They are Puritans Presbyterians Fanaticks Separatists Schismaticks Hereticks Rogues is effectual arguing and convincing and some preachers it seems take their hearers for such Judges But men will be men and reason will be reason and truth will be truth and innocency will be innocency and pride and slander will shame their Authors more than the slandered when you and I are dead and gone § 50. Serm. p. 30. But suppose the first Churches were barely Congregational by reason of the small number of believers at that time yet what Obligation lies upon us to disturb the peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant State And here is mentioned the community of Goods washing Feet and then They believe that the first civil Government was appointed by God himself over families Do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdomes to bring things back to their first institution c. Ans 1. We call them not barely Congregational but associated for personal Communion If all the Kingdom had but one Bishop that were another Species of Government and Communion than Parochial 2. If one like you should plead for turning all the families in London into one and making only one Common Father or Master of a families who should send Stewards to every house of his own making to give them their victuals he only being the proper Governour and this man should plead as you do that it is disturbing the peace of the great family to reduce them to their Infant State by restoring particular families more wit or reputation than yours would not keep his cause from shame Or if he pleaded that all the Schools in a Diocess or many 100 or 1000 should have but one Schoolmaster with Ushers that have no power to take in or put out or use the Rod and that to retrive this to the Infant State is seditious the reason of mankind would shame his reasoning And when men know what Pastoral Guidance is the case here will be as plain 3. Our Reason for desiring not the Primitive paucity of Christians but the Primitive form of Christ is 1. Because Christ by his Apostles instituted it Mr. Thorndike once spake well to that 2. Because we can prove that he was faithful in forming his house and Church as Moses was in forming that of the Jews 3. Because we never heard it proved that man had power to alter what Christ by his Spirit in the Apostles founded neither having their infallibility nor commission 4. At least we think it is the surest way to hold to that which we are sure God setled till we can prove that men have power to change the very form 4. Teach us what to say to the Papists when they shall accordingly say to us what though there was no Vniversal Pastor in the Primitive times what though many things in discipline and worship be changed since why must you disturb the peace of the Church by reducing things to the infant State what though there were no Cardinals nor General Councils of Prelates to make universal Lawes for the Churches what though the Sacrament was given in both kinds and there were no private Masses or prayers for the dead must the Church be still in infancy What though the Apostles instituted the Lords day for publick worship and holy Communion may not the Church put that down and set up one day of her making once a month or year instead of it But I will not be one of those that will fight for man against God for I know who will overcome If you can prove that Christ gave your Church authority to pull down the Church Offices and form which he appointed and set up another and call it the Churches growth or emendation I will obey them But I have elsewhere asked who they were that made your new Church form If the first Church of Gods making it was only the universal headed by Christ and particular Churches for personal Communion if these made the new forms tell us who when and by what power and why they may not unmake them if there be cause and whether the efficient Church be not better then the effected as the Parent than the Child If you say that Bishops of Parishes did 〈◊〉 by consent in Asia or elsewhere above a thousand years ago how come we in England to be bound by them If you say that Princes were the makers of the new Church Species 1. Heathen Princes did it not 2. The Bishops will give you little thanks if you grant not that it was done before there were any Christian Princes to do it 3. One Prince cannot make Laws for anothers Country 4. Prove that ever Christ authorized Princes to change the Constitution of the Churches instituted by him and make new ones above his form except making officers for the Circa Sacra or variable accidents 5. And what Princes do they have power to undo And it concerneth us to enquire much more then about ceremonies how far this power of man extendeth May they make as many new Church Species as they please Why then may they not make as many forms as there are Kingdomes if not an universal Pope by the consent of most 5. But that which the Papists take for the Churches growth from Infancy the Protestants take for its gradual depravation And have written many treatises to shew when and how such corruptions were introduced And the forementioned book of Paulus Sarpi Servita lately translated tells us by what degrees much of that evil did spring up which some take to be the Churches Man-hood and the amending of the defects of Christs institutions 6. And you that wonder that I know not what you mean by the Church of England may next wonder that I know not what it is that you call the Protestant