that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Christianity And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
superstition c. I named many Cases in which an Image may be used and say that it is not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image in a Room where they are placed only for Ornament c. Is this to say worship may be directed to it or that we may kneel before a Crucifix when I had before excepted the Images of God Christ c. in worship on several reasons Doth any Protestant doubt of what I assert My Parlour hath on all four sides the pictures of our living friends must I not pray in that room because my face will be still towards some of them Doth he doubt of this Or is not his citing one half of the words as he doth to deceive his credulous Reader if not worse § 10. He saith Kneeling before a Crucifix is lawful to him supposing the mind be only excited by it Answ A Calumny made up by setting together two scraps of remote sentences 1. Because I say it 's lawful to pray in a room where pictures not any are before me for meet ornament therefore he feigns me to say It 's lawful to kneel before a Crucifix 2. And elsewhere I say It is lawful to be excited to a good thought by seeing a Deaths-head or any of Gods works and so it is by seeing a Crucifix which no sober Christian doubts of he feigns me to make it an exciting sign to him that kneels before it § 11. Yea he makes so much use of his own calumny as p. 354. to prove me strangely partial Allowing it to be lawful to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans as an object that stirs up in us worshipping affections and so excuse all Papists from Idolatry that profess they use a Crucifix for no other end Answ Meer repeated forgery not becoming his profession I never spake for praying before it much less as an object to stir up worshipping affections But only that I am not bound to fly at prayer from a room that hath only ornamental pictures and that as in the Geneva Bible there be Historical pictures and few but Turks are against them it is lawful I say not kneeling before them at prayer but out of cases of scandal and danger to be excited by them to good affections and indeed good affections are worshipping affections Dare any Christian say that it is a sin to think reverently of God when we see his works or see but a picture of Scripture History as Abraham offering Isaac Christ dying and rising c. Nonconformists have still taken them for Lyers that said they were against Historical pictures and shewed it in the Geneva Bible I have seen in many pious country Houses all the story of Dives and Lazarus painted over their Tables and never heard the good use of it accused But I desire the Reader to peruse my words which he citeth Quest 113. and judge with what honesty we are accused I there say 1. It is unlawful to make any Image of God 4. It is unlawful to make place or use an Image as is like to do more hurt than good or to tempt to sin And all such Images of creatures as others use to give unlawful worship or honour to when like to tempt others to the like as among the Papists the Image of the Crucifix the Virgin Mary and Angels may not be made placed or used so as may tempt any to worship them sinfully as they do 11. It is unlawful to place Images in Churches or in secret before our eyes when we are worshipping God when it tendeth to corrupt the mind which is the ordinary effect of Images 12. It is unlawful to use Images scandalously as any of the aforesaid sinners use them though we do it not with the same intent that is so as in outward appearance is the same with their use Because so we shall dishonour God as they do and harden them in sin Therefore Images in Churches or in Oratories in those Countries where others use them sinfully or near such Countries where the same may harden men in their sin is evil 21. I think it unlawful to make an Image or any equal instituted sign to be the publick common symbol of the Christian Religion though but a professing sign as they make the Cross Doth this doctrine justifie the Papists And p. 876. § 14. I largly prove the use of a Crucifix as they do the Cross in baptism to be unlawful which he answereth not Is it not consistent with all this that I say That it 's not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image in a room where Images are placed only for ornament and we have no respect to them as a medium or object of our worship except as by accident it 's made unlawful And that not kneeling to them nor in prayer but in transient meditation it is lawful so to use them historically as to stir up in us a worshipping affection If the Papists do no more no Protestant would call them Idolaters for it But if they use them Idolatrously it makes our use of them unlawful when even but outwardly it is like theirs And so I say of the Cross This is the Doctors zeal against Idolatry that it seems would have us all used as his Books intimate till we dare use the Transient Image of the Cross much worse than he maketh the Papists to use Images and Crucifixes in particular For to use them as a dedicating common badge of Christianity in our great Covenant with Christ is more than to use them historically and in meditation or more than to pray in rooms adorned with common pictures But he knoweth that the Papists give more to Images § 12. Obj. But what need had you to say all this of Images Answ That men may understand it I 'le tell you that you may see the Candor of our accusers Dr. R. Coxe Bishop of Ely consulted with Cassander to have had Images in our Churches The Lutherans so use them Our new Church of England began to set up