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
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
Presbyterian National Church is one as headed by the General Assembly 10. An Episcopal National Church is one either as headed by one National Bishop or else by a Synod of Bishops Aristocratically or else by a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters Aristocratically All these that are constituted of One Regent and a subdite Part are called Churches in a Political proper sense and not only equivocally Now the Question is Of which sort is the National Church of England And the Doctor saith page 287. 1. That the Society of all Christians is counted a true Catholick Church from their Union and Consent in some common things and so is ours c. Answ But in what common things Not in one Bible for so may Hereticks much less in one Liturgy If it be not a consent in one Governing Head it makes no proper Church 2. He supposeth an agreement in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline Answ That 's right But what Government is it Civil or Ecclesiastical The first is no essential part of a proper Church If it be the later is it one in specie or in individuâ— politico Not the former for a 100 Episcopal Churches in several Nations may have one species of Government as many Kingdoms may have It is therefore the later that is all my Question which is the Church-Head He saith As several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National Answ True if that National Church have one Constitutive Head as a Family hath It 's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias And no Governed proper Church without Governours and there is no Governour where there is no supreme in his place and kind For inferiours have all their power from the supreme There is no Universal supreme but God but the King is subordinately the supreme in his Kingdom in respect to inferiours and so it is in other Governed Societies He addeth The name of a Church comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and so may be extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government and the same rules of Religion Answ 1. If the question were only de nomine we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are usually by Writers called Ecclesia and so is any Assembly If this be all you mean speak out 2. Many Nations may agree in the same Rules of Religion yea so all Christians do Doth this constitute National Churches 3. One Civil Government is of another species and not essential but accidental to a Church and therefore doth not constitute or individuate it One justice of Peace or Mayor in a Christian Corporation doth not make it one Parish Church But if this be all your meaning speak out we grant de re a Christian Kingdom and contend not de nomine if you call it a Church § 3. page 297. â— As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom he granteth what we desire confessing the difference But asketh whence cometh all this zeal now against a National Church Answ An untrue insinuation 1. To desire to know what it is is untruly called zeal against it 2. And agreeing with you in the description is no zeal against it He adds The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudson write for it Answ Mr. Hudson is a Conformist And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean a Christian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Assembly as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Government Whether this be just or unjust is now none of our question I have oft told what I think of it Do you also tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done Are you loth to be understood § 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Answer viz. 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And now he continues his wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Answ Yea your wonder may increase that I less and less understand it if you did not after tell us better â—â—an in this unhappy definition 1. Is this called the Church diffusive one Governed body Politick If not it is no Church in the sense in question and I 'le not stick with you for an equivocal name 2. Do you mean by Government agreed in 1. The Civil Government 2. Or the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally 3. Or one Government of all the National Church 1. The first makes it no Church in the sense in question 2. The second makes it no Church but an Association of many Churches such as a thousand Independent Churches may make or the Churches of many Kingdoms Many Families Associated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Governours but only their several Family Governours Many Cities associated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one supreme power It 's no political body without one common Governour Natural or Collective Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And what is it of Worship established by Law that individuates your Church If all thâ—â— the Law hath established 1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being and may do at every Parliament 2. And the Church is small and unknown if all that differ in any point established are no parts of it But if it be not all established who knoweth by this definition what it is and what is the very matter of your Church So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form § 5. Next he answereth the Question How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church and answereth By Unity of Consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Answ Consent to what 1. If it be not to one common Government it is no Governed Church as one 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church consenteth not to one Governing Head Christ And doth any thing else make them formally One Politick body or Church This were ill Doctrine § 6. Question How comes it to be One National Church Saith he I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are Answ Whether How comes it Speak of the efficient cause or the formal or what it 's hard to know so singular are his Logical notions But the first is most likely And then 1. The question is still unanswered What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament consent hath â—â—t up He knows this is the question 2. And if it be by Parliament consent how old is your Church What Parliament first made it It 's not so old as Luther Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons 3. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it If the corruption of
is a matter of more weight than Tythes and Temples If Tythes be proved not to be of Divine Right all that can be expected is that if the flock cannot trust him whom the Patron chuseth they let him give his Tythes and Temple to whom he please and they will trust their souls with such as they dare and safely may But if he will chuse and offer them one whom they can safely and comfortably accept so as Tythes and Temples shall preponderate in case of small difference in the men prudence obligeth them to accept of the advantage The same I say of the Magistrates countenance and approbation But if the difference be very great it 's better stretch our purses to build new Temples and pay our Pastors than trust our souls on the Pastoral Conduct of ignorant malignant unfaithful or heretical men § 6. V. I have oft said that mutual consent is necessary to the being of the relation of Pastor and Flock And though sometimes the Rulers imposition and the Patrons choice may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to consent when the good preponderates the hurt not else yet till they consent the Relation is not existent As if Children were bound to take Wives and Husbands by the Command and fore choice of Parents yet it 's no Marriage till they consent § 7. The common objection is from the inconvenience if the several parties agree not To which I answer 1. The mischief of the contrary way is worse than that inconvenience 2. There is nothing in this World without inconveniences where all things and persons and actions are imperfect 3. If Parents and Children agree not about their Marriage it hath great inconveniences And yet neither Parents Government nor Childrens consenting Liberty must be denyed 4. In so weighty a Case divers Locks and Keys keep the Churches treasure safe Prince Patron People and Ordainers will not so often agree on a vile person as any one of them alone may do § 8. And now judge how Logically how honestly the Doctor hath stated the Case and made me Intolerably indiscreet and tragical against Magistrates Patrons and Laws And try if you can understand what it is instead of this that he would have I tell him again that if he deny the necessity of the flocks consent to the mutual relation he notoriously opposeth the judgment and practice of Antiquity and the Universal Church of Princes Patriarchs Prelates Councils and People and fights against the full stream of Historical evidence for a new crooked way that would make as many modes of Religion as there are different Princes And here he wonders what he said that occasioned such undecent passion It seems he felt some passion in reading it and thought he must have the like that wrote it And so let any man obtrude any pernicious thing on the Church and he can easily prove the detector to have undecent passion for giving a bad Cause its proper name § 9. But he cannot find out the reason of my inference that then Princes may impose what Religion they please Answ Not understanding with some men goes for confuting To put Religion for the mode of Religion is too little a slip of his to be insisted on But is not my inference necessary I urged him to tell me in what Countries and under what sort of Princes the Rule holds that the People must not judge whether the offered Pastors be Hereticks nor refuse them if Prince and Patron present them He will not be entreated to tell me I tell him that if the Rule be universal when a Papist Socinian Anabaptist Antiepiscopal c. Prince and Patron present men of their own mind and they are instituted the People must take and trust them as their Pastors And is not this to set up in all the Churches what modish Religion Prince and Patron please Is this hard to be understood Yet he calls this Railing on him for suppositions of my own making And here he steps over to another man § 10. Before I come to his undertakings I will repeat anothers railing and undecent passion against his Cause And I desire the Reader to note how well the Doctors of the Church of England agree and to learn which of them it is that we must believe both as to History and Right It is Mr. Herbert Thorndike in his Treatise of Forbearance of Penal It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation in the Church to regular Government without restoring the Liberty of chusing Bishops and the priviledge of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and People of each Diocess So evident is the right of Synods Clergy and People in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be Governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it Yet these two are Doctors of one Church but