noted Irenic p. 115. Some are blind Guides And may not People very well be startled with what Christ saith concerning such If the Blind lead the Blind both shall fall into the Ditch And have you forgotten or have you retracted that in Answer to Several Treatises p. 265. cited in Rector of Sutton p. 61. Men may have reason to question if not the Skill yet the Sincerity of their Guides and though they must have some may seek new ones The ignorant follow their Guides only upon the opinion of their Skill and Integrity and when they see reason to question these they know of no Obligation to follow their Conduct over Rocks and Precipices And yet is it now a loose Principle some the People are to mark and avoid Rom. 16. 17. some they must not bid God speed 2 Joh. v. 10 11. There are three Cases you say Vnreas of Sep. p. 213. wherein the Scripture allows of Separation The second is p. 214. In case of false Doctrine being imposed instead of true ☞ If any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them c. Now do you not here make the People Iudges of such Heretical Teachers whom I suppose by an Ironie you call admirable Iudges p. 123. Yet for them to own and incourage such is to partake of their Evil Deeds If Mr. B. saith as you have it there Any one whose Ministry is such as tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification and to do more harm than good is not to be owned I wonder what you have to say for such when better may be had Camero speaks to the same purpose as Mr. B. pag. 327. col 1. Si non faciant quod spondet tanti Muneris professio deserendi sunt nam parendum Deo potius quà m Hominibus ut siquis Medicinam professus c. If any one having professed Physick should not cure but exasperate the Disease truly he should be forsaken and another is to be chosen in his room And what Peter Martyr says Loc. com p. 909. § 33. may fitly be applied here Vexant praeterea nos quod non publica sed privata discesserimus Authoritate neque considerant Deum cuique mandasse ut propriam salutem curet This you cannot deny but God has commanded every one to have a care of his Soul and that Men are not bound to lesser Societies as to their own Parishes or Parish-Ministers but so far as may stand with promoting the Salvation of their own Souls Who could speak more fully than you have done Rational Account p. 611. The main thing to be discussed is Whether the Communion of your Church or ours be rather to be chosen in order to Salvation The tendency to that ought to be the Rule by which we should embrace or continue in the Society of any Church Since the Regard Men ought to have of their eternal Welfare doth oblige them to make choice of the best means the bare remote possibility of Salvation ◠ought to have no force in determining their Choice in a matter of so great Importance 4. Many have not the least Doubt or Scruple but those Ministers which you would not have them to hear are such as God hath owned and still doth blessing their Ministry to their own and others Souls Benefit Many are well assured The Lord hath not yet forsaken that Ministry you would have them forsake Yea I have spoken with some on their Death-Bed who have sadly bewailed it as a great Sin of theirs that lay as an heavy Burthen on them and we use to say Hora mortis est hora Veritatis That they had despised and neglected the Ministry of such But it seems had they made their Complaints to you you could soon have satisfied them telling them It was no Sin at all but they had done well in refusing to hear such as submitted not to the Orders of the Church Though perhaps they would have thought it very strange that you could have allowed them to hear Romish Priests and yet should suppose it unlawful for them to hear Non-conformists 5. These would also wonder if you your self should at all question such Ministers being true Ministers of Christ and that Worship wherein they joyn being true Religious Worship they are confident you could not but acknowledg the truth of both these did but the Law of Man allow them And then for ought they know they are such in themselves and in God's Account For no Law of Man could make that to be true religious Worship which is not so abstracted from the Consideration of the Law 's Allowance No Law of Man could make those to be true Ministers of Christ who are not such or would otherwise be none 6. Because I suppose you will be ready to object here How is it possible for Order to be kept up if People may run after what Teachers they please I desire you to do me right I am only for their hearing such as they have reason to believe are allow'd of God whom therefore Men should allow to preach the Word And where the publickly allowed Minister is not such a one they are not bound for order-sake to neglect other faithful and sound Teachers and therein also to neglect their own Souls There is no Order Men can make in the Church that should be urged or stood upon against the end of Order against the Honour of God against Religion and the true Service and Worship of God and against the Salvation of Men and the ordinary means thereof And if the Sabbath was made for Man as Mar. 2. 27. and therefore was not to be turned to his Destruction much less should any human external Order be strictly urged and pressed to Men's Destruction Bishop Bilson Christian Subject part 3 p. 299. An. 1586. speaking to that We would have things done in order returns this smart Answer Call you that Order where Christ shall stand without doors till your Clergy consent to bring him in Though according to the order of Nature light Bodies move upwards and heavy Bodies tend downwards in their ordinary Course yet which Camero applies to a like case p. 581. col 1. § 2. this very order of Nature is inverted Nè detur vacuum Here I call to mind what you say pag. 198. Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty Inconvenience And me-thinks that Inconvenience the Breach of external Order which with you is Schism is a far less Evil if it be Evil in this case compared with the Mischief of Men's destroying their own Souls or neglecting the means of their Salvation There is an higher Law which to use the words of Camero Ordinem deserere jubet ut extremo malo irreparabili jacturae occurratur c. And qui tam justâ urgente occasione ordniem deserit reipsâ non deserit sed servat And that
limiting and inclosing the Catholick Church and if any disturb the Peace of this Church and here you do not 〈◊〉 the most peaceable Dissenters that only meet for the Worship of God and separate no farther from your Church than as it is not Catholick you go on The Civil Magistrate may justly inflict Civil Penalties upon them for it Is this your Mind that all that submit not tâ— those new federal Rites as they are supposed and teaching Signs and Symbols spoken of should be both debarred of Church-Priviledges and laid under Civil Penalties as disturbers of thâ— Churches Pâ—ace Then I cannot but wish that Governours may have more Moderation and Clemency or poor Dissenters more Faith and Patience than you shew Christian Charity herein But if they are as near the Primitive Church and as much in Communion with the Catholick Church as you are yea and in Communion with you still so sar as you are Catholick what great reason can you have so severely to condemn them I hope the Doctrine of the Non-conformists generally is sound their Worship agreeable to the Word The only Question then remaining seems to be By what Authority they do these things And who gave them Authority Now it is true they cannot pretend Authority from the Bishops but if they can prove they have Authority from Christ is not that sufficient If he hath called them to the work of the Ministry and commandeth them to be diligent and faithful in it according to their Abilities and Opportunities me thâ—nks Men should not deny their Authority And whether may not such Societies as you call nâ—w Churches return what you cite p. 179 180. out of Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n 9. as proving them to be true Churches They having the Word of God truly preached and Sacraments administred accâ—rding to Christ's Institution Now he saith as you have him where ever thâ—se Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to Humane Conveniences And therefore if you did not look only on one side you might probably see that you are no more allowed wilfully to separate from them than they are from you And as that Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared as you have it p. 186. That there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own Opinions or Practices So why might not the Non-conformists and their Hearers be taken into or acknowledged in Communion with the Church of England without renouncing their Opinions or Practices they being certainly as far from Idolatry or Superstition as any of the Lutheran Churches As the Helvetian Churches with you p. 187 declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him Even so because the Non-Conformists consent with you in Doctrine do not break them off from your Communion for their difference about Ceremonies May not several Churches differ in Modes and Forms of Worship and yet have Communion with one another Some Difference you cannot but grant betwixt your Cathedral Service and that in common Country Churches p. 146 147. You will not say the Churches in other Nations that have not the same Rule with you are Schismaticks No not though such came over into England and lived among you And what if the old Liturgy and that new one which you cannot but remember the compiling of and presenting to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used different Modes of Worship without Breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks Would you have called those new separate Churches that made use of the new reformed Liturgy And what if a Dutch Church was in your Parish Would you disclaim Communion with them because they had some Rules and Orders different from yours And what if divers of your Parish living near it should joyn with that Congregation would you thence conclude that they erected a new separate Church And as the Canon 1640. speaks of bowing towards the East or Altar That they which use this Rite should not despise them which use it not c. if now our King and Parliament like true Catholick Moderators should put forth an Henoticum make an healing Law enjoyning Conformists and Non-conformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for Substance to attend peacably on their Ministery and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Liturgy and Ceremonies or no without uncharitable Censures and bitter Reflections upon one another either in Word or Writing would you yet say that the Non-conformists Assemblies not following your Rules and Orders were no other than new separate Churches 5. I know no Laws nor Ecclesiastical Canons that the present Non-conformists have made And non-entis nulla sunt praedicata But if your meaning be that it is enough to prove them New Churches that they come not up to your Laws and Church-Rules and therefore are so 〈…〉 as they conform not to you I would argue thus Either Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary to Communion with the Church of England and to cut off the charge of being of a New â—hurch or not If Conformity in all things be not necessary here why may not sober Dissenters that own the Church of England for a true Church and profess the same Faith and worship God in no other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England as you say p. 160. Mr. B. declared in writing and as I told you a good Lawyer pleadeth Rector of Sutton p. 26 50. I say why may not such be owned as in Communion with the Church of England Why do you charge them with erecting new separate Churches meerly because they differ from you in some alterable Circumstances and separable Accidents not necessary to Churches Concord and Communion I see you dare not say that those things wherein they differ from you are any parts of Worship So they are of the same Faith and agree with you in all parts of Worship And is not all this with their owning themselves to be be of the Church of England so far as it is Catholick a bidding fair for your Reception of them and acknowledging them still in Communion with you And then why have you so many words of such being no good Christians because Members of no Church as pag. 104 105 110. f. If Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be not necessary pray tell us what is necessary and what not what things may be dispensed with and what not Rector of
that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful Things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms if the Thing so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Which with more you have in that Page and the Page before it cuts off your third Particular Preface p. 75. Here now I have gained so much Ground of you Such are necessitated to withdraw from your Communion who must otherwise joyn in some unlawful or suspected Practice As Chillingworth p. 269. To do ill that you may do well is against the Will of God which to every good Man is a high Degree of Necessity And say you Rational Account p. 290. Can any one imagine it should be a Fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an Obligation to the contrary from the Principles of their common Christianity Here I assume they are bound by the Principles of common Chrisianity to keep off from Communion with you that know they should certainly sin if they held Communion with you because they should then joyn in suspected â—ractices and things which after Enquiry their Consciences tell them are unlawful Ergo you must say it cannot be a Fault in such to keep off from Communion with you Though I would grant them faulty so far as any keep off through Prejudice Error Ignorance yet so far as these are involuntary they are more excusable than to go directly cross to their own Consciences here So therefore such are necessitated to withdraw Communion from you who would certainly sin if they held Communion with you judging such Communion to be sinful 2. If you say here What is this to a positive Separation which is the present Business You shall see it is something towards it You are come a fair Step on the Way Once grant that it is lawful for Men or that Men are necessitated to deny Communion with you in unlawful or but suspected Practices which are unlawful to them and you come presently to the Point Allowing them to withdraw from yours you must allow them to joyn in some other Christian Assembly unless you would have them utterly deprived of the Worship of God and to live like Heathens As you say well Irenic p. 109. Every Christian is under an Obligation to joyn in Church society with others because it is his Duty to profess himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without Society with some Church or other So then Christians that cannot enjoy Sacraments with you must joyn with some other Society where they may enjoy them And further take notice of that remarkable Assertion in your Rational Account p. 335. and apply it here as far as there is Cause Our Assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by forcing Men N. B. if they would not damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences in approving the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together N. B. for the solemn Worship of God according to the Rule of Scripture and Practice of the Primitive Church and suspending I suppose it should have been and to suspend Communion with that Church till those Abuses and Corruptions be redressed And I observe further Ibid. p. 291. you would not have Men bound to