Crucifixes over Altars and to plead more for Church-pictures than heretofore In 1642. the Parliament ordered the defacing all Images of any Person of the Trinity in Churches or Church-yards before the King went from them Because I read this Order and the Church-warden attempted to obey it the rabble of drunken swearing Journy-men who were all for Conformity rose in a tumult with clubs seeking to kill me and the Churchwardens and knockt down two Country-men because they were our friends who carried the hurt to their death And the Conforming Clergy were so much for them that one of them indicted me at the Assizes and I was forced to leave the Country Such rage for Images tempted some religious men that were against them to be more censorious against the Conformists than I would have them and to run too near the other extream And after it grew a dispute whether the Lutherans were not Hereticks of which see Caspar Streso
total and positive separation is lawful and convenient P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism P. 119. Let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same argument that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to Conform to any suspected or unlawful practice c. They lay the imputation of Schism on all them who require such Conditions of Communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to Conform for Conscience sake A Premised explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH THE word CHURCH being Equivocal is unfit for our disputation till explained It signifieth being a Relative several sorts of related Assemblies which are distinct I. In their Matter A Church of Jews Turks Christians of Orthodox and of Hereticks being not one thing II. In the Efficient A Church of Gods instituting or a Church of mans III. In the Fnds. 1. A Christian Assembly at a Fair or Market or Court or Army c. is not the same with an Assembly for Religious exercises 2. Nor an Assembly for Legislation about Religion in Parliament or Consultation in Synods or Disputation in Schools the same thing as an Assembly for stated worship c. IV. In the Form or Constitutive Relation to the Correlate And so the great difference which now concerneth us to note is that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing and a Political Society related as Governours and governed is another The first is either an accidental Assembly or else a designed Assemby by consent This last is either an Assembly of Lay-men which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government and may meet to worship God without a Pastor and this in Politicks is usually called a meer Community 2. Or an Assembly of Rulers or Pastors in equality as to Government there And this is called a Council Synod Dyet Parliament Convention c. V. A Governed or Political Church is of Three several Species at least as there are three Species of such Government I. A Christian Family consisting of the Family-Government and Governed living together in holy faith love worship and obedience to God the Master being their Teacher Ruler and Guide in worship II. A Pastoral-Church consisting of one or more Pastors and Christian people correlated as his flock for the benefit of his Pastoral office which essentially containeth a power to teach them lead them in worship and govern them by the Keys as a Ministerial Judg who is fit for that Commmunion All together is called also the Power of the Keys and is subordinate to Christs Teaching Priestly and Ruling Office III. A Royal or Magistratical Church consisting of a Christian Soveraign and Christian Subjects to be ruled by his sword or forcing power under Christ and his Laws for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the society and the glorifying and pleasing the Lord Redeemer And IV. The Universal Church comprehendeth all these three as parts and is most excellently properly and fully called the Church consisting of Jesus Christ the chief Pastor Teacher Priest and King an eminent perfect Policy with all Christians as the subject part It is visible in that the subjects and their profession and worship are visible aod Christ was visible on earth is visible in the Court of Heaven his Laws and Providence are visible and he will visibly judg the world and reign for ever And it is no further visible The constitutive essential parts are only Christ and his subject-body The noblest organical parts of that body are Prophets Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers In all this note 1. That we have no difference that I know of about the Church in any of these senses before mentioned except 1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods service without Gods particular prescript or institution 2. Whether it be true that the King is so persona mixta as some hold as to be King and Priest and to have the power of Church-Keys and Word and Sacraments 3. Whether over and above the lowest Pastoral Churches Christ hath instituted a direct superior Pastoral sort of Churches to rule the inferior in Faith Worship and the Keys of Discipline over Pastors and people And if so what are these superior Pastoral Churches whâ—ther Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Papal or all And if Christ made no such whether men may make them 2. And note that we are certainly agreed that the Magistratical form of forcing power and the Pastoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys are two though the subjects should be the same though usually the Church is in the Commonwealth as part And none of us deny a Christian Common-wealth Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and though this power be