. He bringeth a passage out of Clem. on which he taketh a great deal of pains to make it speak for him contrary to the manifest design of it The passage is The Apostles Preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint the first Fruites having made a Spiritual Tryal of them to be Bishops and Deacons The Apostles foresaw the Contentions that would be about the Name of Episcopacy i. e. saith the Dr. about the choice of Bishops therefore they appointed the Persons mentioned and left the Distribution of their Office with this Instruction that as some dyed other approved Men should be chosen into their Office These therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the Church being therewith all pleased discharging their Office with Humility cannot be justly put out of their Office. A Man of less learning than the Dr. might easily draw the quite contrary Conclusion from these words of Clement but it will require all his Skill and more too to conclude from them against popular Election But thus he argueth They were to be appointed by the Apostles therefore not of the Peoples choice Ans. Non sequitur The Deacons were appointed by the Apostles Act 6. 3. yet the People are to look out from among them i. e. to chuse and the Apostles to appoint them i. e. set them apart for their work Many other Instances may be given yet this Argumentation the Dr. useth again pag. 315. as if it were a mighty Argument He saith it seems some of the People were Contentious and endeavoured to throw out some of their Officers which occasioned this Ep. Ans. This Ep. is clear that the People may not cast out their Officers doing their Work in Humility but not a Word in it against their Electing of them but clearly to the contrary in these words the whole Church being therewith well pleased implyeth that it is not to be done without them and what Hand they can have in placing their Officers that doth not amount to Election I know not He saith they took this course of Purpose to avoid Contentions What course doth he mean It cannot be meant of Obtruding Officers on the Church for he saith they must be well pleased Therefore the Course must be appointing Officers Authoritatively by Ordination who being so appointed could not be ejected again quemdiu se bene gesserunt as appeareth by Clem. instancing the Blossoming of Arons Rod to put an end to the Emulation among the Tribes which was a Strife not about Election but about changing of the setled Officers of the Church He saith all that the People had to do was to give their Testimony Clem. saith they must be well pleased And it is clear that that excludeth obtruding â—astors on people either by Patrons or the Magistrate or Bishop He saith it seems probable to him that the reason of the Faction among them was that some represented it as a Grievance that those Officers were appointed by others not chosen by them Why this should seem to him I know not except that prejudice representeth things otherwise than they are as coloured Spectacles do It seemeth to me there could be no such thought among the People because Clement supposeth the Officers to have been chosen by themselves the whole Church being well pleased That these Factious Men had no Objection against the Presbyters themselves the Dr. Asserts but he doth not prove It is true Clem. supposeth there was no Ground for Objection and therefore they could not be cast out while they were humble quiet ready and blamless but for all that Factious Men will find fault and pick quarrels with the most innocent men Sect. 11. He next bringeth Cyprian to plead against popular Election that is to
A Rational Defence OF Non-conformity WHEREIN THE Practice of NON CONFORMISTS IS Vindicated from Promoting Popery and Ruining the CHURCH imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of Separation ALSO His Arguments from the Principles and Way of the Reformers and first Dissenters are Answered And the Case of the present Separation truly stated and the blame of it laid where it ought to be And the way to Union among Protestants is pointed at By GILBERT RULE Minister of the Gospel Ezek. XLIII 10 11. Thou Son of Man shew the House to the House of Israel that they may be ashamed of their Iniquities and let them measure the pattern c. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the House and the fashion thereof c. LONDON Printed for Iohn Salusbury at the Rising Sun near the Royal-Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXIX THE PREFACE THE fierce Contentions of this Age about the Mint and Annise and Cummin of Religion I mean Religious Ceremonies that men have devised and imposed hath in a great measure hindered people from minding with that application that becometh the weightier things of the Law to wit the love of God and of our Neighbour and due regard to the promoting of true holiness and the Salvation of mens Souls the heavy Sufferings of many in England and in Scotland for not complying with such things as their imposing Task-masters did not so much as pretend to give Scripture warrant for are too notorious to be denied and too smarting to be forgotten How many thousands have been put on this sad Dilemma either to wound their Consciences or to be destroyed by taking away their Estates Liberties Livelihood and life it self But now the Lord in his infinite wisdom and tender mercy to an undeserving generation having by some late Revolutions first broken the Yoak of the Oppressors and made them for some time taste a little of the Cup that they had made their brethren drink deeply of and then gratiously and wonderfully delivered both contending parties from that utter ruine that was manifestly impending and made us like them that Dream'd and done exceeding abundantly for us above what we could think out done our faith as was foretold Luk. 18. 8. He hath by this surprising providence laid an Obligation on all Protestants and they who are such in earnest will mind it to turn to the Lord from every evil way that hath been in their heart or hand and particularly to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace to endeavour to speak and do the same things and where that cannot be attained through want of light and other sinful disorders of the Soul not easily nor soon removed without that pouring out of the Spirit from on high promised Isa. 33. 