Communion with a particular Church but in Subordination to God's Honour and the Salvation of their Souls Yea you say Men are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed as are directly repugnant to these Ends. And where Men should be forced to damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences would not this be directly repugnant And yet are not such bound to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God c. You see now how far I have brought you even on your own Grounds how you will get off I know not Then might it not have been expected that you would have been more favourable and charitable towards the Assemblies of those Ministers and Christians that are kept off from you by unlawful Terms or at least such unnecessary Terms as are to them unlawful You speak more temperately Rational Account pag. 331. Here let me use some of your own Words there which something favour those Assemblies you now engage so zealously against By their declaring the Grounds of their Separation to be such Errors and Corruptions which are crept into the Communion of your Church and imposed on them in order to it they withal declare their readiness to joyn with you again if those Errors and Corruptions be left out ☞ And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute Separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such Abuses be reformed This they 'l say is very good But now in your new Impartial Account Preface pag. 46. you speak in another Dialect Would they have had me represented that as no Sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it c. What that which is as plain a Sin as Murder pag. 209. which is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. And yet on the other hand would you have them conform to you though against their Consciences Would that be no Sin Would God be wel-pleased with such Service as was done but to please Men while their Consciences in the mean while condemned them for it Can you say bonâ Fide that it is better more pleasing to God that Men conform to your Modes and Ceremonies though they have real Doubts of Conscience that they are unlawful or better they should live without God's publick Worship and Ordinances then to joyn with such as the Non-conformists That this is as the Sin of Murder Dare you go or send to all the Dissenters in your Parish supposing you take them to belong to your Charge and give 'm it under your hand that though they are still unsatisfied after all you have said and written though they believe they should offend God if they joyned with you upon such Terms yet I say durst you give it under your hand that they would do better to joyn in your way of Worship than in that of the Non-conformists though they have no more doubt of joyning with the latter than you had heretofore If you are clear in the Point have you done this Or why do you neglect your Duty towards them Why do you not endeavour to bring them in
the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned Tacâ—o caetera Now I had thought you might have granted more places for Worship not only desireable and useful but very necessary for such as cannot câ—me to yours as far as the Apostle makes hearing of the Word necessary Rom. 10. 1â— 17. more necessary than unnecessary Modes of Worship or such matters as you count but indifferent things But by what is here last cited it is too plain and manifest that you condemn all Religious Assemblies in England that follow not your Church-Rule and own not the Authority of the Bishops And thus it seems where you are zealous in words for Communion yet Subjection to the Bishops Authority is the thing you drive at And upon this Account though your Discourse was calculâ—ted chiefly for the City of London yet it may indâ—fferently serve for all other Places and Meetings in England where youâ— Church-Rules and Orders are not observed and obeyed As to our grief we in the Country have found many of the conformable Clergy with others improving your Authority and Arguments as far as they are able even against such Assemblies as meet off from the times of the Paroâ—hiâ—l Congregations meeting that they might not be censured to meet in opposition These are sâ—parate Meetings with you as well as others because the Orders of the Church are neglected in them But 3. What will you say of those Assemblies where Christ taught and the Disciples likewise whom he sent forth Did they dâ— this as undâ—r the Inspection and Government of the Rulers that then were Were they tyed up to the Church-Rules of the Jews in what they did were they not distinct and peculiar Officers Certainly you mince the matter when you say pag. 163. Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples occasionally and at câ—rtain Seasons As if he taught but rarely or seldom And as if he was câ—ntent with his Disciples only to be his Hearers As you would have the silenced Ministers think it enough if they have three or four besides the Family whereas we read of Christ's teaching the Multitude and of the Multitude pressing upon him to hear And when he sent forth the Twâ—lve Mâ—t. 1â— preaching was a good part of their Work And the Miracles they wâ—ought were to seal and confirm their Doctrine So the Seventy Luk. 10. were to tâ—â—ch So much is implied ver 16. He that heareth you hearetâ— me and he that despiseth you despiseth me c. Now what will you make of them and their Hearers Here were distinct and peculiar Teachers not under the Government of the Iewish Church-Rulers Then were they new unlawful Churches I know you will not say iâ— But if you say hâ—re though they differed in somethings from the Form of the Iewish Church yet they did not separate Well grant that yet consider whether this Example may not justiâ—y those who ordinarily 〈◊〉 with their â—arochial Congregations in hearing Non-conformists at 〈◊〉 times And mâ—y it not justify those Non-conformist Ministers that 〈…〉 from the Parochial Congregations And how many more 〈…〉 but for the five Miles Act which 〈…〉 distinguish betwixt such and others that I can find but all are alike to you Yea so far are you from favouring these that sometimes you would have the Sin of those that own you for true Churches and have Communion with you as fâ—r as they can to be aggravated and more inexeusable in having other dâ—stinct which you account sâ—paratâ— Meetings Ball against Can part 1. p. 82. Neither did our Saviour nor his Disciples before his Death 〈◊〉 upon them to erect a new visible Church altogether distinct from the erring Synagogue but lived in thâ—t Church and frequented the Ordinancâ—s neither as absolute Members of the Synagogue nor yâ—t as the visible Churâ—h distinct from it But as visiâ—le Members of that primitive Church from which that Synagogue had degenerated I find you so hard and uâ—yielding in this Controversâ— I should be glad if you would grant a little here which I wonder how you can so stifly deny in hopes of more in time 4. As you know our Reformers pleaded that in their departure from Rome they forsook not the Church but approached nearer to the Catholick anâ— Primitive â—hurch as P. Martyr Loc. Com. p. 915. So those Christian Assemblies you censure as new unlawful Churches because not under youâ— Rule suppose you have censured them rashly here if in their Worship they are nearer the Scripture-Rule And truly Sir you speak so home and fully to the purpose Rational Accâ—unt p. 356 357. as is quite beyond the power and râ—aâ—h of my poor Imagination to conceive how you can ever answer your self There you say Supposing any Church tho pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds ☞ Whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inâ—losing ☞ as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Universal Church How will Dissenters thank you for this Methinks I have some hope that we shall in time be agreed thâ—t we shall have you who do so clearly understand and apprehend what Schism there is in any Churches limiting and inclosing the bounds of the Catholick Church shall we not have you again pleading for Catholick Terms And you say further ibid. p. 357. The disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical cannot certainly be any culpable Separation For whatever is so must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick c. While such Passages so greatly befriending Dissenters that would gladly close with you upon Cathâ—â—ick Termâ— drop from you at unawares whâ—n you sâ—arce think of them whâ—t an excellent 〈◊〉 â—â—ould they have of you it indeed you was minded to undertake their Cause Yet how contrary hereunto are you in your too partial Account p. 305. where your Gentleman pinching you with this Question Can it be proved that Christ 〈…〉 the Guides of this Church with a power to make Laws and Decrees preseribing not only things necessary for common Order and Decency but new fedâ—ral Rites and teaching Signs and Symbols c. I answer say you that such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word which whether this be to the purpose of new fedâ—râ—l Rites and teaching Signs and Symbols will I suppose be further examined which on that account other are bound to submit to and to take such care of its 〈…〉 to admit none its Priviledges but such as do submit to them Here you are 〈◊〉 off from your Catholick Terms again and â—or
one is bound to submit to the Determination of such what ever his private Judgment be 1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God 2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency 3. And wholly as to the Form of Government This I think you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters and how material to give them Satisfaction will appear by examining the several Parts But first it is worth nothing that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Implying that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers such as are not lawful Governours of the Church Then so far you and they may be agreed that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch c. in England Men were not bound to submit to their Determination till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman p. 305. and others and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations as lawful Governours of the Church those who neverwere chosen or approved by the People is another Question But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine you tell us 1. Every one is bound to submit to their Determination As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God Here 1. You should have told us whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches or only such Ancient Churches as those of the fourth or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal and got the upper Ground In Defence of the Right of Kings p. 398. where the Cardinal arguing that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years was not to be condemned His Majesty replied In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession that in the first five hundred Years the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith nor approved by Practice VVherein to my understanding the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit for the Church in the time of the Apostles their Disciples was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge than at any time since in any succeeding Age in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant whether all or only some of them And if but some whether those that only took the Scripture as their Rule in reforming or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches together with it 2. What are those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God besides matters of meer Order and Decency and what relates to Form of Government 3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule When you grant the Church may err and general Councils may err may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word that are not sâ— left Chillingworth grants there may be just and necâ—ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cathâ—lick Church p. 298. And you say partly the same in your Rational Account pag. 331 332. Those Errors in practice in the Judgment of the Church may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word when yet others are not bound to submit to them You tell us Rational Account p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by it is most senslâ—ss pleading Prescription till you have particularly examined how far such Prescription is allowed by him So then it is not enough to say in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law and the Church hath Power to determine them But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on p. 628. It may be you will tell me that in this Case Prescription interprets Law and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side since you run your self into new Briars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the Practice here I must say by the Iudgment of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived 4. Is this a plain or rather is it not an Impossible Rule If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches as to those things We should think it well if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty but according to what you have here laid down this should not be sufficient but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law Or will you say that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches they must believe without more adoe Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours till such time as they can be satisfied that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches Will you give them time till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches 5. Is this a golden rather is it not a leaden Rule May it not be turned contrary ways Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving Were