over the Pastoral Church it is but Accidental and not Essential to it 3. And note that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this were 1. What is the Pastoral specifying form of the Church of England And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Institution And I have brought him to maintain that there is no such Church of England at all And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he 4. And Lastly Note that as to a Pastoral Church we agree I suppose in distinguishing a Transient and a fixed relation And as he that is a Licensed Physician acteth as such where he cometh though related fixedly to no Hospital so if a lawful Minister of Christ either fixed in another Church or in none but the Universal be called pro tempore for a day to do his office in another Church he acteth as Christs Minister and their Pastor for that dayâ— And if a travelling Christian joyn with them he is a Member for that day Yea if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the same relations to the same ends it is a temporary transient Pastoral Church But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification ought to fix their relation and practice Though most of this be said after where he calls me to it I thought meet here to premise the Explication of the word Church as in divers books largely I have done of the word Separation lest I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part and we should dispute about a word which the Reader and perhaps our selves understand not But we have a greater controversie than this risen since A. Bishop Laud's and Grotius's Reconciling design v z. what the Catholick visible Church is 1. Protestants have hitherto held as the first point of difference from the Papists that the Universal Church hath no constitutive Head or supreme regent Power but Christ He hath setled no one
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
much of the English Ceremonies as he thought approached those of Rome He loved all good men of what perswasion soever agreeing in the Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion When some worthy and Learned men did on his Death bed intimate to him that he had faln too heavy upon many Pious and Learned men of the Church of England He professed himself never to have born any malice in his heart against the Person of any of them but that his intention was only to blame them for having too much gratified the Enemies of the true Protestant Religion by their condescentions to them and their too great compliances with them He never recanted nor retracted any thing material that he had Professed and Printed of late years if he had used any sharp expressions or by any reflections given any offence to any truly pious man he heartily prayed their pardon and as heartily forgave all men as he desired them to forgive him And this he had often before expressed to me both in publick at my House and in private between himself and me and also after that some worthy men had been with him which gave occasion to this discourse This for your satisfaction is with truth and sincerity attested by Your Affectionate Friend Tho. Coxe London Octob. 29. POSTSCRIPT Five Additional Notices to the Reader THere are some things of which I thought meet to add this notice to the Reader I. That I am more alienated from Conformity in the point of Assent Consent and Use in denying Christendom to all Children who have no Godfathers and Godmothers and excluding the Parents from that Office by some late Observations which my retiredness kept me unacquainted with I am requested by some poor People to Baptize their Children I tell them the Parish Ministers must do it They answer me That they cannot have them Baptized by the Parish Ministers because they are poor and can neither pay the Curate nor the Godfathers I ask them Cannot you get Godfathers without money They say No No body will be Godfather to their Children for nothing Whereupon enquiring into the case I am informed that among the poor it is become a trade to be hired persons to be Godfathers and Godmothers and some that have not money must leave their Children unbaptized and till lately Popish Priests Baptized many I am not willing to aggravate this Hiring nor the causes of it nor that the same men that think Baptism necessary to Salvation or as Mr. Dodwell speaks to a Covenant right to Salvation should yet shut out all that have not money to hire such Covenanters But I am not Conformable to such Church-Orders II. Whereas there is a great stress laid on Mr. Rathband's Book of the old Nonconformists Doctrine against the Brownists as if they thought that meer obedience to the Law required them to forbear Preaching when they were silenced when indeed they only thought 1. That it bound them to give up the Temples and Tithes and publick maintenance which are at the Magistrates dispose 2. And to forbear that manner and those circumstances of their Ministry as no Law of God in Nature or Scripture do oblige them to but will do more hurt than good I have now for fuller satisfaction here added the Testimony of his Son concerning his judgment and practice who nineteen years had his liberty in Lancashire to Preach publickly in a Chappel and after that in Northumberland and no wonder if the disorders of Brownism that would have deprived them of all such liberty were opposed I have perused Mr. Rathband's Book written by some others and I find nothing in it that I consent not to but desire him that would understand it to read the Book it self Mr. Rathband's Letter to me is as followeth Reverend Sir WHereas Doctor Stillingfleet in a late Book of his hath