15. and else where which we should daily and earnestly pray and wait for To bear with one another in Love. They who know no other way to Unity but Uniformity will for ever miss of their design unless either all men were perfect in knowledge and wholly freed from irregular passions or Conscience were wholly laid to sleep and its use banished out of the World. Toward this blessed end peace among Protestants sober reasoning between Dissenting Parties may have some usefulness even Eristick Writings may prove Irenick if managed and read with that Spirit that becometh the gospel that is with due love to truth and peace and if I did not judge this book to be of that tendency I should never consent that it should see the light The Apostle giveth us two excellent directions for attaining this end Phil. 3. 16. beside the duty of forbearing one another till the Lord clear mistakes to them who are out of the way which he doth more than insinuate ver 15. but alas even about these ways to peace we contend as will appear in this Treatise Yet in my opinion the Apostle doth there clearly hold forth that there is a rule to which all are obliged to conform their actions and principles and particularly Church Administrations Let us walk by the same rule In all reason this rule must be Divine in that it is here generally injoyned to be minded and that by all Christians Is it imaginable that the Apostle intendeth to oblige all the Churches to take a rule of mans making for directing them how they shall please God Besides Church or humane Canons never were or are like to be the same in all Churches nor indeed can they of the things that are left to the Church to order at her discretion that which is fit in one place may be most unfit in another Wherefore if the Apostle had aimed at these he would have spoken of Rules not a rule We have then cause to think that the way to Church peace is to take the Word of God for the rule by which all the affairs of his House should be ordered If we would enjoyn nothing peculiar to Religion to be observed but what is warranted there And would not be too busie in making Canons for determining these things that are Extrinsick to Religion its Rites common to it with other solemn actions further than necessity requireth and in these determinations keep within the bounds of the general directions of the Word of God If we would do all things in the Church decently and in order and then make nothing such by our Will and Authority but enjoyn the Observation of these things that Scripture hath declared to be such or nature and civil custom hath made such If we would content our selves with that decency and order that was in the Apostolick Church Our Controversie would soon be at an end It is true even where Scripture is taken for the rule there might be some different apprehensions about the meaning of this rule what it enjoyneth but they who sincerely seek the mind of God in his words and depend on him for the light of his Spirit readily will either find what they seek or will soberly and peaceably differ from their brethren But when this rule is laid aside and mans wisdom must injoyn what is fit in God's Worship even though they be Learned Wise and Holy men and in authority in the Church yet not infallibly guided and much more when any of these Qualities are wanting there can hardly he an end of controversie it will be hard to set bounds to their multiplicity of which the Popish Church is a fatal Witness and hard to bring them to an end by composing them unless blind obedience be asserted at least as to some things And how many things these shall be who knoweth The other Direction that the Apostle giveth in that place is let us mind the same things Vnity in design is very conducive to Vnity in Heart and Practice When all have one end before them they will the more readily fall into the same way leading to that end as when many are travelling to the
Sect. 10. Yea the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. foretelling the Antichristian Apostacy v. 3. telleth us That that Mystery of iniquity did then work v. 7. This Allegation the learned Dr. putteth off with a Scoff p. 17. but we must not therefore part with it It is evident that there was then a tendency among some of the Members of the Christian Church to several of these Evils which being grown up to Maturity of Wickedness Antichristianism was afterwards made up not to speak of the gross Heresies that then were and others that were foretold Act. 20. 29 30. The Ambition of Diotrephes was a fermenting toward Lordly Prelacy 3 Joh. ver 9. So was the Idolizing of some Ministers among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3. 4. So the turning aside to the Jewish Ceremonies a carnal gawdy sort of Religion not contented with the simplicity of Gospel-Worship for which the Galatians are reproved Gal. 4. 9. The worshipping of Angels voluntary Humility subjection to Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Will-Worship Col. 2. 18. Forbidding of Meats and Marriage 1 Tim. 4. 3. and in a word the turning the Spiritual Religion of GOD into a Carnal outward Shew All these I say was a working toward the vile Superstitions that afterward grew up under the Antichristian Apostasy of which our Ceremonies are some Remains Now if there was such a secret working of such Evils in that time is it any wonder that some unallowable practices should be in the Church soon after the Apostles and be little taken notice of Sect. 11. And this is yet less to be wondred at if we consider the defects and uncertainty of the History of the Church in Times next after the Apostles as it was in the first Times of the Church before the Law which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dies inanitatis because of the want of the Light of History It was little better with the Christian Church at first We have very little distinct account of her Order and what we have is but in some things not so full as to enable us to pass a Judgment with Confidence of all their Practices in Church-Administrations It is no good Argument there is no mention of Dissent from or Non-conformity to the Church-practices of the First Times â—rgo there was none especially considering that the Writers of those Times who were glorious Lights yet Men and subject to mistakes and passions would not readily give account of what might make against their own practices And it can be made appear that the best of the Church Guides after the Apostles were in mistakes greater than what we now scruple at But the early Degeneracy of the Christian Church which our Author thinks it so absurd to imagine is witnessed by the most ancient History and nearest to these Times Eusebius lib. 3. c. 29. relating out of Egesippus the Martyrdom of Simon Son of Cleopas second