40. you speak of an unaccountable Separation without regard to the greatness or smalness of Parishes c. doth not that imply that there may be some Account given for assembling to worship God where there is a regard to this to the Abilities and Piety of Ministers and to the Peace and Order of the Church And therefore the thing is not so unreasonable as you would make it 2. What if I prove in examining your Three Conclusions from the Principles you lay down in your Irenicum and Rational Account too that many are necessitated to separate from your Communion Is Separation unreasonable when necessary Or will you allow others to say that there you have pleaded for unreasonable Separation 2. An Impartial Account c. you call it Here I might say I was glad to see you promising Impartiality in this Work having found so little of it in your Sermon but upon search Quantâ de spe decidi The Partiality you have discovered is so great and in so many Particulars that if I should ransack every Corner of your Book as you speak to collect all such Passages I fear I should be very tedious and irksome to you and other Readers But 1. May not some of the common People who have read either what Mr. Baxter says of it or Mr. Newcomen in Serm. on Nov. 5. 1642. take you to be partial in setting down the Jesuit Contzens Directions for reducing Popery Preface pag. 19 20. In that you take no notice of putting out of Honours Dignities and publick Offices such as are most adverse to Popery or of the outing of Ministers as unpeaceable proud obstinate disobedient to Magistrates And forbidding them privately or publickly to assemble And take no notice of that How easie is it as he says in England to bring the Puritans into Order if they be forced to approve of Bishops c. Here I think of your Words pag. 10. I do not say such Men are set on by Iesuits but I say they do their work as effectually So it would be considered whether such Methods do not effectually promote the Jesuits design of reducing Popery You may give us to understand Preface pag. 22. that the Declaration of Indulgence 167½ was of the Papists procuring but we must not say that the turning out of many zealous Protestant Justices and Ministers was any way by their means 2. Are you impartial in the Account you give of the Reformation in King Edward 6 and Q. Elizabeth's Raign Did the Reformation lie in those things wherein Dissenters differ from you Then you must say that those Churches which aimed at an exact Conformity with the Apostolick Times and as Chillingworth says took their Direction only from Scripture were yet so far unreformed as they wanted our Ceremonies Though it soundeth very harshly to say that those Churches who were more conformed to the Scripture Rule were less reformed But you spake more impartially and more to the honour of our First Reformers Irenic pag. 124. which you was minded of Rector of Sutton p. 6. Certainly those holy Men who did seek by any means to draw in others c. And by that Rubrick which left it at the discretion of the Minister what and how much to read when there was a Sermon it is evident others since have sought to bear up their Authority by their Names who have been far from their Moderation I cannot but wonder at your Harangue Book pag. 6. Is it credible that Men of so great Integrity such indefatigable Industry such profound Iudgment as Cranmer and Ridley who were the Heads of the Reformâ—tion should discern no Sinfulness in these things Could not Latimer or Bradford or such holy mortified Men as they discern so much as a Mote of Vnlawlawfulness c. It is granted they were Learned Pious Excellent Men yet it need not seem strange much less incredible that such worthy Men should in some things mistake Does not A. B. Laud tell you Reformation is so difficult a Work and subject to so many Pretentions that 't is almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far or fall too short in some smaller things or other I suppose you may have Bishop Cranmer's Manuscript still by you and are you of his Iudgment in all things I do not find it so comparing what you published as his Judgment in your Irenicum and what you have published in this Book as your own And Latimer that Zealous and Faithful Martyr as I remember at the end of his Sermons used to exâ—ite the Hearers to Prayer and therein to remember such as were departed this Life Now must we therefore conclude there is not a Mote of Unlawfulness in praying for the Dead that otherwise such an holy Man as Latimer would not have been for it Most true it is considering the Times they lived in and the Temper of the Persons they had to deal with it was the great Work of God to carry on Reformation so far by them But I cannot say but their Hearts were to have carried it on further if the Times would have born it More Shame it is to others that have had fairer Opportunities since and yet have not minded the Work History of the Troubles at Franksford printed 1575 reprinted 164â— p. 42. telleth of one that said Bishop Cranmer had drawn up a Book of Prayer an hundred times more perfect but the Clergy and Convocation with other Enemies would not let it pass And there followeth something further worth your noting pag. 43. that Bâ—llinger told Whittingham Mr. H. and Mr. C. asked his Judgment concerning certain Points of that our Book as Surplice private Baptism Churching Women the Ring in Marriage with such like which as he said he allowed not and that he neither could if he would neitherwould if he might use the same in his Church whatsoever had been reported Therefore say I such a Man as Bullinger would not have been for imposing the same on others As to the Reformation in Queen Elizabeth's time it was not brought in nor brought on with a rigorous Imposition of those things in Controversie as Ball against Can Part 2. p. 13. In the first ten Years of Q. Elizabeth there was sweet consent among Brethren I think there was not a Man that thought of Separation The pressing of Subscription and Conformity in the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth ' s Raign was that which broughâ— in all the 〈◊〉 and Contentions following Iosias Nichol's Plea of the Innocent p. 210 217 printed 1602 thus Some five Years together before that unhappy time that Subscription was so generally offered which is now some 18 Years past there was such Unity between the Ministers and they joyned in all places so lovingly and diligently in Labour that not only did the unpreaching Minister and Non-resident quake and prepare themselves in measure to take pains in the Church but also many thousands were converted from Atheism and Popery c. But when Subscription came
hearing of Sermons c and that frequently too to be lawful Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters pag. 98. No Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in Affront to them and the Laws Here you say in Effect that let Parishes be never so large and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable nor to be encouraged because not under you establish'd Rule But either you must grant it may be lawful to joyn occasionally and that frequently too with the Non-conformists or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers and say that it was better for Men to hear these than such as Mr. B. c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists lest any should thence argue from your own Words that constant Communion with them is a Duty I am thinking however that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship And let them alone to make their best of what you say you are sure will follow p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what Denomination soever the Persons pass Because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily though but in some parts of their Worship at first its possible they would gain far more Proselites by it than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo p. 156. A Man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church Yet you will look upon your self not only as a Member of the Church of England but as a Member of the Catholick Church And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church it may possibly sometimes fall out that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church or a French Church And if Non-conformists with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick as others you can freely have Communion with and while they differ from you in nothing but if the same was removed your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them and then for ought I know you may be obliged thereunto it may be a Duty Because you wholly overlook this I thought fit to take notice of it And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments pag. 157. viz. 1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church And here I ask If there be not as great an Obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace or promote it with all Christians as with all Men And they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donatiâ—â— which you cannot in reason suppose yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says Miscel. of Schism p. 208. Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists if occasion so require And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break why may not I be present in them and use Communication with them 2 The particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. And one would think such as have attained so much Knowledg as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of Wâ—â—ship might know it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformiâ—ts 5. Are you not partial when you lay this down p. 157. As one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience when they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority c. yet you tell us not what things those are neither the time when they were pressed thereunto and refused the same And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace that were reasonable made to them which they refused But you never take notice of it as any provoking Sin in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many And might not so much have been expected from them as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace May I not here return your own Words pag. 159. Was ever Schisâ—â— made so light a matter of and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate that for the Prevention of the one and the Preserevation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done Or as I would say that the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own Judgment but things doubtful or unlawful in the Judgment of others might not be forborn Now Sir are you for palliating so great Sin as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church when you know The Obligation which lieth upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church which you give us again p. 209. And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account p 324 Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent Dissenting Protestants say we The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and redress of Abuses And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship That the Church of England is not such a Shreâ— to hâ—r Children as to deny her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation c. Where I observe
just and charitable as to let us know your Reasons that if they be sound we may see Cause to alter ours I hope you will not say Then was then and now is now And can you now assure us that you shall not alter your present Judgment once again within twenty Years We read of Bishops that have cried peccavimus again and again and of Councils doing and undoing again and sometimes in less than twenty Years But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the point of Separation which is the present Business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon which will appear by these Particulars in it If by Separation you mean a Separation from any Church upon any slight trivial unnecessary Cause as you define Schism Irenic p. 113. I am not for such a Separation But perhaps some may tell you that if you separate from such Assemblies as Mr. B. c. when you might have occasional Communion with them you do it upon far less Cause than many separate from those of yours where they are required to joyn in Practices more to be suspected If by Separation you mean any assembling for the Worship of God otherwise than according to your establisht Rule and so condemn the Assemblies of meer Non-conformists that are not of Schismatical Principles yea even their occasional Meetings and those kept off from the times of publick Worship in the Parochial Congregations I doubt not but the Lawfulness of such Assemblies is and shall be evidently proved from that Book Preface p. 72 73. Which will appear by these Particulars in it 1. Irenic p. 123. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such Practices which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are new Churches when men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from that Form they separate from 3. P. 124. As to things in the Judgment of the Primtive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Laws of God and in matters of meer Order and Decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private Judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to sub mit to the Determination of the Church Allow but these three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Ad Trianos ventum est I hope now we shall come to something Methinks we have been too long beating abâ—ut the Bush. And yet I am kept off a while seeing you taking up a good part of two Pages to no purpose unless it be to perswade your Readers that I was unwilling to take notice of that which you cannot but grant I do take notice of viz. that you distinguish betwixt Nâ—n-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practices in a Church and entring into distinct Societies for Worship And it were strange if I had over-look'd or was unwilling the Readers should see these Conclusions of yours when you cannot but say I there cite the very Pages Rector of Sutton p. 30. A nd I can say I gave them what I thought might seem material Thâ—y will â—ind but two Conclusions in Irenicum your second Conclusion here is there but an Explication of the first And what I granted you is all you can make of them to your purpose here And did I not acknowledg again and again there that the Primitive and Reformed Churches were two of your Iudges And what Advantage you will get by that or any of these Conclusions we shall now see Me-thinks I have this Advantage that you here own these three Conclusions When you would have me to allow them it is to be supposed that you allow them your self Yea you say of them These are most pâ—rtinent and material Therefore I shall go over them again Conclusion 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such Practices which they suspect to be unlawfull Here 1. I urge you with what you say Irâ—nic p. 117. Withdrawing Communion from a Church in unlawful or suspected Things doth not lay Men under the Guilt of Schism You say Men may lawfully deny Communion with a Church in such things I say Men cannot lawfully have Communion in such things As King Iames on the Lord's Prayer pag. 44. It is a good and sure Rule in Theology in matters of God's Worship quod dubitas nè fâ—ceris So Hales Miscel. of Schism p. 210. Not only in Reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no Release Cautâ—shmi cujusque praeceptum quod dubitas nè feceris And Mr. R. Hooker Preface to his Eceles Polit. â— 6. Not that I judg it a thing allowable for Men to observe those Laws which in their Hearts they are stedfastly pâ—rswaded to be against the Law of God What he says further there of Men being bound to suspend their Perswasion in matters determined by Governours which they have not demonstrative Reasons against you very well take off Irenic p. 118 119. No true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Governours c. And certainly it is neither in a Mans Power to suspend his own Perswasion or lay aside his Doubts ad libitum noâ— is he allowed to act against his own Judgment and Conscience though mis-informed That Man sinneth without doubt who ventureth on Practices he suspects to be sinful though in themselves the Practices be lawful What the Apostle saith Rom 14. 5 14 23. puts the matter out of dispute Now to joyn in Common-Prayer is an unlawful or suspected Practice to some They take it to be polluted with Superstition Perhaps they take Communion herein to be a sinful Symbolizing with the Papists for what King Edward 6 and King Iames said of it And if you should tell them our Service-book is reformed it is possible some may now reply How can you say so Will you blast the Credit of and cast a Reproach upon our first Reformers Again baptizing with the Sign of the Cross and kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament as it were before the Sacramental Elements are suspected unlawful Practices to many And thus they are barred from Communion with you in Sacraments And therefore you had no Reason to slight others modest Expressions here as you do pag. 333. They judg they think they esteem them unlawful and they cannot be satisfied about them Though you are far short of answering all that hath been said to prove some things enjoyned unlawful yet suppose a Man ignorant erring and mistaken here not without Fault notwithstanding he must suspend his own Act till he be better informed and satisfied about it And here I would again mind you of those significant Expressions Irenic pag. 119. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments
Sutton p. 27. n. 9. You were put in mind of it to inquire whether there be not some in publick Place not very well satisfied with what they have done who come not up to your Church-Rules As some read not all the Common-Prâ—yer they are enjoyned to read and yet had declared their Assâ—nt and Consent to the use at least as you would have it Some use not the Surplice some omit the Cross in Baptism some dare not put away from the Sacrament any meerly for not kneeling And yet you charge not such with Schism pag. 148. n. 5. yet have they different Rules or at least they differ from your Rules as well as Non-conformists And I know not whether you may not be understood to allow Men to go from their Parish Church pag. 145. n. 1. provided they elsewhere joyn with your Churches as Members of them What then is the parting Point from the Communion of your Church or the trying Point of Conformity without which a New Church is erected Here I offer this Note upon what you say farther pag. 148. n. 5. That many whom you condemn though not satisfied with such and such Orders of the Church yet continue in all Acts of Communion with your Church or in all that you will call parts of Worship and draw not others from it upon any meer Pretence no not at all though they dare not but joyn at other times with Non-conformists in that which they are well assured is as truly God's Worship and if they say in some Respects more pure you have not yet disproved it And therefore you should make good your word there and not charge such with Schism Or if you should say Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary that if Men differ never so little from those Rules it is to erect new Churches what woful rending work would this make By a Parity of Reason may not other foreign Churches be denied to have Communion with the Church of England How many that could not submit to these Laws and Rules without receding from their own publick Confessions Could the French and Belgick Churches assent to the Ius divinum of Episcopacy could they own it as evident to all Men diligently reading the holy Scriptures to be of Apostolical Institution And would not any one that reads the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Psaltzgraves Churches printed at London A. D. 1637 take them to have been averse from such Conformity as the Church of England stands upon You glory in the good Opinion of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church and their owning Communion with our Church pag. 96 97. And you make nothing of what hath been returned by way of Answer to Dr. D. Bonasus Vapulans is but a little Creature I confess to look on yet some that have read it do not look on it as nothing But if an owning of the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy and Re-ordination c. be made the Terms of their Communion with our Church how many Protestant Divines abroad that would renonuce Communion with us rather than be pleased with it upon such Terms And further if Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be necessary c. How many Parochial Ministers and Congregations as was noted before must be denied to be in Communion with the Church of England whom for the same Reason you must call new erected Churches For as one says alluding to that They who themselves were circumcised kept not the Law They who have assented and consented observe not the Orders and Rules to which they have given their Assent c. And yet as you have it from another The Priests in the Temple break the Law and are blameless Then must you not either acquit many Dissenters here or condemn many Conformists You see how fain I would have Protestant Dissenters acknowledged still to have Communion with the Church of England if it might be the difference being not in such things as belong to it as a Church If you took away those things which are as the Wall of Partition betwixt you and them your Churches would be as sound and entire without them And if you make them Sâ—hismaticks for differing from you in such things while they agree with you in all things necessary whether will you not make your selves or other Churches you would be ashamed to disown Schismaticks who differ from you in as great Matters as such Dissenters do Here let me press you a little further Keep to your own Rule Preface p. 46. As far as the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism reach Then it follows if the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in Mens varying from such Rules P. 209. You argue From the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church And now say you I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men. Had you put the Matter home indifferently and impartially to the Consciences of Men on both sides that is both of Imposers and Dissenters many could not but have thought in their Consciences you was to be commended for it But then had you not pleaded as much for Dissenters as here you plead against them I must grant they ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Unity would soon follow What Chillingworth p. 283. § 71. says of Protestants That they grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered Make this good of the Church of England and by my consent all we who have unwillingly appeared against you will readily and joyfully give you our publick Thanks What you say further p. 209. may thus be handed back again to you If there be no sufficient Reason to justify such Rules and Orders if they are a Violation of the Vnity of the Church you there make it a Sin as much as murder is and as plainly forbidden And therefore I do earnestly desire as you p. 213. all Parties concerned as they love their own Souls and as they would avoid the Guilt of so great a Sin impartially and without prejudice to consider that Passage of Irenaeus with you p. 212. That Christ will come to judg those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own Advantage than the Church's Vnity c. And if any indifferent Men had the matter put to them to decide who were more likely to regard their own Advantage whether some of you or such as Mr.
B. one might soon guess what their Sentence or Verdict would be If I seem here and sometimes elsewhere to digress a little yet I think in reason you should overlook it I would hope that in time you may be convinced of a greater Digression in the scope of your late Writings 6. If you and the Church of England will not be so favourable towards those distinct Societies that are not under your Church-Rules as to acknowledg them in Communion with you yet by what you and Chillingworth say I see not but they may be still in Communion with the Catholick Church and Members of it Knot talketh thus to our Reproach Charity maint part 1. c. 5. § 38. Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism at least by reason of their mutual Separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England But it is observable what Chillingworth says p. 255. Eighthly to that That all the Members of the Catholick Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which tho it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true Divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostome and Epiphanius that particular Men and particular Churches have upon an over-valued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continuâ—d Members of the Catholick Church Here let us suppose some unhappy difference to arise among your selves as if some were for the publick condemning of your Irenicum some against it some offended at those Ministers who appear not as zealous against Dissenters as you have shewed your self and others offended as much at you and them some taking offence at those that bow at the word Iesus or bow towards the Altar and others taking the like offence at those who scruple or forbear such Practice Suppose now the contention was carried so high that the disagreeing Parties refused Communion with one another hereupon and if it came to that I would know which of these should be the new Church Or whether both Parties might not yet be in Communion with the Church of England And much more may not the same Catholick Church hold Conformists and Protestant Dissenters And you give us this Note Ratinal Account p. 331. He that sâ—parates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick Now will you say those Rules and Orders about which all the Difference is betwixt you and the Non-conformists concern the Being of your Church I doubt you will never be able to convince many but the Church of England might be every jot as well without them But if it should happen that any Error or Corruption is to be found therein then you have more to say for those you here oppose Ibid. and pag. 332. which is therefore more properly a Separation from the Errors than the Communion of such a Church Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some Corruptions though if these Corruptions be injoyned as Conditions of Communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it follows not that I am sâ—parated from the external Communion of the Catholick Chuch but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches till I may safely joyn with them Which you illustrate there by a Comparison where you have these remarkable Words And if several other Persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own Safety c. So Chillingworth speaks as like you as if one had taken his Hints from the other pag. 298. He is for distiguishing not confounding these two departing from the Church and departing from some general Opinions and Practices which did not constitute but vitiate the Church More he hath to that purpose But that which I would specially note out of him here to shew the Harmony and Consent betwixt you which otherwise should have come in before pag. 269. A Man may possibly leave some Opinion or Practice of a Church says he and continue still a Member of that Church provided that whâ—t he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this Practice may be so involved with the external Communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this Practice and not to leave the Churches external Communion I cite such Passages as these because I would have the World know and take notice what Friends you are sometimes to poor Non-conformists That if any should now send an Hue and Cry after them as after Murderers you are willing they should take Sanctuary either in your Church or in the Church Catholick the New Church your second Conclusion speaks of being not so safe Now my second Conclusion is this 2. That many of those Societies which you condemn do not separate from the Church of England many of them have ordinary external Communion with you and though in their Worship they do not in all things follow your Church-Rules and Orders yet their Worship cannot be proved contrary but is agreeable to Scripture-Rule And as for those who are not satisfied to go so far as to hold external Communion with you yet having Communion with you in the same Faith it were a very desirable thing that the Bars to their full Communion with you were removed if they be such things as are not necessary And in the mean time possibly those New Churches are better than no Churches And indeed it is matter of wonder to me if you have no more Charity for such have no better Thoughts of them than of those idle loose profane Persons that wholly neglect and contemn the Worship of God that never go to any Church at all I would say more to this did I not think enough is said already Now I come to your last Conclusion 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God and in matters of meer Order and Decency and wholly as to Form and Government every one notwithstanding what his private Judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church But would you not lead us here into a Maze a Labyrinth without any Clew to guide us out Let us now see how Pertinent and Material this is to your purpose Here first I must suppose this Question viz. How far or in what things is every Man bound whatever his private Iudgment be for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church And your Answer is every
esse â—isi verbo Dei And then it would be seriously enquired whether to require Assent and Consent to another Book besides the Bible a Book in Folio and to all things contained in it be not to have Dominion over Mens Faith Many are in doubt here whose doubts you have not so far as I can perceive yet resolved You your self must grant that the Churches of God have or should have no such Custom to tyrannize over the Faith and Consciences of Men that is Lording it indeed As here Vnreas of Separat p. 184. You cite M. Claude allowing or maintaining Tyranny over Mens Consciences to be a justifiable Reason of Sâ—paration And Le Blanc p. 185. And the Confession of Strasburg p. 188. That they look on no human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men. And Ioâ— Crocius ib. Ceremonies forbidden break the Churches Unity yet its Communion is not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. And Bishop Davenâ—nt p. 189 190. Who grants that Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences would be a sâ—fficient Reason to hinder Communion As he says Sentent D. Dav. p. 6. If some one Church will so have Dominion over the Faith of others that she acknowledgeth none for Brethren or admits none into Communion with her nisi credendâ— ac loquendi legem ab eadem prius accipiant the Holy Scripture forbids us thus to make our selves the Slaves of any Mortals whosoever they are our one only Master Christ forbids Quae hâc lege in Communionem alterius Ecclesiae recipitur non pacem inde acquirit sed iniquissimae servitutis pactionem Here I set down a little more than you cite as indeed it was not for your purpose To these you agree P. 221. Not but that I think there may be a Separation without Sin from a Society retaining the Essentials of a Church but then I say the Reason of such Separation is some heinous Error in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some Tyranny over the Consciences of Men c. This Tyranny over Conscience with you is an imposing of unlawful things Which I infer from those Words p. 208. A prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation With Bishop Davenant it is credendi ac loquendi legem dicere Now if this be the Case of Non-conformist Ministers that others would tyrannize over their Consciences will it not justify their Separation which is but a Separation secundum quid And if you deny this to be their Case be pleased to give a sound and solid Answer to those few Pages of the second Plea for Peace towards the end p. 116 c. Qui tyrannidem in Christianissimum vel usurpat vel invehit ille Christum quantum potest ê solio dejicit c. Amyrald in Thes. Salmur p. 435. §22 8. Will you say every Man is bound for Peace-sake to submit to the Determination of Church-Governours whatever his private Iudgment may be When his Judgment may be that such a Determination is against the Word tho never so many Churches and Councils judg otherwise And when his Judgment may be that submission to such Determination of Men would be real Disobedience and acting contrary to the Will of God If his Conscience be rightly informed then he opposeth the Authority of Scripture and the Iudgment of God to the Iudgment of Men as Chillingworth says p. 309. which is certainly allowable If his Conscience and Judgment be erroneous yet he must suspend the act of Submission to such Determination till he can be better informed or acting here against his Iudgment and Conscience tho erroneous he would greatly sin As suppose the Governours of the Church to have determined that we shall all declare our Assent unto that in Preface before the Book of Ordination That it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several Officers You could not have submitted to such Determination while your Judgment was the same as when you wrote your Irenicum This is evident from what I noted thence Rector of Sutton p. 41 66. Nothing can be more evident than that it rose not from any divine Institution c. Could you have dissembled with God and Man for Peace-sake But more of this afterwards But I am thinking you may possibly object That you speak of things supposed to be left undetermin'd whereas I Instance here in a matter that the Word determines Yet I hope this may be more convincing Let us for this once suppose that you could now prove from Scripture that the Bishops Office is distinct from that of Presbyters yet I hope you will grant me that you could not have submitted to such Determination of the Church while you believed no such thing And then I have what I would have Every Man cannot lawfully submit to the Churches Determination though it be according to the Scripture that is so long as his Judgment is the Determination is without and against Scripture then must not the same be said of such Determination as is besides the Scripture I know you will not say the Churches Word is above God's So you see how this part of your Rule falls short of what you aim at One thing you have under this Rule Irenic p. 124. I should take a little notice of some-where and let me do it here There must be a Difference made say you between the Liberty and Freedom of a Man 's own Judgment and the Authority of it So by being under Governours a Man parts with the Authority of his Iudgment but you would not have him deprived of the Liberty and Freedom of his Judgment otherwise to what purpose is this distinction brought Now I would not be so uncharitable as to think that by the Liberty of a Man 's own Iudgment you could mean a Liberty of professing and declaring contrary to his own Judgment in Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours for the Churches Peace And therefore I say your Rule here is short and reacheth not to our Case 2. You say in this last Conclusion that in Mâ—tters of meer Order and Decency every one for the Churches Peace is bound to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Here 1. This is readily granted if by Matters of meer Order and Decency you understand Matters of meer Order and Decency As you seemed to understand no more when you wrote your Iren. For there you distinguish betwixt Ceremonies and Matters of meer Decency and Order for Order-sake And you further say that Matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for Actions significative their Lawfulness may with better Ground
be scrupled Noted Rector of Sutton pag. 16. And thus far if you please you and I are agreed That Rules of Order not contrary to the end of Order should be submitted unto and that not only for the Churches Peace but also in Obedience to God's Command Let all things be done decently and in order And to such orderly Determinations what Camero says pag. 314. col 1. may in some sort be applied Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae at Leges respectu Dei nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia Deus impâ—ravit 2. But I observe that in other Writings since your mind is changed and you have learned now to confound what before you would have distinguished that is your Rites and Ceremonies and Matters of Order and Decency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. So you say in your New Account or Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 393. We declare that they are appointed only for Order and Decency And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you Of which there hath been and is so great dispute Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them upon such Determination I intend not to say much upon these Questions supposing they may fall in others Way And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion so much hath been written upon these Points that might excuse us from saying more till what hath been published be fairly answered Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 1. You say and declare they are appointed only for Order and Decency But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. whereupon it follows that you must hold them vainly appointed or that the contrary might as well have been appointed and so teach or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies whereby many are deprived of their Ministers and of some of God's Ordinances which may seem very harsh if they are only for Order and Decency and that in so low a Degree that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed without them Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause than their meer Wills 2. Do you well accord here with Mr. R. Hooker who says Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit we that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual You seemed Answer to several Treatises p. 268. unwilling that any should urge you with that Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship was not not in it self altogether so decent and fitâ— But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature that the contrary implieth no Indecency then you cannot say that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them Wherein you and Mr. Hooker appear to be of different Minds And kneeling at Communions with him l. 5. § 68. p. 366. is a Gesture of Piety which is something more than meer Decency 3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church You declare our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God by some notable and special Signification whereby he might be edified Will you say such things are only for Order and Decency which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God and for his Edification One would think that such things should be good in themselves and not as you say of an indifferent Nature in themselves Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency whose contrary are as decent to be the same or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty whereby he may be edified then is it not made medium excitans which you say Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 354. our Church utterly denies Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies which you can by no means allow pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation to say they are only Matters of Order and Decency and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept Let all things be done decently and in Order tho they are things of a quite different Nature Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere but it would be no Transgression of that Command though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed or used in the Worship of God nor any others like them Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies Here 1. You say pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual Effects it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship And then the Question is whether these are no spiritual Effects if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for Men ' s Edification And as Dr. Field says they are adhibited to exercise great Fervour and Devotion And Hooker Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence Devotion and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite If you makâ— them unprofitable idle Indifferents are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment and if others make them profitable edifying Ceremonies have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such 2. If Church-Governours have Power that is lawful Power or Authority from Christ to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission or prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say Rational Account p. 103. Is it in that Place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded And a little before it what hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Surely you cannot think the Church hath any such Power In all kind of
Grants says Gurney Vind. of 2 d Com. 45. The want of an Affirmative is Negative sufficient Then may not Men question whether the Governours of the Church have such a Power from Christ till they can prove it If Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you doth not imply that the Governours of the Church may teach and command more than they have his Word and Warrant for I can think of no other Text more likely for the purpose than that 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order Upon which Mr. F. Masoâ— grounded The Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things indifferent printed 1607. But here you will fall short too For I suppose the Jews were as well bound to perform the Worship of God decently and in order yet that was no Warrant or Allowance for their bringing in other Rites and Ceremonies into God's Worship than what God himself had appointed And what if Church-Governours forbad the Use of such Ceremonies Would it be to sin against this Rule Cannot the Worship of God be performed decently and in ordâ—r without them Antecedently to any Determination of Christ's Governours Men are bound to worship God decently and in Order but none are so bound to use such Ceremonies in God's Worship as was hinted before And that these differ tâ—to genere from Matters of Order and Decency may appear in that if we suppose them approved of God they are Matters of an higher Nature than things meerly decent that is they are pious and religious not only finally but formally that a Man would do amiss that used them only as decent neglecting the spiritual Signification of them And then will it not follow that if they be not approved and allowed of God it is worse for Governours to appoint and command them than if they commanded some simple indecent thing in God's Worship As Superstition or false Worship caeteris paribus is worse than a meer Indecency 3. It would seem by what we reade Gal. 2. 11 14. that the Apostle Peter had no Authority to appoint the Observation of such things Yet his Power was as great as any Church-Governours now can pretend to with Reason 4. If Church-Governours have such a Power as you say of Men's separating upon account of their Scruples Vnreason of Separation pag. 379. which I answered before pag. 29. where can you stop them from appointing new Ceremonies And where will you fix as to the use of them And what Assurance can you give us that we shall see an End of them that they will never appoint more Notwithstanding what you say p. 388. by the same Power that the Church hath decreed these she may decree more Rites and Ceremonies as indifferent as these and how many who can tell And being once decreed you must think you are bound to submit to such Deterâ—ination who are to be Iudges whether such or such Ceremonies be rightly determined and appointed You well know what was said Commiss Account p. 71. Not Inferiours but Superiours must judg what is convenient and decent So if the Governours of the Church once judg all those Ancient Rites of the Christian Church we ever read of with many new ones of the Church of Rome as many as they could refine and purge from Popish Superstition to be all decent and convenient then must you not submit to them all Though it would be a Sign that Religion was far past the Meridian in the Church as T. Fuller says where she can hardly be seen for the length of her own Shadow As you plainly declare from another p. 184. that Separation is not warranted upon the Account of bare Ceremonies although many more were enjoyned so you must say that Submission to them is a thing not to be denied though many more were appointed And therefore I say suppose and grant that the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint such Ceremonies and you know not where they and you shall stop And this Power you grant in your subscribing to the 39 Articles For Art 20. saith The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Cerâ—monies without liâ—â—iting any Number Tho this Clause was not extant in the Articles of Edw. 6 and Q. Elizabeth Here now I fall upon those two Reasons you give Vnreâ—s of Separation p. 16 17. for the appointing of these Ceremonies 1 Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity Therefore they retained theâ—e few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church And yet you cannot deny but other Ceremonies more Ancient than some of these are laid aside and the most Ancient of these is so in use with you as it was not used at first and was so in use in the Antient Church as it is not in use with you Such is your Respect and Reverence here to the Ancient Church 2. To manifest the Justice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies the Papists see they did not break Communion with thâ—m for mâ—er indifferent Things As you have it before p. 14. Our Bishops proceeded in our Reformation more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer Opposition to Popery Now I would be satisfied whether it might not shew more Respect and Reverence to Antiquity if more Ceremonies were retained and the more Ancient rather than such as came up in latter times as Standing may be proved before the Ceremony of Kneeling And whether there are not many Ceremonies in use among the Papists capable of having a good signification put upon them and so as innocent and indifferent as these and therefore for the Reason you have given to be retained or entertained amongst us to shew our Iustice and Equity towards them that we proceed not in meer opposition to Popery that we break not with them about meer indifferent things And will you be for that peaceable Design for going as near to Rome as you can without Sin But thus upon your Principles the Church might be Reformed I will not call it but Transformed borrowing the Word from you and become as Ceremonious as was the Iewish Church under the Law And they that highly applaud such Ceremonies as mighty Helps to Devotion c. may next tell the World that the Iewish Church was priviledged above the Christian as having more such Helps unless they have a Face to say that the Ceremonies of Gods appointment were no such Helps as those of Man's Inventions And consequently that latter Churches which some take to have been less pure had some Helps which Christ and his Apostles were not mindful to supply the Primitive Church with 5. It would seem that if Christ had approved of the appointing of such things he would rather have appointed them himself in his Word which would have gained them more repute and esteem and might have ended the dispute about them There is the same Reason for all Churches to observe and practise them as for