alledged a Book published by my Father to prove that Preaching contrary to our Established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists in former times I assure you Sir that my Father is not to be reckoned in that number for he exercised his Ministry though contrary to the Law for many years at a Chappel in Lancashire and after he was silenced he Preached in private as he had opportunity and the times would bear of which I my self was sometime a witness Afterward upon the invitation of a Gentleman he exercised his Ministry at Belsham in Northumberland for about a year and from thence he removed to Owingham in the same County where he Preached also about a year till being silenced there he retired into private as formerly This I thought expedient to signifie to you and you may make what use of it you please for what is written here shall be owned by SIR Yours in all Christian respects William Rathband London April 2. 1681. He is a Grave and worthy Nonconforming ejected Minister living usually in High-gate His Father read part of the Common-Prayer and kept in as aforesaid And I thank Doctor Stillingfleet for so full a Vindication of such old Nonconformists against the Accusations of their Prosecutors III. When my Book was almost Printed I received the Manuscript of a faithful Learned ejected Minister in which he manifesteth the fallacy of Doctor Stillingfleet's Allegations of History for the Antiquity of Diocesan Bishops and fully proveth that for the first three hundred years the Bishops were Congregational and Parochial and that with so full evidence as that out of Strabo and other Geographers he sheweth that many of their Seats were but about four Miles from one another as our Parish Churches are and he confuteth what is said against it And he sheweth the Doctors gross abuse of History to prove that Bishops needed not the Peoples consent and proveth that the Peoples choice or consent was necessary by the constant judgment of the Churches But this Book is of so great worth that I will not dishonour it by making it an Appendix to mine but intend to make so bold with the Author as to publish it by it self 1. As a fuller Confutation to Doctor Stillingfleet 2. As a full Answer to Mr. Dodwell's Letters on that subject And 3. As a Confirmation of my full proof of the same things in my Treatise of Episcopacy IV. And if any will receive that from a Conformist which he will not receive from such a one as I he may read 1. Our full and faithful Vindication by a Beneficed Minister and a Regular son of the Church Called A Compassionate Consideration of the Case of the Nonconformists I am not so happy as to know the Author but he confirmeth my former Judgment that a great part of the Passive Conformists are moderate worthy men with whom we should earnestly endeavour as near and fast a coalition as is possible to be had by lawful means 2. And either the same hand or such another Conformist hath written Reflections on Doctor Stillingfleet in which the like candor and charity appeareth though with
And as to his Accusation of my book for Concord I answer 1. Is it no Ministers work in a contending world to tell and prove what are Christs ordained termes of Christian Concord but his that is Christs plenipotentiary on Earth and were to set the termes of Peace and War Is this spoken like a peace maker and a Divine Doth not he pretend also in his way to declare the terms of Concord 2. But no man more heartily agreeth with him in lamenting the state of the Church on earth that when such men as Bishop Gunning Dean Stillingfleet Dr. Saywel c. on one side and such as I and many better men on the other side have so many years studied hard to know Gods will I am certain for my self and I hope it of them with an unseigned desire to find out the truth what ever it cost and I profess as going to God that would he but make me know that Popery silencing Prelacy imprisoning Banishing or ruining all Nonconformists Anabaptists Antinomians Quakers or any that ever I wrote against are in the right I would with greater joy and thankfulness recant and turne to them than I would receive the greatest preferment in the land I say that yet after all this we should so far differ as for one side to be confident that the others way of Concord is the ready way to ruin wickedness and confusion and to come to that boldness to proclaim this to the world alas how doleful a case is this What hope of Christian peace and concord when such excellent sober well studyed men as they quite above the common sort not byassed by honour or preferments or power by Bishopricks Deaneries Masterships plurality or love of any worldly wealth and such as we that study and pray as hard as they to know the truth are yet confident to the height that each others termes of Love and peace are but Sathans way to to destroy them both and introduce as Dr. Saywel saith Conventicles do Heresie Popery Ignorance Prophaneness and Confusion And what we are past doubt that their way will do experience saith more than we may do Oh what shall the poor people do in so great a temptation § 9. But I must pass from his Preface where I have noted 1. That he is yet so peaceable as to propose some sort of abatements for our Concord that the benifit may be sibi suis not reaching our necesseries but much better than nothing 2. That they are so ill agreed that Bishop Gunnings Chaplain writeth against it making the only way of Peace to be by the sword to force all men to full obedience to their Lordships in every thing injoyned not abating an Oath a Subscription a Covenant a Word a Ceremony without Comprehension or limited Toleration 3 And I could wish