Bishop of Jerusalem who had seen the Lord and was his Cousin Germain he addeth that After that the Sacred Company of the Apostles were worn out the Church having before been a pure Viâ—gin the Conspiracy of detestable Errors through Deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine took rooting c. If Heresie so soon got head what Absurdity is it to think that lesser Evils might early prevail This may be also proved in reference to the Rites used in the Church how early there was a degeneracy in these out of Irenaeus who lived in the second Century Epist. ad Victor Episc. Rom. Quae varietas observantiae pascatis jejuniorum non 〈◊〉 primum neque nostris temporibus caepit sed multo aute nos ut opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum decidere Where it is evident that Irenaeus imputeth such negligence and unskilfulness even to the First Age and nearest to the Apostles if not in the days of some of them as made them fall from Christs Institution in some things The consideration of all which maketh me wonder at the Confidence of the learned Author who saith that So sudden and insensible a Change of the Church is so incredible that they that think it could be may on the same Grounds believe that other parts of Popery did as soon prevail That this Change did soon prevail we believe not but that it might we see no Absurdity in it and for other parts of Popery we can tell when most of them begun and therefore are not obliged from the Antiquity of one part of it to acknowledge the same of another neither is there any Inconveniency in asserting that these Mistakes crept in insensibly Seeing the Apostle speaketh of them as a Mystery that was long working before it came above-board What he saith of humane Policies keeping long to their first Institution maketh little to his purpose both because the contrary is most frequently observed they often degenerate and that unobserved by the Vulgar through the Cunning of Statesmen and because corrupt Nature is not so apt to deviate from Humane Constitutions as from those that are Divine Few Politick Frames have been so often and quickly and easily changed as the Religious Worship of the Jews was in the time of the Judges and Kings I hope by this time it will appear that the Principles of the Church's Enemies so he falsly calleth the Non-conformists who are no Enemies to the Church but to her humane Ceremonies bringeth no such mighty prejudice on the Cause of the Reformation as he with confidence inferreth from what he had discoursed for we neither own such Antiquity in the Ceremonies nor if we did would that inferr the Antiquity of Popery in its grosser parts Sect. 12. He again chargeth his Adversaries that They must forgo the Testimony of Antiquity and that by so doing they run into insuperable Difficulties in dealing with the Papists which his Principles do lead through for they can justly charge Popery as Innovation And to that purpose citeth Bishop Sanderson p. 6. In answer to him and the Bishop too We say 1. That we do not forgo the Testimony of Antiquity though we do not Idolize it as some do we will not be concludâ—d by it against Scripture and not often without Scripture but take its help to search into the Mind of God revealed in His Word It s greatest Admirers must needs forgo it sometimes both Papists and Prelatists and the ancient Authors themselves do not seldom disown all Authority in them or any men to determine in the Controversies of Religion But I shall not digress into this Debate What Weight is to be laid on Antiquity it is enough at present that we deny and our Adversaries have not proved nor shall they ever be able to prove that Bishops and Ceremonies are so ancient as they affirm them to be what Instances he intendeth or can give from his present Adversaries the Non-conformists that they
for they all stand on one bottom to wit that they are not instituted but more of this in its due place For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow His Reasons in their place we shall Consider What he saith of the Crossing the Baptized Party I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it wherefore I answer That tho' it be the Ministers Action yet it is the Parties or his Representatives passion and that Personal It cannot be done on my Person or my Child 's without my Consent and Submission as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me I am culpable in reference to that Superstition So it is in this case Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon I am wholly a stranger to and can pass no Judgment on it but if this be as he saith it is no way to be justified But he should not charge the party with this There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike And if we should trouble the world with such publick Resentments of the same kind of dealings and worse that we and our way have met with and Daily do meet with not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party but from Pulpits and the Press not by the baser Phamphelteers only but famous Authors witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery we might write Books abundance His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say in that he representeth us as Depravers Raillers Back-bâ—ters Inventors of Lyes and spreaders of false Rumors and that of the best deserving men if they but come short of pleasing our humour Sect. 38. The Dr. next p. 59. taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries which I shall not stay to Consider Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness that he complaineth he hath received Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man will applaud his severe strain And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him I know not but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so dispised and his VVriting Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust it is neither so Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text of the Dr's Sermon he now waveth as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity which I think might have passed as Forreign to this purpose Sect. 39. One of his Antagonists p. 71. chargeth him with changableness in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum about which he maketh Diverse Apologies A change in this Learned Man is too visible and if it had been to the better it had not been Culpable but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Church-way I shall not meddle in that matter at this time Especially a change being upon the matter