Religion In my full satisfaction I have told you that I mean by it simple Christianity expressed in the sacred Scriptures as the Recorded rule with the rejection of all humane additions which suppose the Scriptures imperfect as to their regulating use But if you suppose that men may without any Scripture proof of authority take down and change the Church Species which Christ by his Apostles made and make new ones instead and thus add to Christs Laws equal yea superior and derogating Laws of their own this is not that Protestant Religion which I am of and therefore I intreat you to define what it is you so call 7. When you have as well proved the very essential form of the first Churches to have been instituted but pro tempore as a mutable thing as we can prove the like of washing Feet and community of Goods we will submit And so we will when you have proved that God that made families made not Cities or Republicks that is did not institute civil Government of many families or that men who diversifie the forms of Republicks may overthrow families or their proper power Yea and that God hath
or Humane Law is not necessary to the being or Government of a Church nor is it necessary that it be National And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themselves though they be not a National Church Why did Paul write to Corinth as Clemens also did and to the Galatians c. and John to Ephesus and the other six Rev. 2 3. to reform themselves if they had not Power to do it But if all the Christians under the Turk be one National Church then it is either because they have one Civil Head or one Ecclesiastical Head Not the latter for they have none such though the Bishops of Constantinople have some Primacy by their old Canons and Customs Not the former for an Infidel cannot be an essential part of a Christian Church as a constitutive Head is § 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Constantine were true Churches of Christ's Institution and they had power to govern and reform themselves and yet they had no humane Constitutive Head Regal or Sacerdotal though they had a Civil Heathen Governour which was an extrinsick accidental Head It is so contrary to all Sence and Religion that either a Man as a Man or a Family or a Church as such should have no power to govern and reform it self that I must needs judg that while you speak confusedly you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power which yet is totâ specie distinct from that which is properly Ecclesiastical § 20. Serm. p. 17. And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Answ 1. And is the Controversy de nomine Whether they might be called the Lydian Church when we expected a satisfactory explication de re No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called I have told you of divers Sences in which we are called a Church National first Plea pag. 251 c. Either a Christian Kingdom or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King as associated by agreement may be called a National Church 2. What if they be united in one Kingdom of a Heathen Mahometan or Arrian King and governed by his Regal Authority under the same Rules which he sets them Is this it that you mean in your Description A King as such is not an Ecclesiastick Person and therefore is not an essential part of a Church unless as it is equivocally so called And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean or the Clergies Canons or God's Laws The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws and also are under one Patriarch and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastick Authority and Laws of another Species If you confound these two Species or tell us not which you mean in your Definition it tendeth not to Edification 3. And what if they be under divers Kings as the Bulgarians and Greeks were and yet ruled by one Ecclesiastick Authority and Law why may not they also be called One Church as the Moscovites are now called part of the Greek Church 4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire as the African and other Countries were But what is all this de nomine to the Controversy All grant that the Civil Power must be obeyed in their place and the Church-power in theirs 5. But here you grant that they are several Churches before their Union in one Kingdom And I suppose they were Churches 1. of another species than the National described by you 2. and were of Divine Institution 3. and continue so after their Union in one Kingdom 4. and have power to govern and reform themselves still though not Regal power § 21. Serm. Just as several Families united make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent power but it would make strange confusion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Answ And are they not several Families still and have they not still a distinct Family-power to govern and reform themselves tho not a Regal Power Doth making a City or Kingdom dissolve Families You cannot mean it What mean you then by reducing these Kingdoms back to Families when they are Families still Had you said that dissolving Kingdoms or Cities and reducing them to be only Families is confusion it 's undeniable But still as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power so particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Institution gave them And this is that we desire § 22. Serm. Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship Ans 1. All Christians are under the same Divine Laws and Rules 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Christians but their Civil Laws for the common Peace And some make various Laws for various sorts of Christians under them § 23. Serm. For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Ans 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a Church is 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species There must be more The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms and so is a Christian Kingdom as such and so is a Provincial Church and a Diocesan Church and a particular Parochial Church yet all these are not of the same species for they have different terminos in specie 3. This is a very defective Definition where 1. Men are made the qualified Subject when it should have been Christians 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects 3. They are said to be united in general without telling us what uniting is meant whether only by force command or consent whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture Baptism as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse as to the Visible Church 4. It is said they are united for Order and Government as if these were but the Terminus and so may those by agreement de futuro that yet have no Government whereas the Government is the constitutive Form 5. This Definition leaving out the specifick Form and Terminus maketh an Army a Navy a Ship a company of Christian Merchants or Corporation c. to be a Church For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the
Christian Religion For the Christian Religion giveth Rules to all sorts of Christian Societies These are not the usual ways of defining nor give me any true notice of your sence 6. And you make it not intelligible whether by the Rules of the Christian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond or only as a Rule to some humane Rule But though the application look this way yet your words speak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuse that are united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion If this will serve those are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order c. But is not this against those Churches that take not the Bible but Canons or other humane Laws for the bound of their Church-Vnion or their Rule If it be uniting for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which maketh a Church let us then try which Societies are so united and let that be the matter of our Dispute § 24. Serm. p. 13. And it is a great mistake to make the Notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that an adequate Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the Name of Churches to particular Congregations whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up But if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other Bond that uniteth them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church Ans 1. Did you write this as a Confutation of any body If so you should have told them who are your Adversaries I never met with one to my remembrance that saith the Church is no longer a Church than they are congregate but Mr. Cheney who writeth against my Plea for Peace And so the two first who now write against me write against one another and I must please them both When you so far differ among your selves you should bear with them that less differ from you 2. What mean you by the Notion of a Church which all Men know is an equivocal word Do you mean that a Church hath but one Notion I pray you tell us whether the Notion be the same as it is used Matth. 16. 18. 18. 17. 1 Corinth 11. 18 22. Acts 19. 32 39 40. 1 Crrinth 14. 34. Psalm 26. 5. Ephes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Acts 5. 11. Acts 20. 28. Rev. 2. 12 18. Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. 10. Acts 8. 1 3. Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. 5. 23. Doth any Man believe that it is in all these Texts taken in the same Notion or sence I am sure I need not ask this of you as to the sence of prophane Authors who use the word for any sort of Concilium coetus concio congregatio convivia as in Lucian Demosthenes Aristotle Thucidides c. 3. If you will pardon me for telling Men in Print so often that a Church is constituted not only for Communion in Worship but also in Doctrine and holy Living I will not ask you why you dissembled this nor why you would intimate the contrary to your Readers Repetition is not the least fault of my Writings and all will not prevent the mis-intimations even of such worthy Men as you Ad nauseam usque I have repeated that the Office of the Ministery standeth in a subordination to the three parts of Christ's Office Prophetical or Teaching Priestly or Worshipping Kingly or Ruling and that a particular Church is associated for the use and benefit of all three conjunctly Were you not willing to take notice of this or not willing that others should take notice of it 4. How many Writings of ours have told the World that we appropriate not the Notion of a Church to a particular Congregation Do not my Books which you cite copiously express the contrary Do we not over and over tell Men that the word Church must be considered as equivocal generical and specifical Do we take the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed for a particular Congregation Worthy Sir this is unworthy dealing whether it be by ignorance negligence rashness or wilfulness We distinguish between Churches