the Doctor would consent at least that Lords and Parliament men may have the liberty themselves of educating their own Sons so it be in the Christian Reformed Religion and to choose their Tutors and not confine them to Conformists only The Papists are tollerated in choosing Tutors for their Children The King of France hath not yet taken away this liberty from the Protestants Nor the Turks from the Greeks And must you needs take it away from all the Lords Knights Gentlemen Citizens and Free-holders of England Perhaps Beggars will consent if you will keep their Children or do what the Godfathers vow Most Gentlemen that keep Chaplains expect that they teach their Sons at home sometime at least what if a Lord or Knight have such a Chaplain as Hugh Broughton or Ainsworth or as Amesius Blondel Salmatius as Gataker Vines Burges c. must the Law forbid them to read Hebrew Philosophy or Divinity to their Sons I doubt you will scarce get the Parliament hereafter to make such a Law to fetter themselves lest next you would extend your dominion also to their Wives as well as Sons and forbid them marrying any but Conformists Is it not enough to turn us all out of the publick Ministry Methinks you might allow some the Office of a School-master or Houshold Tutor or Chaplain under the Laws of Peace unless the Sword be all that you trust too If it be it is an uncertain thing The minds of Princes are changable and all things in this World are on the Wheel when Peter flieth to the Sword Christ bids him put it up for they that so use it perish by it Hurting many forceth many to hurt you or to desire their own deliverance though by your hurt CHAP. III. The beginning of the Doctors unreasonable Accusations examined His stating of the Case of Separation § 1. THis much instead of an intelligible stating of our Controversie he giveth us Page 2. By separation we mean nothing else but withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and joyning with Separate Congregations for greater purity of worship and better means of Edification And may we be sene by this that we understand the difference 1. Whether by Our Church he meant the Parochial Church and if so whether some or all or the Diocesan Church or the Provincial or the National or all I know not But I know well that some withdraw from some Parish Churches which joyn with others And some think they withdraw not from the Diocesan or Provincial if they communicate with any one Parish Church in the Diocess And some renounce the Diocesan Church which constantly joyn with the Parochial And for the National Church who can tell whether we have Communion with it till we know what they mean by it Indeed in the latter part after the long dispute he condescendeth beyond expectation to explain that term But it s so as plainly to deny that there is any such thing as a Church of England in a Political sense that hath any constitutive Regent part But even there so late he maketh it not possible to us to know whether we be members of the Church or not For he maketh it to be but all the Christians and Churches in the Kingdom joyned by consent exprest by their Representatives in Parliament under the same civil Government and Rules of Religion Doctrine and Worship and Government 1. As it is a Christian Kingdom we are sure that we are members of it 2. As it is all the Churches of the Kingdom consenting to the Scriptures yea and to Articles of Doctrine and all that Christ or his Apostles taught we are sure that we withdraw not from it 3. But if every Chancellor Dean Commissary Surrogate c. Or every forme or word or Ceremonie be essential to their Church we cannot tell who is of it and who not Or really whether any reject not some one forme word or office If every such thing be not essential he never in all the book tels us what is or how to know it or who is of it § 2. And the word withdrawing seemeth to imply former Communion And if so he maketh
is not my case the same We had more than connivence when we had the Kings Licenses and ever since experience tells you that his Clemency hath occasioned a restraint of the Bishops and some connivence from them 2. And if it were the Temples that make the difference let them allow us to preach there and see whether we will refuse it And sure the Conformists that preach in Tabernacles are not Separatists the Parish Teacher of St. Martins now preacheth in the same place which I built to have preached in and for so doing was by a warrant judged to prison They had no more Law on their side than I have they usually read no more of the Liturgy but the Confession and the Scriptures and many not the first at all and some more so that its a full proof that if breaking the Law had been all their stop they would have still preached Sect. 29. Dr. Ames tells us that he had preached without the Bishops consent by this Story fresh Suit p. 409. describing an English Bishops Pastoral work he saith It would be ridiculous for a mean man to desire him to visit him his Wife or Children in sickness he must have a Chaplain not only to do other duties of Religion for him but even to give thanks at his Table I will not here speak of draw up an Excommunication for him take him Pursuivant Jaylor see to your Prisoner but note one example of mine own experience which many others can parallel I was once and but once I thank God before a Bishop and being presented to him by the chief Magistrates of a Corporation to be Preacher in their Town the lowly man first asked them how they durst choose a Preacher without his consent You said he are to receive a Preacher that I appoint you for I am your Pastor though he never fed them And then turning