acknowledged by himself p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over That he had Asserted in his Irenicum that if others cast them wholly out of Communion then is their Separation necessary which he would reconcile with what he here writeth p. 47. by shewing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England for saith he Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication which he confesseth publick defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under ipso facto by the Canons but that it layeth on no Obligation till duely Executed But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema All this is very little to the present purpose for if we be all ipso facto Excommunicated and if this Excommunication be most frequently as it is Executed against us and capias's issued out commonly against us and all this for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity as he calleth it by these means we are de facto put in such a Case as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them and therefore we must either live without Gods Ordinances or have them out of Communion with their Church Again he Alledgeth p. 75. that he could not mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determineth That in the case of our Church men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it Neither doth this help the Matter for if we think as we do that we are bound in Conscience not to submit to all the Orders of the Church some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God and if for this Opinion and suitable Practice to it we be so excommunicated as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church then we are cast wholly out of the Church and our Separation must be Lawful on the ground that of old he had laid down But pag. 76. He would in that case allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion but not to proceed to a positive Separation But if we make use of his Allowance the Church who is of another mind putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances What can we then do but either live without them or proceed to that which he is pleased to call a positive Separation We are not convinced that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad for all the Letters that he mentioneth of which in their place And it is a rash Assertion which he knoweth cannot be Tried pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the unlawfulness of the present Separation He our Author maketh good the saying Quod misere volumus id facile credimus any man that hath seen the Vniformity in almost all things that is between our mode of Worship and their's and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England The excellent
to Infallibility Were it not easie to name many more men of all these excellent qualities who have had their Navi The laying such weight on men hath been an useful tool to build up Antichristian Babel bâ— taking People off from eyeing Scripture Authority in the matters of Christ and putting that of Men in its room Doth the Dr. thing it strange that a dissenting Artifiâ—er a term suited to that Contempt of Non-conformists that his Book is full of should be in the right when one more Holy and Learned than he is in the wrong especially in things of that moment that the Ceremonies are of For I look on it as taunting not disputing to talk of the mighty importance of the Ceremonies to the Souls of Men the Beams of Vnlawfulness in them of which a Mote could not be seen by the Reformers we count them of such Importance as a tender Conscience ought to refuse them and yet not of such mighty Importance as many other things are We see a Mâ—te not Beams of unlawfulness in them whatever our Ancestors thought of them Neither is this because of a dark and Jewish Dispensation that they were under while all the clear Gospel-Light of Division and Separation is reserved for our Times as the Author pleasantly dreams that we think they were not so favoured with a general Sun-shine of Light as we are Popish Darkness being then but going away But for the Light of Division and Separation we look on it as gross Darkness and leave it to our imposing Brethren who cause the Division Neither was it the Reformer's want of Zeal for Religion but want of Light and Zeal against Ceremonies that caused their different Practice from â—urs they Burnt for the former not for the latter Neither is it strange that they should have no suspicion of the unlawfulness of these things when they went to suffer seeing these things never were controverted between them their Persecutors Was it never heard of that true Martyrs had Mistakes that were extrinsick to that on which their Sufferings were stâ—ted What he citeth out of Jacob the Non-conformist against Johnson the Separatist p. 7. doth not touch our Case for the Separatistâ— that then were went on other Grounds than we do of which after and if Mr. Jacob used some Arguments that were ill grounded lâ—t him answer for it Sect. 13. As to the Historical Account that he giveth Sect. 3. of the English Exiles in Queen Mary's Reign at Frankford and elsewhere I shall not controvert it only I shall make a few Animadversions on it having first in general noted That it is no wonder nor is it argumentative against us who take Scripture not Mens Opinions for our Rule that they who in England were inured to that less-pure way of Worship did cleave to it abroad till by seeing and learning away more consonant to Scripture they fell in with that And it is as little to be wondred at that some gave more pliable Ears to the right way that they were instructed in in strange places and others clave more obstinately to that they had been bred with we know what a prejudice Education causeth and heâ—câ— arose those Contests that he mentioneth If he could prove as he cannot that all the Non-conformity that is in England was brought from beyond Sea he saith nothing unless he also prove that it was not brought out of the Scripture We must not reject every thing in Religion that is not of English Original lest we by so doing throw off both Christianity and Protestantism Sâ—ct 10. In particular I first take notice of what he saith p. 8. These English Exiles with the People in all other places Geneva excepted kept to the Orders established in our Church Here is a notable Falshood to wit That all the Exiles kept to the Orders of the Church of England himself excepteth those at Frankford and Mr. Fuller above-cited telleth us of a Party of Non-conformists before that time in England