of God's Institution and of Man's Invention And of the first sort what Independent is there that holdeth not an Vniversal Church at least besides particular Congregations And of Man's making who can number the sorts that are and may be made 5. Did you ever know Man save such Conformists as he that answered my Plea whether Greek Papist Episcopal Presbyterian Independent or Anabaptist who denieth a Church Bond that uniteth them when the Congregation is dismiss'd All confess that the Union of the pars regens and pars subdita for Church-ends doth make it a Church And who doth not distinguish between the Constitution and Administration the Status and the Exercitium 6. How then could you say If this be true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up What shew is there of such a consequence What if we held that the Church were so called barely in relation to Publick Worship doth it follow that this Relation ceaseth as soon as the several Acts of Worship cease Their mutual consent and the union of the VVorshippers Priest and People associated for that use may continue when the Act of VVorship is intermitted May it not continue a School when the Boys go home or play May it not be a Parliament when the House is risen tho it be only for the work of assembled Men that they are related and denominated 7. But Sir do you not confess even in your Iroenicon where you maintain that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine command 1. That God hath commanded that there be Assemblies ordinarily used for his VVorship 2dly And that Pastors are to be the Guides and chief Managers of this VVorship 3dly And that they should be also their Teachers 4thly And that they govern them by their Keys And if all this be true then such Assemblies are of Divine Institution not such as are associated only for VVorship but for Doctrine Worship and holy Living under the Teaching and Conduct of their Pastors If you deny that such Churches as we call Particular are of Divine Institution we have often proved it though few Christians deny it or need any proof And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite that I must suppose you know it though you seem to dissemble it that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be not the whole Church meeting at one time and place but personal presential Communion in Doctrine VVorship and Holy Conversation as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only Your Parish is associated for such
of the Sabbath c. and others against these If not Is not difference in such Doctrines as great a difference as using and not useing some of your Liturgick Forms and Ceremonies IV. Are all different modes of Worship enough to make our Party Separatists Then the French and Dutch Churches are Separatists and either the Cathedrals or the parish-Parish-Churches as to their Vestments Organs Chore mode of Singing c. And the allowed private Baptismes and Communion with the sick are Separations V. Doth every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship make men Separatists If so then when ever a Conformist disobediently shortneth his Common-Prayer or leaveth off his Surplice or giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not or receiveth one of another Parish to Communion c. he is a separatist Yea no man then is not a Separatist sometimes VI. If the Diocesane be the lowest political Church and a Parish but a part of a Church as they hold that take a Bishop to be a Constitutive part how is he said to separate from the Church that owneth his Diocesane and the Diocess what ever place in that Diocess he meet in seeing he separateth not from the Kingdom that stayeth in it and owneth the King though in some acts he disobey Nor doth every Boy that is faulty separate from the School VII Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth you to be a true Church and your communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshiping assemblies as unlawful to be Communicated with when it is not so If the former then Condemning you as no Church is a diminution or no aggravation of separation and the Local presence of an Infidel or a Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of your friends If the latter which is certain then if I can prove the Assemblies lawful which you condemne you are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them and declare such Communion to be unlawful I Communicate with your Assemblies and you utterly shun refuse and condemn Communion with ours which then is the Separatist if I prove ours to be as good as yours VIII Many English Doctors say Rome is a true Church as a Knave or Thief is a true man and we separated not from It but they cast Us out for doing our duty and not sinning as they do I say not as they for as the Pope claimeth the Headship of the Church Universally that form of Policy is not of God and we separate from that essencial form of their pretended Church But ad hominem if the Diocesane also be a true Church and we cast out of it for not sinning are We separatists or are our Ejectors such IX I have shewed you that the Canons Excommunicate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it Separation to be so Excommunicated and who is the Schismatick here And what shall be thought of such Church-men as will first ipso facto Excommunicate us for our duty and then as you do call us Separatists Would you have Excommunicate Men Communicate with you I and many do so because you shall be the Executioners