ours 'T is impossible for you to assign any Reason for the Cross in Baptism c. à natura rei now but what would have been as pleadable even in the Apostles times and at all times since Then is it not most probable that Christ would have made an universal Law for them that should equally respect all Churches had it been his Mind to have such things in his Church Indeed we find Christ hath instituted what religious Rites and Ceremonies he would have observed in the Sacraments of the New Testament And where he hath determined the matter himself what have Men to do more than to submit to his Determination What can Men do that come after the King None are like to do his work better or know his Mind better than himself 6. If the exerting such a Power be found contrary to many express Commands in the Word how can we imagine such a Power conveyed to Church-Governours in any general Command there The Scripture is no where contrary to it self Consult Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 v. 17 to the end of the Chapter And Chap. 15. 1 2. Are there such plain Commands in Scripture for mutual Forbearance and against judging and despising one another for such things as God hath not commanded and against offending the weak or casting a stumbling-Block in others way and for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church and can we think it probable or a thing credible that Christ would have all such Commands set aside meerly for the sake of things called indifferent Ceremonies Or that the Commands or Determinations of Church-Governours about such Matters should be of Force against the standing Rules and Laws of Christ who is King of his Church Matters of Order and Decency are things of another Nature necessary in genere as I have said before and yet Men cannot oblige us to this or that particular Order when it is repugnant to that whereunto it should be subservient Then much less is it the Will of Christ that meer indifferent things if no worse should take place of great and necessary Duties Such indifferent things must either be made necessary or else you must say it cannot be avoided That the Churches Peace may be broken sound Ministers and Christians that scruple the lawfulness of them may be ejected and cast out of Communion or their Consciences may be ensâ—â—red unnecessarily And yet one that ever read his Bible might know so much that the Governours of the Church have other work to do And as the second Book of Homilies says p. 3. Better it were that the Arts of Painting Plaistering Carving Graving and Founding had never been found nor used than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious should by occasion of Image or Picture perish and be lost So indeed better it were that no such Ceremonies had ever been appointed by Men than one Soul should be ensnared by them â—r one Minister or Member of Christ suffer 7. I query If Christ had not appointed the Sacraments of the New-Testament whether it had been in the power of Church-Governours to have appointed washing with Water in token and to put us in mind of our being washed and cleansed by the Blood of Christ and by the sanctifying influence and operation of his Spirit and so likewise to have appointed the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine as signifying that our Souls are to feed upon Christ whose Body was broken and whose Blood was shed for us Had not these been of the same Nature and as lawful as the significant Ceremonies which the Church hath taken on her to appoint Then let the People understand the Power of the Church that if Christ had never instituted Baptism and the Lord's Supper she could yet have in part supplied that want with those significant Ceremonies that would have been something like them 8. If Church-Governours have power to appoint such a Ceremony as the Cross in Baptism for Instance then they have power to add to the thing which God hath commanded and to make new parts of Worship But Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. forbids that You grant p. 337. That for Men to make new parts of Divine Worship is unlawful For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no Fault c. The Cross in Baptism is an Addition Tho you seem to understand the prohibition of adding to the Word of things directly repugnant yet that is not so properly an Addition as an Abolition As one says Prohibetur hîc additio non tantùm contrarii quae non tam additio est quà m abolitio sed etiam diversi v. M. Poli. Synops. Crit. in Deut. 4. 2. Methinks we may know what it is to add if we understand what it is to diminish then as they might not diminish or take away from God's Worship one significant Ceremony which the Lord had instituted by a Parity of Reason it would seem to follow that they might not introduce or add one significant Ceremony to the Worship God had instituted The Cross in Baptism is made a new part of Worship For that which is used in God's Worship in such a manner and to such an end that there needeth nothing but Divine Institution or God's appointing it to be used in that manner and to that end to make it a part of the true Worship of God that is made a part of God's Worship tho falsly for want of Divine Institution Had Christ appointed the Cross in Baptism as the Church hath appointed it to be used in token that we should not be ashamed c. had Christ appointed it by that Badg to dedicate us to the Service of him that died upon the Cross no doubt it had thus become a part of God's true Worship Here you speak short p. 348. The Canon says It is an honourable Badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of c. And what is that but a Sign from Men to God to testify their Subjection Which by your own Confession there is an Act of Worship and yet you will have it no such thing P. 355. you say If Christ had instituted it with such Promises then no doubt c. And I say If Christ had instituted it only in token that we ought not to be ashamed to confess him which is less than that hereafter we shall not be ashamed had he appointed it only to signify our Duty it would yet no doubt have been made a part of Worship And I hope upon second thoughts you will say the same Some other Passages relating to this Matter I would have glanced at but it is time to hasten to an end of this Conclusion I have been so long upon Yet methinks your slighty Exposition of the second Câ—mmandment p. 141. calls for one glance here Can you find no more in the Affirmative part of it than a Command to worship God without
made parts of Divine Worship you will excuse those that cannot submit to them unlâ—ss they could be proved of Divine Institution If they are things not 〈◊〉 by the Word according to what you have p. 116. they should not be 〈◊〉 they are not bound to use them No Church-Governours upon Faith havâ— suâ—h a Power to bind men to things not 〈◊〉 by the Word If their 〈◊〉 enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid as the making of any nâ—w part of Worship they are ipso facto null and void King Iamâ—s 〈…〉 Right of Kings p. 428. It is moreover granted If a King sâ—all command any thing dirâ—ctly contrary to God's Word and tending to the 〈◊〉 of the Church that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for thâ—ir Obedience but also expresly to forbid their Obedience For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King 's here and abâ—ve Christâ—â— And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col 2. may be appliâ—d hâ—re to Non-submission in such case as is spoken of to the Determination of Church-Governous Deirectatio autem illa Obedienâ—iae 〈◊〉 est in Obedientia nedum resiâ—tentia sed tantum Supremi Iuris 〈◊〉 quâ—d Magistratus sibi 〈◊〉 adrogat out userpat debita Recognitio It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours but rather a due Recogniâ—â—â—on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord. For haste I have here thrown things on heaps A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion 3. You say Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination Here I offer to your Consideration what follows 1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice that is live peaceably under it and obey Governours in Licitis Honestis so far as God's Law allows should be urged further to submit their Iudgment to the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy when determined by Governours whatever their private Iudgment may be Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination whose Judgment was That the Bishops and Priests were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as you cite his MS. Irenic p. 392. could such a Man as Dr. Holland and I need not tell you what he was who called Dr Laud a Schismatick for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy saying It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture c. who in effect says the contrary Thes. Salmur p. 8. § 33. Neque verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus c. And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops as of Bishops I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account whether you could submit to such Determination For there pag. 298. You speak of it as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts without any such Subordination or Dependance Here I would be satisfied how you would expound Homogeneal Parts and so you seem to expound them p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian Episcopatus unus appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church But then should not all that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them be supposed to be Bishops and no one Bishop above another otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them how is there Episcopatus unus And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts And thus will it not follow that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them which you here suppose to be with a Parity should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Manâ—or or Lordship in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake if not Diocesan Churches too 2. Whether you could submit and declare your Assent if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution and should require your Assent Would you then disown and discard such whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours For what you say Vnreasonableness of Separation Preface p. 89. we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them For there you tell us The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause They must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it that is for Union or the Churches Peace so as to condemn its Constitution c. Then you cannot say that wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of Governours whatever his private Judgment be Here I have put a Case wherein you could not submit 3. What if the whole Work of Government belonging to the Pastor's Office was quite taken out of their hand that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop and such Copy-holders as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision without doing any thing towards a Reformation Should they betrary the Churches Interest for the Churches Peace May they not endeavour any Alteration not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power and by humble Petition for Redress 4. Is every one bound to submit wholly as to the Form of Government to Governours Determination Then what if our Civil Governours and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments and Determinations I make no question but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren lately to be by God's
Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supream Government If this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury do recant and retract his Saying in his Book of the great Volumn against Cartwright where he saith in plain Words by the Name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is of God's own Institution which Saying doth impugn her Majesties Supream Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly And I find something like this in that small Tract called English Puritanism c. 6. § 6. They â—old that all Arch-Bishops Bishâ—ps Deans Officials c. have their Offices and Functions only by Will and Pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm and they hold that whosoever holdeth that the King may not without Sin remove these Offices out of the Church or 〈◊〉 these Offices are Jure divino and not only or meerly Jure humano That all such deny a principal Part of the King's Supremacy which indeed you must hold as to Bishops if you can prove them an Apostolical Institution Though I know the time when you was of another mind Rector of Sutton p. 41. Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical Institution And pag. 40. you believed that upon the strictest Enquiry it would be â—ound true that Ierome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Theodoret Theophylact were all for the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and â—reâ—byters in the Primitive Church Now suppose the Civil Governours should determine the Government by Bishops as superiour to the rest of the Clergy to be only jure humano that they had Power to alter if they pleased and should require Assent to this their Determination and the Ecclesiasticks on the other hand should be of your mind resolving not to give up the Cause of the Church or disown its Constitution and should determine it to be Iure Divino vel Apostolico and to be owned of Men as such In such a Case whether must the former for the Churches Peace think themselves bound to submit to the Determinations of the latter Or to which of their Determinations must others submit For none but such as the Vicar of Bray could submit to both Thus I have gone over your three Conclusions which you seem to make great account of What great Service they are like to do you let the Impartial Reader judg Instead of my third Conclusion I would offer to Consideration Chap. 26 of Corbet's Kingdom of God among Men. of Submission to Things imposed by lawful Authority p. 171 c. Particularly pag. 173. Though the Ruler be Iudg of what Rules he is to prescribe yet the Conscience of every Subject is to judg with a Iudgment of Discretion whether those Rules be agreeable to the Word of God or not and so whether his Conformity thereto be lawful or unlawful Otherwise he must act upon blind Obedience c. with what follows in that Page And pag. 174. It is much easier for Rulers to relax the strictness of many Injunctions about matters of supposed Convenience than for Subjects to be inlarged from the strictness of their Iudgment And blessed are they that consider Conscience and load it not with needless Burdens but seek to relieve it in its Distresses You go on with me Preface p. 74 But he urges another Passage in the same Place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But will not this equally hold against our Church if it excommunicates those who cannot conform Now may not it be said here as Rational Account p. 336. beginning They did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of your Church and therefore are no Schismaticks but your Carriage and Practices were 〈…〉 them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And may not your own Words ibid. p. 356 be returned Scil. That by your own Confession the present Division and Separation lies at your door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient Reasons for your casting them out of your Communion And supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that Division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those Conditions c. Here it is to be noted that your own Words Irenic p. 123 124. objected against you Rector of Sutton pag. 30. are as follow This Scil. entring into a distinct Society for Worship I do not assert to be therefore lawful because some things are required which Men's Consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of Communion on that account in which Case their Separation is necessary Whence I inferred that if Ministers be wrongfully ejected and wholly cast out of their publick Ministry for such things as their Consciences are not satisfied in for not conforming in unlawful or suspected Practices it becomes necessary for them to have distinct Assemblies in this case at least if there be need of their Ministry Yet I cannot find that you have one word in Answer to this That one would think either you knew not well what to say to the Case of the ejected Non-conformists or that they were so very despicable in your Eye you thought them not worth taking notice of at all Now to your Answers 1. Our church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites Yet whatever you say here I doubt a Man though he hath his Child lawfully baptized is not secured from the Sentence of Excommunication if he bring it not to the Church to be crossed And though a Man would joyn in the Communion yet if he be not satisfied to receive the Sacrament kneeling by the Rules of the Church he is to be debarred from the Sacrament and then liable to Excommunication for not receiving And being once excommunicated I would know what parts of publick Worship the Church allows him to communicate in Thus there seems to be little more than a Colour and Pretence in this first Answer if the Rules of the Church be followed But you further say Preface p. 74 75. 2. The Case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of the Church In the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema Now 1. If there be a necessity of our Separation