headed by Rogers and Hooper no doubt some of them fled from the Marian Persecution and it is not probable they would use the Ceremonies that here grieved them when they were under no Law to â—ompel them Another thing that I take notice of is He challengeth Mr. Baxter for saying That at Frankford the Contest was between them who were for the English Liturgy and them who were for a more free way of Praying but I see not how this is disproved by him the Confirmation of it may be rather gathered from the Accompt he giveth of these Debates p. 9. to wit that when the Magistrates first required them not to dissent from the French in Doctrine or Ceremonies and then took off that restraint Yet they altered the English order and brought it nearer to the French Model which we know doth not impose a Liturgy nor restrain free Prayer but at most proposeth a Directory wherein are some set Forms as helps to them that need them To say that those who laid aside the Responses Litany and Surplice â—â—d many other things were still for the English Liturgy is to speak at random But he omitteth a material passage because it maketh against him with which Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 8. p. 27. supplieth us out of the same History that the Dr. citeth to wit The Troubles at Frankford That they laid aside the Liturgy Surplice and other Ceremonies in Service and Sacraments both as superfluous and superstitious wherein then did they differ from Non-conformists Sect. 14. He saith p. 9. That the Question among them was not Whether a Liturgy or not but whether the Order of Divine Service was not to be accommodated as much as might be to the French. This is to confess that they did not contend for the English Liturgy as he telleth us some others did who were dissatisfied with their deserting of it But I further Assert That the Controversy was between a Liturgy and Directory to wit between the way of England and that of the French Protestants who have no Liturgy but as other Protestant Churches had an order of publick worship for directing unqualified Ministers such many behoved to be in the beginning of Reformation from Popery to the set Forms in which they were not tied whom the Lord had competently gifted for the Work of the Ministry So as in the best Reformed Churches these Directories were by Degrees disused as Crutches are by a Lame Man as he recovereth the use of his Limbs p. 10. He telleth us of some resolute Conformists at Zurick and Strasburg who were earnest with the Non-conformists at Frankford We deny not that there were such among them who suffered for Protestantism What those of Frankford say p. 10. of not defacing King Edward 's Laws must be understood of Laws for the Protestant Religion not of those for Ceremonies otherwise it had been protestatio contraria facto and p. 11. Their not dissenting from their Brethren wholly at the ransom of their Lives for
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
imposing of them His reason of this is not so clear to wit Where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary Care and Judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of the things required And there is no plain prohibition he saith of the Liturgy and Ceremonies We deny the imposing the Liturgy and Ceremonies to be as much in mens power as is the determining of Circumstances of Time and Place and such-like We deny also that men with the best Care and Judgment can see the lawfulness of every thing imposed in the Worship of God for of such things we now discourse that is not plainly prohibited For What if they be prohibited tho' not plainly It is too great peremptoriness to take upon us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak in Scripture if He expects Obedience from us the Dr. was in this strain also in his Irâ—nicum if we have any hint of His Will tho' never so obscurely so as we can understand that it is the Mind of God we are obliged to obey it Again we deny that want of either obscure or plain Prohibition is good ground to satisfie us about Religious Ceremonies that they are lawful though imposed by men It is enough that they are not commanded nor instituted Will Worship is condemned in Scripture and Can it be denied that what is not commanded tho' it be not plainly forbiddâ—n is Will-Worship And What Argument will the Dr. bring against most of the Popish Ceremonies but that they are not commanded Where is the plain Prohibition of them Sect. 5. Further we say That the Liturgy and Ceremonies are plainly enough forbidden tho not in particular yet in general terms The Traditions of men in Gods Worship are plainly forbidden Mat. 15. 7 8 9. Mark 7. 6 7 8. Gal. 4. 9 10 11. Col. 2. 20. which Scriptures and other Arguments proving them to be forbidden by God have been so fully managed against his Party without any Answer as may let the world see that neither Ordinary Care nor Judgment hath been wanting to find out the lawfulness of such Impositions and yet we cannot find it I shall not now repeat what I have elsewhere said to this purpose but intend to answer what the Dr. will please to say in defence of these his Lawful Impositions Sect. 6. The Dr. is at some pains to prove that the prohibition of these is not in the Second Commandment But if he would have convinced us of our Error he should have proved that they are neither forbidden there nor elsewhere by giving satisfying Answers to all our other Arguments but he is pleased to insist only on our Argument from the Second Commandment and to that as he is pleased to frame it he giveth an Answer such as it is I observe some mistakes in his treating of this Argument 1. That he expecteth that the Liturgy and Ceremonies should have been forbidden in words if they be forbidden that is that they should have been expresly named Will he forbear no Sin but what is named in one of the Ten Commandments What will he say of Fornication Incest Rebellion against Kings c. May be he will say these are forbidden expresly in other parts of Scripture Ans. So are humane Inventions in God's Worship as hath been shewed And beside it were impertinent to deny Fornication to be forbidden in the Seventh Commandment because it is not named there tho' it be in other Scriptures Even so it is here yea I suppose the Dr. will not think that whatever is not named in Scripture as a Sin is no Sin mispending the Sabbath day in sleep idleness play c. advising or commanding one man to murder another and many things of that nature are not named in Scripture and yet comprehended under general prohibitions Sect. 7. 