to me How durst you said he Preach in my Diocess without my leave So that without any other reason but meer Lordship the whole Corporation and I were dismissed to wait his leisure which I have done now twenty years and more Much like the usage of holy Paul Bayne Successor to Perkins who being commanded to preach a Visitation Sermon and being sickly and in a sweat with preaching was fain to refresh himself instead of going presently to attend the Bishop and when he was sent for having small Cuffs edged with a little blew thred saith the Bishop How dare you appear before me with those and he suspended him And good Mr. Bayne would never more have to do with a Bishop but said They are an earthly Generation and savour not the things of God When Dr. Fulke a half Conformist went out of St. Johns Colledge in Cambridge with his Pupils hiring Chambers for himself and them in the Town it was as great a separation from the Colledge to avoid the Surplice which he after submitted to as we make from the Church See Ames fresh suit p. 473. And that it was no conscience of obeying the Bishop that Beza would have the Ministers moved by from assembling Judge by these words De notis Eccles Ego pontificiis I willingly leave to the Papists the whole degree of Episcopacy of which I openly say the Holy Ghost was not the Author but humane prudence which if we observe not that God hath cursed certainly we even yet see nothing and we nourish a viper in our bosoms which will again kill the Mother Sect. 30. I will conclude with the recital of the Letter sent to the Bishops by Dr. Humphrey Regius Professor in Oxford who yet constrained used the Surplice after that Our Dr. may note what sence they had then of these things premising only the words of John Fox speaking of Blumfield a wicked Persecutor who threatned a godly man Simon Harelson for not wearing the Surplice Its pity saith he such baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Christians in God take them away from us or us from them for God knoweth they be the cause of much blindness and strife among men Dr. HUMPHREY'S Letter to the BISHOPS YOur Lordships Letter directed unto us by our Vice-Chancellor although written in general words yet hath so hearted our Adversaries that we are now no more counted Brethren and Friends but Enemies and â—ith the old Mass attires be so straitly commanded the Mass it self is shortly looked for A Sword now is put into the enemies hands of these that under Q Mary have drawn it for Popery and under pretence of good order are ready without cause to bewreck their Popish anger upon us who in this will use extremity in other laws of more importance partiality I would have wished my Lords rather privy admonition than open expulsion yea I had rather have received wounds of my Brother than kisses of mine Enemy if we had privily in a convenient day resigned then neither should the punisher have been noted of cruelty neither the offender of temerity neither should the Papists have accused in their seditious Book Protestants of contention Religion requireth naked Christ to be preached professed glorified that graviora legis by the faithful Ministry of feeding Pastors should be furthered and after that orders tending to edification and not to destruction advanced and finally the Spouses friends should by all means be cherished favoured and defended and not by counterfeit and false intruders condemned and overborn and defaced But alas a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outward shews is punished and a man only outwardly conformable and inwardly clean unfurnished is let alone yea exalted The painful Preacher for his labour is beaten the unpreaching Prelate offending in the greater is shotfree the learned man without his cap is afflicted the capped man without learning is not touched Is not this directly to break Gods laws Is not this the Pharises vae Is not this to waâ—â— the outside of the Cup and leave the inner part uncleansed Is not this to prefer Mint and Annis to faith aud judgment and mercy Mans tradition before the ordinance of God Is not this in the School of Christ and in the method of the Gospel a plain disorder hath not this preposterous order a woe That the Catechism should be read is the word of God it is the order of the Church to preach is a necessary point of a Priest to make quarterly Sermons is law to see poor men of the poor mens box relieved Vagabonds punished Parishes communicate Rood lofts pull'd down Monuments of Superstition defaced Service done and heard is Scripture is Statute that the Oath to the Q Majesty should be offered and taken is required as well by ordinance of God as of man These are plain matters necessary Christian and profitable To wear a Surplice a Coap or a corner'd Cap is as you take it an accidental thing a device only of man and as we say a doubt or question in divinity Sith now these substantial points