of your own sentence and not I But with what face can men cast Men out by Canon ipso facto and then revile them for not coming in You can mean no other in common sense but that we are Schismaticks or separatists because we are not of the Conformist's judgment And that is not in our power And you differ more in judgment in greater matters from each other and yet call it not Schisme or Separation Yea you differ about the very essential form of your National Church one part taking it to be the Kings supremacy and another to be the Bishops or Clergy's Power And therefore you cannot be truly of one National Church that are not for one essential Form X. If men be wrongfully Excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-Communion I have else where cited you Canons enow that say the contrary and that Clave Errante the excommunication huâ—teth none but the Excommunicator And I have Cited Bishop Tailor 's Full Consent Must we not then Meet and Worship as we can when you wrongfully Excommunicate us XI Are not the Laity by your Canon forbidden to Receive the Sacrament in another Parish or any other to receive them if they dare not Receive it from a Non-Preaching Minister at Home And if the People judge that he that is unable or unwilling to Preach or that is a Heretick or that liveth in such heinous Sins or Preacheth Malignantly as to do more Harm than Good may not lawfully be owned by them for Christ's Ministers nor their Souls be Committed to their Pastoral Trust Must they therefore be without a Pastors Care or all Publick Worship and Communion and be Condemned for being Wronged XII Were all those Councils Separatists that Decreed That none shall hear Mass from a Fornicating Priest And Were the Canons called the Apostles and the Greek-Church that used them for Separation that said Episcopus ignorantiâ aut malo animo opplotus non est Episcopus sed falsus Episcopus non a Dee sed ab hominibus promotus Was Guildas a Separatist that told the Brittish Wicked Priests That they were not Christ's Ministers but Traitours and that he was not Eximius Christianus that would call them Priests or Ministers of Christ Were Cyprian and all the Carthage-Council Separatists that wrote the Epistle about Martial and Basilides which I Translated and told the People It was their Duty to Separate from Peccatore Praeposito a Scandalous Prelate and that the Chief Power was in them to Choose the Worthy or Refuse the Unworthy and that they were guilty of Sin if they joyned with such Sinners Who made You a more Reverend and Credible Judge of Separation than Cyprian and this Council At least Who will think that you may Judge them Separatists or guilty of Schism XIII Are not the Laity by your Canon to be denied the Sacrament if they be not willing of your Episcopal Confirmation And when Imposition of Hands is made the Signe by which Confirming or Assuring Grace is conveyed and some Bishops assigne no less to it they fear lest it be made a Sacrament Be their Doubts just or not they cannot overcome them And Must they therefore Live without Sacramental Communion By what Law XIV Are not the Laity that dare not Receive the Sacrament Kneeling for the Reasons else-where mentioned to be denied the Sacrament by your Rule And though herein they fear Sin more than they have cause Must they that cannot Change their own Judgments live all their Dayes without the Sacrament When as General Councils Decreed That none should adore Kneeling on any Lord's Day and the Church for a
forbidden by the Law Had that been separation And how cometh when and where to be in When we are forbidden every time and in every place to preach to more than four Is any time or place allowed us to preach in You mean He is a separatist who preacheth being forbidden by Law But I am ready to give you a fuller proof than is now to be offered on this occasion that no man hath authority to forbid a faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-power to perform the office to which he is ordained And Secondly that we remain under a Divine obligation to it which such a Law 〈◊〉 dissolve As Bishop Bilson before saith if Princes forbid us we must go on with our work what if the King had turned against Episcopacy and Liturgy and forbad all the Episcopal to preach Would you think it sinful separation to preach By this you shew how easily you would lay down the work you are Vowed to if the Law did but forbid you How much then are Papist and Protestant Casuists mistaken that say the Law is null that is against the common good and that all power is only to edification And what limits do you set to this Till you tell us how can we judge of our separation what if an interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdome must all obey What if it be most must most obey What if it be more then can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that so binds us Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists Arrians Eutychians c. or only the Orthodox And do you set the people all to judge whether the King be Orthodox as the rule of their obedience to his Laws If I prove not that God bindeth me to preach call me disobedient but yet that will not prove me a separatist By this rule you may be a separatist as oft as the Law changeth if you will not change as fast as it Yea though you Judge the Laws impositious to be hainous sins yet you must do them all or give over your Ministry And so God must ask leave of the Rulers to be worshiped as God If he were a God of their