2. His Question is very absurd How shall we come by the sence but by the words He must mean the words of the second Commandment And then I answer That we could never by this way know the sence of the seventh Commandment Fornication is a Sin Nor by the words of the sixth Commandment could we know it is a Sin to say to our Brother Thou fool Wherefore hath the Spirit of God written so much more Scripture holding forth Sins and Duties if we are only to look to the bare words of the Ten Commandments for learning the preceptive or directive part of His revealed Will His Commands are exceeding broad Ps. 119. 96. and therefore we are to look for more understanding from them than the words by themselves can afford us Ezra and the Levites read the words to the People and gave the Sence Neh 8. 8. It is our Duty also to read it and enquire into the sence of it One useful means of coming by the sence of the Commandments is to consider how they were expounded by Christ enlarged on by the Prophets and Apostles injoining and forbidding things of the same nature with what the words of the Commands do express and in general we must compare Scripture with Scripture if we would understand the meaning of the several parts of it It is strange that the Dr. and his Paâ—ty should deal so unequally they take a great deal of Liberty to impose things on the Church of God from a very general Command Let all things be done decently and in order Which words they practise upon at their pleasure devising Rites for the Worship of God and bringing This to warrant them tho' they can bring no such sence out of the words as that Crossing Kneeling c. are lawful But if we scruple any of their Inventions we must be obliged to give words of Scripture where they are expresly forbidden Sect. 8. In the Third place When his opposites alledge certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments he asketh Whether they be divine or humane I again ask him Whether doth he own them as sound or reject them as fallacious But to his question I answer They are by men collected out of the Scripture and therefore have Divine Authority tho' the frame of them be Humane as the Dr's Sermons I do not mean that at Guild-hall are divine Truths and of divine Authority tho' of humane frame and composure 4. One of these Rules is That where any thing is forbidden something is commanded We chuse after the generality of Divines rather to express it thus That in every Negative Precept the contrary Duty is commanded And in the Affirmative Precept the câ—ntrary Sin is forbidden His Answer is There is here a Command to worship God without an Image A Logician would say this is still a Negative Command for here the matter of this Precept is expressed Negative All Protestant Divines agree that the matter of the Second Command is the mâ—dus of Divine Worship Divine Worship it self being commanded and what is contrary to it forbidden in the First Commandment Now though this preceptive proposition of the Dr's Worship God be set down
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
Apostles Others that it is wholly indifferent and may be received or not as is thought most expedient in several times and places and some of these say this is to be determined by the Church Others by the Magistrate This Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum asserteth but is very uncertain whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter One of the most Learned of our Adversaries Dr. Hammond holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion to wit that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church appointed by Christ or ordained by the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament and their Office but a device of Men or a constitution of the Church This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England the owning of which is required of us that we may judge aright of it we must have a true Idea of it and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ practised in the primitive Church with general approbation or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it First The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to and distinct Office from other Presbyters as appeareth not only from the power he hath and they have not and acts of Church-power reserved only to him but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter And yet further because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates or Curates and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters People and Flocks in the Diocess Secondly The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters Thirdly He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters Fourthly He may delegate this Power to whom he will whether Men Ordained to the Ministry or any of the people so that by this Delegation a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People Fifthly This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly They are not chosen to this Office by the Church but by the Magistrate and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a Bâ—shop as this in Scripture or Antiquity all that they say from either for an Episcopacy is short of the thing in question and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy unless they prove this Episcopacy Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered and I think never shall and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it The first shall be ad hominem against our learned Author By this Author's Doctrine there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters was Instituted Allowed or Exercised in the Church Ergo according to him it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it The Antithesis I prove If such a ground there be it must lie in one of these three if any asserters of it can add a fourth we shall quit this Argument either Christs appointing it in Scripture or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office or the practice of the Church shewing us what was Christs allowance But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter For the first he denyeth such an Institution asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel this is the basis of his Irenicum The second he never had the confidence to assert neither is the least hint in all the Scripture that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power For the third he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times or any way allowed Sect. 8. Our second Argument is