from the Church of Rome upon account of that highest Censure of Excommunication with an Anathema and her pronouncing us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to her Communion as you here suppose why then do you allow a Protestant to joyn in some parts of Worship in the Roman Church as in hearing Sermons c. as is plain you do pag. 108. 2. I shall not oppose you in this that the general Excommunication ipso facto in the Canons lays no Obligation till it be duly executed As you say pag. 368 369. General Excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular Persons until the Evidence be notorious c. And the Question is whether any Person knowing himself to be under such Qualifications which incur a Sentence of Excommunication be bound to execute this Sentence upon himself Yet another Question may come in here viz. supposing such a Sentence unjust though that alone would not justify Separation whether yet it may not something extenuate it You are not for extenuating at all I can bear you witness 3. And may I not say that this is answering but by Halves It never reacheth the Case of so many Ministers who have been wholly cast out of their publick Ministry It reacheth not the Case of many private Christians who have been formally and actually excommunicated for such Causes as can never be proved by Scripture to deserve such a Censure and Sentence You know that Canon of the Council held at Agatha Can. 2. Carranza fol. 159. that if Bishops excommunicated any unjustly they were to be admonished by other neighbouring Bishops And might not the Admonishers have received such into their Communion whom the other had unjustly cast out As the Council at Wormes Carrenza fol. 388. Can. 2. cut short there as I suppose Can. 14th is cited in Mr. B's Church History p. 275. § 56. saying That if Bishops shall excommunicate any wrongfully or for light Cause and not restore them the Neighbour-Bishops shall take such to their Communion till the next Synod And to my weak understanding you say nothing here to what you have Iren. p. 119 120. where you fairly clear Non-conformists but lay the Imputation of Schism upon those who require such Conditions of Communion as they cannot conform unto for Conscience-sake The very requiring of such Conditions you would have there to be no less than an ejecting Men out of Communion And therefore I should wonder if by being wholly cast out of Communion you then meant only being excommunicated with an Anathema As I doubt not but Separation is as necessary where one cannot have Communion with-out joyning in unlawful or suspected Practices as where one is formally excommunicated yea and if an Anathema were annext to the Sentence too You add 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal Reason in these Cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about Matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Here 1. Be pleased to note that as much as you seem taken with and hug this Conceit of yours as you have it once and again here and likewise in your Conferences p. 171. as if you thought it would do you Knights Service yet it remains wholly unproved that the things imposed are only Matters of Decency and Order Still I conceive that if Man only had apâ—ointed such a use of Bread and Wine to signify and put us in remembrance of Christ's Body broken and his Blood shed for us it had been something more than a meer matter of Decency and Order or something worse And whether the same may not be said of the Sign of the Cross I am in doubt for they seem to be parallel And so it neither is nor ever can be proved that such Imposition of such things in the Iudgment both of the Primitive and of all Reformed Churches is allowable by God's Law and that Men are bound to submit to them whether they are satisfied about them or not 2. When you say The Author of Irenicum could not possibly mean that there was an equal Reason in these Cases I would fain know what those Words mean Irenic p. 119. cited Rector of Sutton p. 21. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms if the things so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Did you not here suppose some Equality in these Cases And which way did you wind and turn your self to get off from those Arguments 3. And let me say this further How could you then possibly mean that Men should be bound in Conscience to submit to significant Ceremonies as meer Matters of Order and Decency when you so plainly distinguished them Iren. pag. 67. And say of such Ceremonies that their Lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled p. 68. cited Rect. of Sutton p. 16. Could you then possibly mean that such Ceremonies and Matter of Order and Decency were all one certainly you could not any further than you might possibly contradict your self Preface p. 76. And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Paul's But if this be all you have to say they are not yet well agreed And whether there be not the like Disagreement betwixt your Rational Account and this your Impartial Account where I have compared them let the Indifferent and Impartial Reader judg Thus I have gone thorow so much of your Preface as I am concerned in As you take little notice of me in your Book I have little more to say I would not take others Work out of their hands who are by so great odds fitter for it The first place where I find Rector of Sutton cited is p. 95. There you take notice how far I say we agree with you but you over-look what follows upon it that it seems very hard that notwithstanding you break with us for things you count but Trifles yet would be Sins to us Will you grant that such as agree with you in all things necessary may not should not be debarred Communion by imposing things unnecessary Or will you assert the contrary and prove it Again pag. 98. You cite Rector of Sutton p. 35. All the Parish-Ministers aâ—e not near sufficient for so populous a City And can you say they are sufficient Is there no need of more Why then do you say This is but a Colour and Pretence The case
chuse oft to speak to you in others Words because I suppose if I spake the same things in my own Words they would not be so much regarded Reply p. 214. If they have any never so slight Errors and which appears so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to and this you know is our case which M. de L' Angle seems to be ignorant of or else forgot himself and in these Lines I am upon went quite besides it if I communicate with them my Assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some Truths which yet after my real endeavours in enquiry appear Errors to me I doubt not but my refusâ—l is â—o way damnable Something more you have immediately before This is home and answers M. de L' Angle's charging us with committing a very great Sin And where he cites Calvin and Beza p. 422. We may well be confident that they could not have submitted to such Terms as are put upon us And if he himself had submitted unto all that is required of us when he was here in England had he submitted to Re-ordination and owned Bishops aâ—a distinct order from Presbyters of Apostolical Institution I very much question whether it might not have drawn the displeasure of his Brethren upon him if not their Censure at his return as he speaks p. 421. Add p. 423. When I see what he says of the First Authors of the Separation I cannot but wish he had known them He condemns some Writings as unreasonable and passionate possibly he may mean our Answers to your Sermon but thâ—â— foâ— ought appearing in this Letter very probably he hath not seen them Yet â—fter all he comes to plead for Dissenters There is a very great number of good Men whose Faith is Pure and whose Piety is 〈◊〉 â—This â—estimony I hope is true and who remain separate from you only because their Simplicity is surprized c. And whether he should not have had the like Charity for very many Ministers as he hath for very many of their Hearers may be a question I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom 〈…〉 said they were of the Body for all that So why may not they who are of the same Faith and have the same Worship for substance be acknowledged as Brethren and still owned as in Communion with the Body tho they have not the same Ceremonies which are meer Shadows But he speaks more fully to the purpose p. 424. And I am sure I wish he could make us sure here That if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the abstaining from some Expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the Colour of some Habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great Pleasure From hence as from that earnest Expression he hath in the Page foregoing In the name of God then do all that possibly you can Onâ— would easily infer that he was little acquainted with the Case he understood not where we have stuck what hath thus long hindred our full Communion with the Church of England Otherwise for ought I can perceive here we might have had him pleading for us that such matters of difference might be quite removed or at least that they might not be urged and imposed And by what immediately followeth there p. 424. it appears he is a great Stranger to the Savoy-Conference never truly understood how Matters were carried or who have been the Obstructors of Union Had the Non-conformists then or at any time since refused to hearken and submit to fair and just Proposals which would not have pinched at all on that part which should be kept tender in every one Then had they been extreamly to blame and had stood very much in their own Light But God allows us not to break our Peace with him and our own Consciences for Peace with Men neither can true Piety Zeal and Charity three Cardinal Vertues which he commendeth in our Bishops and prayeth they may be increased more and more require so much of us which is not in our Power to grant and yield unto But seeing as he says afterwards he should be past all comfort if he should not see some new Attempt at least made for the success of a work so holy and of such Consequence in a time that seems so proper for it and Thousands more may say the like who truly prefer Ierusalem's Welfare before their chiefest Ioy I cannot but pray that those who are chiefly concerned may have all the Qualities of the Head and the Heart which are necessary to make them able and willing to contribute to this good Work Upon the Third Letter from Monsieur Claude ADD P. 439. Tho he says the distinction betwixt the Bishop and Priest is very Antient yet had he been required to own this Distinction as grounded on the Word of God and to assert the Right of Episcopacy as of Apostolical Institution I very much question whether this would not have gravelled him Add P. 440. I believe there are very few to be found amongst us that question the Ordination of all ordained by Bishops And many would be glad if it was permitted that some of you would sometimes help us in our Meetings Where he speaks of Christian Unity and Concord to my poor understanding Mr. Corbet speaks more soundly accurately and distinctly P. 441. He is expressly against Tyranny over the Soul and Mens forcing the Conscience by imposing a necessity to believe that which they believe and to practise that which they practise where we must suppose the things themselves are not necessary And according to what follows in this case The external Communion ceases of right and there is not any that is lawful to be had any more with such Was there not need of an Index Expurgatorius here This makes something for Dissenters and pinches some where else And what follows that We do not believe that a single difference of Government or Discipline nor even a difference of Ceremonies innocent in their own Nature is a sufficient occasion to break the sacred bond of Communion is little to your purpose I think a single difference of Ceremonies should not break Communion where there is an Vnion in the same Faith and in things necessary But there is more than a single difference of Ceremonies where no difference is allowed but the same Ceremonies are imposed on all tho one part cannot look on them as innocent Ceremonies P. 442. Speaking of the Protestant Churches in France he says We utterly disapprove and see with Grief certain Extreams whereinto some of the one side and the other do cast themselves The one looking upon Episcopacy as an order so absolutely necessary that without it there can be no Ecclesiastical Society c. Then according to them there may be true Churches true Ministers without Bishops And as they are ready to