we are no Members of it § 11. I again say that either the Reader hath read the Church History and Canons or not If not how can he tell who to believe that report them the Doctor or me But if he have I will no more dispute this Case with him than I would do whether English Parliaments used to make Laws He is past my conviction if he be not convinced § 12. And I will again say that I will yet suppose the Doctor so humble as to acknowledge himself much inferiour to Paulus sarpi servita venerunt in point of Church History At least I say to the Reader peruse what he hath said of this Controversie and of the alteration of Church Government in his History of the Council of Trent and his Book of Church Benefices lately translated by Dr. Denton and doubt if you can § 13. And in general I add I. I suppose no man of such reading maketh any doubt of the first 300 years whether any Bishops were made over any Church without the free Election or Consent of the Flocks and the whole Clergy and the approbation of the Ordainers I will not for shame stay to prove this having said so much of it in my first Plea for Peace and Episcopal Church History which are unanswered II. And since the first 300 years it 's so notorious in History that it 's a shame to need proof of it that the Christian Emperours confirmed the Churches in this right and use and for many hundred years after permitted and ordered that Bishops should be chosen by the People Clergy and Synods and when the Peoples Election was infringed the necessity of their consent long continued And it was only in the choice of the five Patriarchs that the Emperours used to meddle and that not always nor at all chusing them alone but commending some one to the People and Clergy to chuse or confirming some one that they had nominated And this held on till Popery sprung up III. And even then the Popes long continued it But 1. They strove specially in Hildebrand's days and
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
the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours and corruptions be left out And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
I think not invalidate and yet this goeth for no justification of us so is it with others § 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as described by their Cannon that must make us Separatists which is of men that call themselves of another Church But that 's not it Mr. Gouge Mr. Poole Mr. Humphrey and my self and abundance more that never gathered any Church nor called our selves of any other then their own are nevertheless separatists in these mens account § 11. They that remembred what was called Separation in England of old supposed it had these two degrees which made men called Brownists First falsly taking the Parish Ministers and Churches for no true Ministers and Churches of Christ and therefore not to be Communicated with Secondly or in the lower rank falsly taking the faults of the Parish Ministers and Churches to be so great that its a sin to have ordinary Communion with them But they that have still disclaimed both these are Separatists still in our Accusers sence § 12. Some thought that ordinary Communicating in the Parish Churches and pleading for it would prove us no separatists with them But this will not serve as my own and many other mens Experience proveth § 13. I am called after to say more of this The sum of my separation is this First that I take not the Parish Churches to be the only Churches that I must Communicate with and will not confine my Communion to them alone as if they were a sect or All But will also have Communion with Dutch French or Nonconformists 2. I take not the Order Discipline and mode of worship in the Parish Churches nor the Preaching of very many Parsons Vicars and Curates to be the best and most desirable 3. I take those to be no true Political Churches which have no Pastors that have all the Qualifications and Call and Authority which is Essential to the Office and therefore can communicate with them but as with a flock without a Pastor or an Oratory Community or Catechized Company 4. I live peaceably under such Bishops as have many hundred Parishes and no Episcopos Gregis true Bishops and Pastoral Churches under them as they think But I own not their Constitution 5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Associated for mutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prescribeth and in all the Protestant Religion and all that all Christian Churches are agreed in and all that is truly needful to the ends of Christianity But not absolutely in all which their Canons Liturgy c. conttaine Especially their sinful Impositions and their Presumtious Canonical Excommunications of dissenters ipso facto 6. I am one of the Christian Kingdom of England as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command But not for obeying them in sin against God nor for believing all to be Lawful because they command it nor for their taking down Family Government or self Government and discerning private Judgment of the subjects This is my measure of separation § 14. And I think in cases that concern our own and many mens Salvation we should have leave freely to speak for our selves and not be used as we are that must neither be endured to be silent or to speak Let this Dr. open our case to you himself saith he Pref. p. 36. Speaking of my first Plea for Peace As though it had been designed on purpose to represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and orders established among us For there are no less than thiâ—ty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity set down in it and all this done without the 〈…〉 provocation given on oue side And elswhere he saith he shall less regard my aggravations Ans 1. If I do that which you think as bad I would gladly be told of it though false accusations I desire not And impenitence is too soon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees and I had rather be saved from it 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reason and humanity as well as Christianity to decide the case of this Accusation 1. We did in 1660. and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durst for fear of sin and Hell to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Episcopal party 2. When our labour and hopes were frustrate and two thousand of us cast out of the Ministery and afterwards laws made against us as Conventiclers first for our Fining Imprisonment and then Banishment and after besides Imprisonment to pay twenty pound the first Sermon and forty pound the next and so on when after this the Law that banished us from all Cities Corporations c. and places where we lately Preached did most deeply accuse us as the cause I never wrote so much as the reasons of our dissent When by the execution of these Laws we were by Informers and others used as is well known I was still silent My not conforming shewed my dissent but I durst not so much as once tell them why lest it should more exasperate them 3. At last I was often told that the Bishop that first forbad my Preaching and many others after him oft said to Great men Mr. Baxter keeps up a Schism and yet holds all our conformity lawful save renouncing a rebellious Covenant And I yet continued silent 4. At last they wrote against us that we durst not say that any part of Conformity was sin but only inconvenient 5. Then many pulpits and books proclaim that we against our Consciences kept up a Schism for a baffled cause which we had nothing to say for 6. All this while Lords and Commons used to ask us what is it that you would have and what keepeth you from Conformity In private talk but would never allow us to speak for our selves and give the world or Parliament our reasons 7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy cryed out to the Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and as one said set fire to the Fagot and blamed them for not doing it 8. When the King gave us his Licence they were greatly offended as aforesaid 9. At last one great Bishop told me that he would desire the King to constraine us to give our reasons and not keep up a Schism and not tell for what And another greater told me that the King took us to be not sincere that would not give our reasons And all this while I durst not give them as knowing how they would be received 10. When the Bishops kept me from Preaching and gave me leisure I wrote 1. An Apology for our Preaching 2 A Treatise of Episcopacy and divers other such and yet durst not Print them
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 and more untruths 1. Where do I say that owns it self to be Independant as if that were necessary to its being 1. Doth he not confess that I own general Visitors or Archbishops and appeals 2. That I own Associations which he makes the state of the Church of England 3. That I own Synods for obliging concord 4. That I own the Magistrates Government of all Is there no dependancy in any of these or all what dependancy more doth he assert 2. As to the Power of the Keys dare he come into the light and tell us whether any power of the Keys that is of the Government of his particular Church be essential to the Pastor of a true organized governed Church or not If not is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church If yea then is he a Pastor that wants what is essential to a Pastor But if they will call a forcing Power or the present secular Mode of their Courts by the name of the Keys I never said that these are essential to a Church nor desirable in it but am a Nonconformist because I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce just Endeavours to amend it Sect. 12. p. 121 122. The next Accusation is They leave it in the peoples Power notwithstanding all legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit Answ He tireth me with putting me on repetitions 1. They can unjustly judge of none and disown them without sin It is not I that give men power to sin no more than Power to die or be sick which is but impotency would I could give them power against it 2. It is not power to reject any chosen by King or Patrons from being publick Teachers or to have the Tithes and Temples nor to be a Pastor to others But it is to have a discerning Judgment whether one chosen by the Patron be a person to whom he himself ought to trust the pastoral Conduct of his Soul Either the Dr. thinks that Laymen have this discerning power and duty or not If yea is it nothing to him to seem thus seriously to plead against his conscience If not I ask him 1. What meant Christ and his Apostles to call men to beware of false Teachers to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine to mark them and avoid them and turn away from them and not bid them good speed 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks and even some Popes and Councils to hear Mass of Fornicators â— What meant all those Fathers and Councils that make him no Bishop that cometh not in with the peoples consent if not Election 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries or with what Limitations the contrary Doctrine must be received Must all the people trust only such Pastors as the Prince or Patrons choose all over England or also in Ireland France Spain Italy Germany among Lutherans Calvinists Greeks c. supposing the Law be on that side Must we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. 