There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church that are mentioned in the Bible neither in their Name nor Office nor Power nor Work nor Qualifications nor Respect or Obedience due to them nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered whence I thus Argue If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church he would have hinted some thing about this distinction but this he hath not done Ergo c. The first proposition I prove first Because this was needful for these distinct Officers that each might know his work And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters all these belonging to the Bishop 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church in their Names Qualifications Work and Office as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2 9. Also between Preaching Elders and those that are only Ruling Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters let them do it I hope none of them will say that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he either by affording him more respect or maintenance I suppose our Bishops will rather
confesseth that Sedulius Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam In Comment in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom because he was a Presbyter and no Bishop I hope they will allow us the like liberty to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them who themselves were Bishops and then let them reckon their Gain when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll. Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications and other Censures saith they are done in the Assemblies and that praesident probati quique seniores Clem. Alexandr Stromat lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common and every Assembly had its president with power of Discipline Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century when no little Deviation had been made from the right way yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked quia sine alicujus fratris consilio But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause was approved quia cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processit Ambros Ep. ad Syagrium And even Cyprian as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy as that age could bear Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine as a Witness of this Truth Ep. 19. ad Hieron Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit He maketh the Bishop Major not Lord over the Presbyter and even that Majority was but by the Custom of the Church not divine Ordinance and a custom that had now obtained was not always Also lib. quaest com he proveth from 1 Tim. 3. Bâ—shop and Presbyter to be one and saith quâ—d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter and this Oâ—eness he further sheweth because Bishops such as then were to wit in the beginning of the Fifth Century when the Order of the Church was much changed called the Presbyters Compresbyteri but never called the Deacons Condiaconi Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office but Deacons being distinct from them both The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3. homil 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt sola quippe ordinatione superiores illâ— sunt Bellarm. saith that Primasius Theophilactus and Oecumenius on that Text teach the same things and almost in the same words And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century the last in the Tenth or Eleventh The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this is not worth taking notice of to wit Chrysost. meaneth that Presbyters have jurisdiction as Bishops have but only by Commission from the Bishop This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse which is to shew an Identity of them as they are in themselves What he alledgeth out of this Citation that a Bishop may ordain not a Presbyter the learned Father's expression will not bear for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge or that the difference between them was only in order or precedency not in Power or any Authority or that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution but it can never signifie the power of ordaining for then Christ who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said potestate ordinandi not Ordinatione Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations which tho they be not â—oncludent in themselves being but humane Testimonies yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church The 1 is That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters lib. 4. dist 24. liter I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons because the primitive Church had only these and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment the rest were after appointed by the Church And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop Arch-Bishop c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins Horum autem disoretio saith he a gentilibus introducta videtur Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy The 2 Consideration is That the Waldenses Albigenses Wickliff and his Followers and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrinâ—s that the Protestants now profess were of a Parity among Presbyters and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops This is confessed by Medina and is not denyed by Bellarm and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders Priests and Deacons and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops where their Religion was suppressed The third thing that I offer to be considered is The observation of Spanhemius a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church in his Epitom Isagâ—g ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii as Tertul. de pudicitia c. 25. or only a reverence to their age and their conversing with the Apostles and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition SECT IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple on the forementioned grounds I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned to wit to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches in the times of Cyprian and Augustine and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations 1. That his phrase is ambiguous that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth
and Pious and Learned Sr. Matthew Hales in his Book of Schism hath this passage In times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions where Religious Assembling is dangerous private meetings howsoever beside publick Order are not only Lawful but they are of necessity and Duty All pious Assemblies in times of persecution and Corruption however practised are indeed or rather alone the Lawful congregations and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition Sest 40. He answereth an Objection pag. 77. That the Publishing of this Book is now unseasonable being a hindrance to the Vnion of Protestants to which there seemeth now to be a general Inclination He Alledgeth p. 78. that the principles of Non-conformists hinder that Vnion and lay a foundation for perpetual Divisions He knoweth that we will not own this and therefore proveth it as he thinketh On the principles laid down by some of the Dissenting Brethren Let the constitution be never so easie to themselves others may make use of their grounds and carry on the Difference as high as ever I wish he had told us what these grounds are But it is an Odd kind of Reasoning we will not endeavour Union with them who may be Tollerated because they who are not to be Tolerated will expect the same favour The ground on which we plead for forbearance is our Scruple about what you confess to be no Institution of Christ nor necessary duty we in our Conscience judge it unlawful and can shew good reason for our so judging How this ground can be Improved by any body to heighten Differences unless it be by the peremptoriness of them that will Impose such Things I do not understand He professeth to be for Vnion that will lessen differences and not weaken but strengthen the Protestant Religion Now let any judge whether the Union that is founded on the ground proposed be not such Sect. 41. He saith p. 97. That Vniversal Liberty differeth from Vnion as loosing from binding and it is strange if that which Papists lately thought the best Means to bring in Popery should now be lookt on as the most effectual way to keep it out Ans. We do not nor ever did plead for Vniversal Liberty which was that which no doubt Papists aimed at ergo nihil dictum But suppose saith he the Indulgence be at present strictly limitted to Dissenting Protestants we are not sure it will always continue so Will not the same Reasons as to Scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. be extended further when occasion serveth and Popery getteth footing on the Dissenters Grounds Ans. Were it not as rational for us to say Tho' we can now join with the Church of England in her present Ceremonies what know we how soon on the same grounds she may bring in all those of Popery Let us forbear evil surmising and mind our present Duty especially seeing the way to prevent this feared Evil is obvious to wit that no Indulgence be granted after but what there is as good Reason for and as little hazard from as is at present Neither do we plead for Indulgence meerly on the grounds of Sâ—ruple of Conscience or Suffering for Religion but on other grounds in conjunction with these as hath been a little above expressed It is like our Grounds may be comprehended in his wide-Bellied c. but if by it he means all grounds of Forbearance now may be extended to plead for an undue Toleration then all Forbearance of Christians that dissent in any thing must be unlawful which is contrary to the Scripture formerly mentioned and to the general Sentiments of all Christians except Papists whose Religion standeth by Blood and Cruelty Sect. 42. Where saith he hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater Harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Witness the state of the Northern Kingdoms compared with the number of Papists in the united Netherlands I can soon tell him where to wit under Episcopal Persecution of Protestants in Britain If this be a mistake these Nations have been for some Years in a Dream Again his Instance is wide from the purpose for we plead not for a Toleration of all sects and particularly not of Papists what Toleration is in the Netherlands themselves can best give account of He asserteth it impossible to keep out Popery where Toleration is allowed and I assert it as impossible to keep in Christianity in an impure Church where it is not allowed and yet there is no inconsistency between the two Assertions if we distinguish between a Limited Toleration which we plead for and one Vnlimited which he all along speaketh of To talk of Toleration thus without distinction is to walk in the Clouds and not descend to the thing in debate which is unbeseeming a Disputant Sect. 43. He bringeth Three Arguments p. 79 80. to prove his Assertion 1. Because of the various waies of creeping in under several Disguises which the Priests and Jesuits have and can never be prevented where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters and an unaccountable Church-power is allowed to separate Congregations Ans. 1. This Argument Supponit falsum which we have often disclaimed to wit That we plead for a general Indulgence to Dissenters we desire it may be limitted to men of peaceable Principles and Practices to such as differ from the publick way in matters not Fundamental nor near to the Foundation and for our part who are Presbyterians we seek forbearance only in things that are acknowledged to be none of Christ's Institutions and in things that are neither against Godliness nor the Peace of Church or State. Another Falshood that he supposeth is That we plead for an unaccountable Church-power in Separatâ— Meetings We plead for no Power in them but what a good account can be given of from Scripture and what is allowed commonly to a Church as such 2. I mention'd before a way of preventing the creeping in of Priests and Jesuits for all their Cunning to wit The due Exercise of Church-Discipline in all the ways that shall be tolerated especially in the admission of Ministers to their Office and if these Foxes creep in at undiscerned cranies if Discipline be in vigour they may be cast out again before they can do any considerable harm to the Flock Sect. 44. Argument 2. Because it will be great hardship when mens heats are over for them the Papists only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest of Phanaticks are allowed it Answ. 1. Still the old Supposition must found all his Arguments We plead for no Toleration to any Phanaticks properly so called much less to the wildest of them 2. There are many weighty Reasons why Papists should be denied that Liberty that is allowed to Protestant Dissenters from the Grossness of their Heresies the Idolatry of their Worship the Unpeaceableness of their Principles such