Is it not a shameful thing to hear and read Mens tragical out-crys against necessary Toleration which Christianity and Humanity plead for while they are the causes of that which they exclaim against If diversity in Religion be such an Evil whether should Men cause it by their unnecessary Laws and Canons and making Engines to tear the Church in pieces which by the antient Simplicity and commanded mutual Forbearance would live in such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected Ib. p. 272. Q. 50. Tho it be a Sin not to joyn with a less worthy Minister and a less orderly Mode of Worship when we can have no better yet whether is it not also a Sin to tye our selves ordinarily to such when we may have better lawfully that is consideratis considerandis upon terms whereon it will not do more hurt than good Sacril Desert p. 76. Q. 51. Tho it be granted that such are justly condemned by God that repent not tho they had but a Reader And that they should be thankful for so much in such Churches where they can have no better yet whether is it in the power of any Man justly to forbid them better when God provideth it And whether must they obey such a prohibition as such Tho Prudence may discern forbearance to be a Duty when the hurt would be greater than the good First Plea for Peace p. 85. Q. 52. Whether Parish-Bounds of Churches be of Divine Institution and unchangeable or only of human prudential Constitution Sacril Desert p. 10. Can any Proof be produced that ever God determined the Churches should necessarily be individuated by Parish-Bounds or Limits of Ground and that Men in the same Limits might not have divers Bishops and be of divers particular Churches First Plea c. p. 13. Whether is such a distribution of Parishes a thing of absolute necessity to a Church or only as the general Rules of Order and Edification do ordinarily in Christian Kingdoms require it And whether can we be bound to such humane distribution against any of Christ's own Laws and Predeterminations or when any changes turn them against the good Ends for which they are made Whether can humane Church-Laws bind to Obedience when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common Good or are made by Usurpation without Authority thereto ibid. p. 31 32. Q. 53. Whether are the Bishops that dwell in London-Parishes or others Members of the Parish-Church where they dwell If not whether dwelling in the Parish makes a Christian a Member of the Parish-Church If not what makes a Member and how are the Pastors special Flock truly known to him from others If the Bishops be Members Doth the Canon that forbids Men to go from their own Parish-Churches extend to the Bishop And to whom shall we present the Bishop for not coming to Church or for his Crimes What to himself Defence of the Plea for Peace p. 110 111. Q. 54. Whether a Ministry be not ordinarily necessary to the propagating of the Gospel and the saving of Souls See Rom. 10. 14 15. Sacril Desert p. 9. If Men can spare the Ministry why are they maintained If they are needful for the safety of Mens Souls must so many thousands hazard their Souls for want of needful help Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 52. or 54. And whether is there not need of a far greater number of Assistants than all the present Non-conformists Sacril Desert p. 10. And what harm is there in the Non-conformists preaching where the tenth Person cannot come to Church if they would Sacril Desert p. 12. And what may we think of such as had rather 10000 Persons stayed idly at home or went to Sports or Drinking in Stepny-Parish or Giles Cripplegate or Sepulchers or Martins in the Fields c. than that any Non-conformists should preach to them See 1 Thess. 2. 15 16. ib. p. 13. When in London it is conjectured that not above the 7 th or 8 th part of the Inhabitants can come to hear in the outer Parishes and if the other 6 or 7 parts should seek for room in the emptier Churches within the Walls it cannot be supposed that above one part of those 6 or 7 would find room and so if all be set together it may be supposed that there is place but for about the 5 th or 4 th part at most of all the People in all the Parish-Churches within and without the Walls and London is to be denominated rather from three four or five parts than from one of these and the great Parishes where one of twenty cannot hear are far off from the Churches that have room and those that have most need have least desire of the Means Quaere Whether the famousest and happiest City for Religion in the World should thus be left to turn Infidels Pagans Atheisâ—s or be kept from all publick Worship of God First Plea c. p. 230. And whether most great Parishes especially in Cities and great Towns have not more Souls which call for ministerial help than Conformists and Non-conformists if they lovingly joined are well able to afford necessary help to ib. p. 229. Q. 55. Whether many in place are not grosly defective in the necessary Qualifications for their Office and consequently in the discharge of the same Sacriledg Desert p. 10. And can any Man prove that if the Parish-Minister cannot or will not baptize his Children he must not get another to do it yea a prohibited Minister rather than they should be unbaptized and yet that if the Parish-Church cannot receive him or the Pastor cannot or will not do the Office of a Pastor for him he must be without Preaching Worshipping God and Pastoral oversight First Plea c. p. 103. And when the Bishops hold it a Duty to avoid a Non-conformist that hath not their License is there not as much to be said for avoiding a wicked Priest who it is sure hath not Christ's License and is a Non-conformist to his Laws Ib. p. 111. When Pope Nicholas and some of the Popish Councils forbad all Men to hear Mass from a fornicating Priest Whether should not Protestants be as strict And whether is it not as lawful to depart from the Parish-Priest for being a Drunkard a Scorner at Godliness a Persecutor an insufficient Guide of Souls as for being a Fornicator And whether many Councils do not forbid hearing Hereticks Way of Concord third Part p. 8. § 20. Q. 56. Whether this Argument be not good our necessity requireth Pastoral oversight and Christ commandeth us to use it when we may have it But from this publick Minister we cannot have it Therefore we must seek it where we can First Plea c. p. 100. And whether People are not deprived of Pastoral oversight as from the allowed Minister 1. When publick Pastors are at so great a distance from them as that such Pastors cannot come to them nor they and their Families go
whether are any bound to obey them at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions Way of Concord p. 111. § 15. And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority and impose them on the World in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks be not a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies ibid. § 16. Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship be not a Church Form of Divine Institution First Plea c. p. 8. And whether any Proof hath ever been produced that many Churches of this first Rank must of Duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association as Diocesan National c. and that God hath instituted any such Form Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions ib. p. 12 13. Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a political Sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the Power of teaching them ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-keys and leading them in publick Worship ibid. p. 13. And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less of many scores or hundreds such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or Bishop of Bishops had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion and mutual Assistance at due Seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes whose Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their Conversation and as a single Congregation may prudently in Persecution or foul Weather meet oft-times in several Houses so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses when they had no Temples and yet be capable of personal Communion as before described ibid. p. 13 14. And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith The Church of the Living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ c. doth he not here suppose as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino when they become but parts of a Bishops Church And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church ibid. p. 5 6. And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it as certain that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place ibid. p. 17. And see Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 75. or 69. Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved that God hath instituted any other than Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion whether must it not follow that none of the rest instituted by Man have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit or disoblige them from any of this Duty by just Authority Way of Concord p. 111. § 13. Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province into one only Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys or all essential to their Office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince First Plea c. p. 52. Or whether hath God made such proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws or whether God should be worshipped and Souls saved or his own Institution of Churches be observed Ibid. p. 53. Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches and Inferiour Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or Consent of the People or inferiour Pastors and these Bishops shall by Laws or Mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws or Mandates as such ibid. p. 80. Bishop Bilson of Subject p. 399. grants The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor ibid. p. 79. And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence and so a Duty to consent yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches till they do consent ibid. p. 80. Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God And doth not Dr. Blondel de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl. beyond Exception prove it with more ib. p. 81. Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command as such Or whether is it Schism to disobey it ibid. p. 82. Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses That he who separateth from a Parish-Church separates from no Church Sacril Desert p. 24. Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks if we renounced Communion with all other Churches except Parochial and Conformists And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism Whether ouâ—s that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us that
teach not Heresy nor preach down Holiness c. and deny us not their Communion unless we will sin or a Conformists that will hold Communion with none but his own Party but separates from all other Churches in the Land Ib. p. 41. Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church and their Communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies as unlawful to be communicated with when it is not so If the former then will it not follow that condemning them as no Church is a Diminution or no Aggravation of Separation and the local presence of an Infidel or Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of their Friends If the latter which is certain then will it not follow that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn they are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them declaring it unlawful Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47 or 49. Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church when it is upon unwarrantable Cause or Reasons Ib. p. 31. Now how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them while they generally refuse shun and condemn our Assemblies Are there no true Churches to be found in the World that have no Bishops of a superior order over Pastors And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism and Separation from those true Churches which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers and Invaders of other Mens Rights Vid. Sacril Desert p. 60. Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species whether have any Authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts change Christ's Laws or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches Way of Concord p. 111. § 14. Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons which causlessly silence Ministers scatter Flocks and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful or unnecessary ill-made Terms of Communion ibid. third Part p. 13. § 43. And if any proud passionate or erroneous Person do as Diothrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications whether this be not tyrannical Schism First Plea c p. 41. And as we say of the Papists that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication may we not say so of any others especially if either for that which is a Duty or for some small mistake which is not in the Persons power to rectify no greater than most good Christians are guilty of their Church-Law says he shall be excommunicate ipso facto ibid. p. 104. See also Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47. or 49. § 8. Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin whether this be not heinous Schism First Plea c. p. 41 42. Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justify and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Ib. Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible or shall make Churches so great or Pastors so few as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight Teaching and publick Worship and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other that would be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances true Church-Communion and Pastoral Help whether this would not be Schismatical and much worse Ib. p. 44. Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully sâ—t over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causlessly and without Right silence them and command the People to desert them and to take to others for their Pastors in their stead oâ— whom they have no such knowledg as may encourage them to such a change Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no Bishop because another was rightful Bishop before â— Ib. p. 49 50. Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not 1. To approve the best 2. To tolerate the tolerable 3. To have Sacraments free and not forced 4. To restrain the Intolerable 5. This to be the Test of Toleration Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt in true impartial Judgment 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace Way of Concord third Part p. 144. Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest to divide his Subjects and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them and to keep them in such Divisions seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love and willing Obedience and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused Party which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest who are as wise and just and loyal as they Second Plea c. p. 76. § 24. Si in necessariis sit Vnitas In Non-necessariis Libertas In uâ—risque Charitas Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae To make a rounder number I may add from Mr. M. Godwyn his Negro's and Indians Advocate pleading for the Instructing of them and so admitting them into the Church a Book lately Printed and Dedicated to the Arch Bishoâ— of Canterbury Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it as he says in the Title-Page no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion as he says p. 91. Are all professed Christians absolutely bounâ— in their Places to endeavour the same by their Vow in Baptism and their very Profession Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion as well at home as abroad And do they not owe as much Service herein for Christ's sake towards their own Country-men as towards Strangers Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men as for Indians And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England Atheism Ignorance Error Profaneness Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us is he for any great Advancement of Religion that would send away all Non-conformists if there be thousands of them to his Negro's and Indians for this wise Reason that There is no want of their Labours at home FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London by the Author on the latter end of February or beginning of March last but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets they could not get through the Press sooner The Ingenuous Reader is â—â—so desired to pass by the Errata the Author being remote from the Press these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen viz. ERRATA PAge 5. l. 6 r. above P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele down P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater P. 63. l. 24. r. Church P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia P. 72. l. 19 20. r. betray P. 81. l. 35. r. for P. 83. l. 36 r. did he at all