making they might put him down And I think it will prove confusion and worse disobedience than our preaching is to lay all the peoples obedience herein on their opinion of the Rulers Orthodoxness no doubt but the heathen and heretical Rulers are Governours even of the Church though none hath power for destruction or against God The Duke of Brandenburghs Subjects judge him not Orthodox Are they therefore absolved from obeying him in matters of Religion Calvenists Subjects think Lutherane Princes not Orthodox and Protestants in France Hungary Poland judge their Papist Kings not Orthodox Yea what if we judge the Bishops not Orthodox that made the Cannons or Liturgy are we absolved from obeying them And what if any Subjects think that the King is not Orthodox And Parliaments who also make our Laws contain men of many minds And the Parliament of 1640. is said by the Bishops to have been far from Orthodox even to have been Presbyterians and Erastians and even for Rebellion and yet they made divers Laws which the King consented to and ratified Were not men obliged by those Laws And indeed if the Lawmakers being not Orthodox null his Laws about Religion why not all his other Laws But it may be you will say that it is not all the people that must judge whether the King and Parliament be Orthodox but the Bishops for them Ans But who shall judge whether the Bishops be Orthodox And if all be resolved into the implicite belief of the Bishops why not of the civil Rulers as well Or why not as the Papists on Pope and Councils I suppose to avoid all this you will not say that he is a separatist that preacheth when forbidden by any Prince whatsoever Turk Heathen Arrian Eutychian Idolater Papist Where then will you fix the notifying Character All men are heterodox in some degree How shall we know the degree which absolveth us from our obedience And how cometh an Orthodox man to be authorized to do mischiefs and forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than a heretick or a Christian more than a heathen I think he is bound to do more good then they and not authorized to do more hurt God never made him a judge whether the Gospel shall be preacht or not nor whether the people shall be saved or left to perish in their ignorance and sin Either then all are separatists that preach against the Laws of Heathens Hereticks or Papists And so the Orthodox Churches have in many or most Ages and places been separatists or else we are cast upon confounding impossibilities to know who the separatist is Especially in Aristocracies and Domocracies where the Rulers are of many minds and the people can never know them all nor when the Orthodox have the Major Vote And I would know whether it be only Rightful Princes or also Usurpers whose Laws are the bond of the Churches Unity If of Usurpers then all the Prelates that conformed not in the times of the late Usurpation were Schismatical separatists by your definition But to do them right few of my acquaintance that could by conformity slay in did then refuse conformity I hear that you were then no separatist But Bishop Guning Dr. Wild Dr. Hide and a great many more took another course and will not thank you if you stigmatize them with us But if it be not the Laws of Usurpers in the Roman Empire by your measure How few were the Emperours that came not in by meer conquest or by killing putting out the eyes or ejecting their predecessors or without any justifiable right And what a case Rome Italy Spain and Africa were in after the first conquests of the Gothes and Vandals and all the Western Empire in the days of the Henries Frederick and many others while men were fighting for the Empire and Popes claimed the making and unmaking of them all And even in France ever since the days of Chilperic for many Ages especially among the progeny of Charles the great it is not to be hid This way you destroy or confound the Churches I cannot imagine what you will reply to this unless you say that it is neither the Title nor the Orthodoxness of Princes which is necessary to make their Lawes the bond of Church unity but it is the goodness of their Laws at least that they impose no sin upon us Ans 1. Then if the Usurpers imposed no sin they were Schismaticks that obeyed them not ◠Let that be the rule who shall be judge whether it be sin or not If I be a discerner for my self I have told you how much and great sin I fear till you are displeased with the intimation And when you have proved all those particulars named to be no sins you have
done more than yet is done And if you think you can or do prove it must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying § 56. But the other half of the definition of a separatist is they administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth Ans 1. Why will you so reproach your Church we do it by no other rule but the Scripture and doth not the Church require that the Scripture be a Rule You know Polydore Virgil and other Papists ordinarily make this signal difference of Protestants and Papists that the Protestants make the Scripture the only Rule of their Religion On which supposition Francis Peron formed his act of disputing against them And are not the Church of England Protestants If you add another rule it followeth not that we have another than you have though you have another besides what we have 2. You say we deny the fact which is evident to all persons and you speak of me Is this true What Sacraments do you mean I never ordained any I