I take it to be a wrong to those that I would preserve to extenuate the danger of the snare or poyson on pretence of gentleness to the Writer But I deal with the Cause and desire none to hate the person nor would I diminish the honour due to him for his parts or vertues but rather have all men love and magnifie all the good while they dislike the evil and would save the Reader at as easie a rate to the Writer as I can But that he should not be related to his false or sinful words or deeds is not in my power to effect But though I repent not of necessary truth if I any where mistake or speak more truth than is profitable or in language by sharpness more apt to do hurt than good of this I repent and ask forgiveness of God and man As I do if I speak so short of truth as with Eli to make sin seem smaller than it is And now I hope you will love your own duty of Repentance better than another mans and will not be angry if I seek to help it 1. Do you not perceive that while you paint the Dr. as an incredible raging distracted lyar and praise his repentance for rash words of others that you commit the same rashness your self against him If you cannot see your own face let any impartial Reader be your glass and ask him whether you do not that which you are condemning 2. You seem to vindicate the Book called the Friendly Debate I shall shortly further tell you of somewhat in it to be repented of And if partiality made not repentance a very difficult work you would have no need herein of a Monitor But you may think me partial though I acknowledg your civilities to me I can shew you a Manuscript of one both impartial and truly judicious even the late Judge Hale expressing so great dislike of that Debate and the Eccl. Policy as tending to the injury of Religion it self that he wisheth the Authors would openly profess that they write for themselves and no more so abusively pretend it is for Religion 3. You say in this Picture that If L. du Moulin had that honest zeal in him to which he pretends he would have handled Mr. Baxter as smartly c. Answ There may be other reasons than want of honest zeal But do you not here shew that it is the persons more than his act that offended you in his reproof Could you judge it honest zeal had it been to others pag. 16. 4. You say p. 17. He hath something of the Nonconformists in him and for that reason he spareth him Answ Do not Nonconformists differ from Erastians Did not I write against his opinion of Church-Government And did he not bear 22 years ago when Conformity was not in our Controversies 5. You say of the party that come nearest the doctrine of Calvinists and Puritans though you say you mean such as D. M. your Reader must suppose you mean the Nonconformists that they are the true Causes of all our present evils For the late War was raised by the very best of you c. If you mean as you seem it 's somewhat extraordinary to perswade men to believe this in the same Land and Age that the War was raised in And for one to do this that had the first General of the Horse in the Earl of Essex Army his Patron a few doors from him and the Lord Hollis a Colonel nearer him till lately and the Lord President of his Majesties Privy-Council a Colonel not far off him and many more known Conformists who could all quickly have satisfied him how few Nonconformists were Members of Parliament or Commanders in the Army when the War began and that it was betwnen two parties of Conformists that the Wars began as I have proved against Mr. Hinkley and can fullier do when there is need Which party is most obliged to repentance you may dispute with those that are fit for it But if your intimation be untrue it is of another nature and degree than any of Dr. Moulins I confess one party did in many Parliaments before and in that accuse Bishop Laud and his new followers 1. Of Innovations 2. Of Arminianism 3. Of promoting absolute arbitrary Government against the Subjects Property and Liberty 4. And of promoting Popery But if this party were not Conformists of the Church of England the Bishops Clergy and Gentry were not the Church in Arch-bishop Abbots days before Bishop Laud. As to the Reasons of their accusations and the publishing the Articles for Toleration in order to the Sp. and Fr. Match c. I pass them by But because you may say some such think of me as you do of D. M. for what I say in my search for the Schismaticks I only add 1. That I hope we may transcribe mens own words 2. And may judge that there is some difference between the Bishops that judged the Pope Antichrist c. and those that would have us as the way to unity to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis and the first 6 or 8 General Councils and that say our concord must be in obeying unum Collegium Pastorum ruling the whole Church per literas formatas and that say the Roman Church is a true Church but so are none of the Reformed that have not Bishops and a continued successive Ordination by such A Copy of a Letter written by Mr. Lewis Du Moulin to the Worthy Dr. Tho. Coxe With the Drs. Answer occasioned by some Reports that concerned Dr. Lewis Du Moulin Worthy Sir KNowing the natural inclination you have to oblige all men and the perticular experience I have of your unwearied goodness to my person and family did incourage me to write both before and now The occasion of both was the Reports spread abroad of my Father being informed you had made him the object of your Care during his sickness I rejoyced that Providence had ordered it so that a Person of your approved worth and Integrity was concerned about him I shall not trouble you with the Relations Fame has brought into this Country but shall only desire to know how he died Was there any advantage taken of his weakness of body or mind How far did his Reported Recantation extend Reach'd it to any material thing of his Tenets or only in reference to personal Reflections This is what is humbly desired by Honoured Sir Your most Humble and obliged Servant Lewis Du Moulin From my House at Malton in Yorkshire October the 7th 1680. The Drs. Answer to Mr. Lewis Du Moulin Sir I Had not delayed to return an Answer to your first Letter had I known how to direct mine to you which indeed I had forgotten how to do This is therefore to let you know that your Father my honourèd Friend Dr. Du Moulin Dyed as he had Lived a truly pious man a great hater of the Romish Superstition and of so