never confirmed any I have married very few if those be Sacraments I have baptised no one these twenty years I gave the Lords supper to none for about eighteen years and rarely since as I told you But others do Ans And if they have no better reason to justifie the forsaking of their Ministry than you give well may they go on to do it 3. Do you mean here by Rulers the same as before by Laws or what mean you I suppose it 's the Canon and Liturgy that you mean And if by the Church you mean any thing but the King and Parliament you are unintelligible For the Church hath but two visible essential parts the Regent and the Subject parts And of the Regent only the supream is essential the rest being also subjects and but Integrals And it is a Requiring Church which you mention And so it seemeth that it is but a lay Church And nothing but a Christian Kingdom 4. I have told you that the French and Dutch Churches here administer the Sacraments by another rule than your Liturgy and yet are no Schismaticks 5. And your rule hath many parts It requireth Preaching praying reading the Psalms and two Chapters and delivering baptism and the Lords Supper in Christs words and repeating the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue And all that I do when I officiate for any man for I have no Church and others do it with whom I converse But if it be omitting any thing else in your rule that maketh a separation what is it I oft hear Conformists omit divers prayers I have seen Dr. Horton give the Lords Supper I think to the greater part that sate I doubt most Parishes separate if every omission make a separatist 6. But thus far you satisfie me that you judge all for separatists that preach without all your Assent consent subscriptions that the Covenant bindeth no man living no not the Parliament men that took it to endeavour any alteration of Church Government that it is not lawful to resist any commissioned by the King without exception and much more such That all are â—â—â—â—ratists that administer not Sacraments according to your rule which pronounceth baptized Infants saved so dying without excepting Atheists Infidels or any and this as undoubted and certain by Gods word which requireth the Minister to refuse Baptism and Christendom where the dedicating Image of the Cross is not submitted to when the Parent or adult judge it an unlawful Sacrament And where Baptism must be denyed to all that will not make Godfathers and Godmothers the Sole Covenanting undertakers for their Children without speaking a Covenanting word themselves And when your rule requireth all Ministers to deny Sacramental Communion to all that scruple kneeling in the reception and yet excommunicateth them and ruineth them for not Communicating when they are rejected And also ipso facto Excommunicate To omit much more such this is your rule which he that swerveth from it is a separist 7. But I had thought that we had not been like those late cavilling Papists that will not distinguish fundamentals from any little points lest it lose them a paultry advantage of abusing men Doth not every good Law and Rule distinguish between Essentials Integrals and Accidents and make more Accidents than are Integrals and Integrals than are Essentials And doth your rule do otherwise If not tell us what parts of your rule are necessary to one and what to the other or you say nothing to resolve the case Is every line and Ceremony Essential to the Church and to each member If not how cometh our omitting a form of Ceremony to cut us off as a separated Church any more than every breach of Law cuts off a man from the Common-wealth Yea if your Church be but a Christian Kingdom do not you cut off all from that Kingdom too that refuse your Forms or Ceremonies or Subscriptions 8. But Sir to be short with you I will yet believe that Christ is the Institutor of the Church and that he hath himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the bond of their unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath given Laws to regulate all mens Laws that determine of needful undetermined accidents And that no man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God yea those that are necessary to Church unity and Communion And that the grand Schismaticks of the world are the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing terms and conditions of unity and Communion § 57. But you tell me that we do the same things in the same manner as the separatists Ergo we are disingenuous for denying your accusation Ans 1. Judge of the fact by what is said 2. We do not say 1. That you are no true Ministers or Churches 2. Nor that it is unlawful to communicate with you Ergo it is not true that we do the same things 3. But it is the External action the whole same that maketh a separatist A Parson in the Ale-house lost his Common prayer book When he came to Church he told them his mishap and only read what was in the Bible Query whether his Flock and he were separatists An old Parson that I was bread under could scarce see but could say most of the Prayers without book He said what he could remember and got a day Labourer one year and a Taylor another to read the Chapters Query Whether we were all separatists § 58. But you undertake to tell the Reason why I am unwilling to confess a separation because we have formerly severely condemned it in others and yet do the same things for which we charged others as guilty of a sinful separation Ans If this be not true it is not well shew