1. Sect. 13. p. 122. He adds Mr. Baxter speaks his mind very freely against the Rights and Patronage and the Power of the Magistrates in such Cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people as the old Separatists did Ans Is this true 1. What is it against the Right of Patronage or Magistrates Power for me to choose who I will trust the guidance of my Soul with while I contradict not his power to choose publick Teachers and give the Tithes and Temples and confess that for order sake I ought to consent to such as he chooseth thus unless he put on me a true necessity of a better choice If the King choose all the Hospital Physicians what wrong is it to him if I at my own charge choose a better for my self when I think else ignorance or malice will murder me Doth he that desireth as I ever do that in so great a case there may be many Locks to the Church Door deny any one of them viz. The Ordainers consent the Magistrates and Patrons and the Peoples Is this the same that the old Separatists did Should Glocesier take Goodman a Papist for their Bishop because the King chose him Abundance of Patrons in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths Reign presented Papists It seems if they were imposed by Law and Patrons you would have the people submit to those that cry down Bishops Liturgy and Ceremonies too Father Paul Sarpi translated by Dr. Denton will tell you how new a way this is Sect. 14. p. 122. He adds The People are made Judges of the Competency of their Ministers Answ They are discerning Judges Doth not your charge imply that you think otherwise and yet you dare not say so Must they not judge when Forreigners heretofore were set over them whether they speak English or no or if a Socinian deny Christs Godhead or the im mortality of the Soul whether he be Competent or not Or if they have an ignorant Curate that when necessary advice for the Soul is asked of him will say no more but Trouble not your head about such matters but cast away care and live merrily If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch must we not note the difference Alas how little would some men have a man care for his Soul in comparison of caring what Physick what Food what Wife what Servant what Trade he chooseth Trust one to the conduct of such as all the Patrons of England will choose for you but not any of the other As to the not causeless forsaking former Pastors he knoweth that it was the strict charge of the old Canons of the Churches and the Bishops themselves do hold the same I thought they ought not to be forsaken because men thrust them out The Churches at Antioch Alexandria and many more did oft and long cleave to those Pastors whom the Christian Emperors cast out and reject those whom they imposed When I have proved this so fully in my first Plea and Church-history what an unsatisfactory answer is it for such a Dr. to repeat it and say This is plain dealing Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches so light with him Sect. 15. p. 123. The next charge is They give directions to the people what sort of Ministers they should own and what not Answ We do so And I had thought all Christians had been of the same mind It 's sad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth a publick defence Dare he say that all imposed must be owned Then either Salvation is at the Magistrates will or it 's the priviledge of such Countries as have good ones or a man may be saved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they all subscribe Sect. 16. Next the Accuser falls on my general Rule The Ministry that tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification and to do
Is his Rule true only in England or in France Spain Italy Muscovy c. also or where that the Law maketh men true Pastors Sect. 28. But p. 132. he said that he detesteth the Principles that set mans Laws above Gods and that in stating the Controversie he supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting parties of our Church Answ Of all things you are the unhappiest in stating the Controversie The Instances here were 1. Insufficiency through Ignorance 2. Heresie 3. Malignant oppugning the very ends of the Ministry 4. No true calling 1. Doth he agree with us in all the Substantials of Religion who knoweth not the very essentials of Christianity Ignorantis non est Consensus 2. Doth he agree with us in all the substantials that is a Heretick or if we falsly judge his opinion Heresie do we agree with him 3. Is malignant opposing Godliness and pleading for prophaneness or ungodliness an agreement in all the Substantials 4. What if we agree in all Substantials with an unordained Layman imposed on us is he therefore our true Pastor 5. But how shall we know whether we agree or not if we are no judges of it Do you not see your own Contradictions who shall judge whether the Pastors or People agree shall the Prince or Patron If you know the Teachers heart how know you the Peoples Must we believe that we agree because you say so If the people must judge whether they Agree they must judge of the things in which the Agreement is that is both the Pastors Doctrine and their own minds And is not this to judge whether he be a Heretick c. or not And who shall judge whether the disagreement be in Substantials It must be the agreers And they must be wiser than I if they can learn from you here what is a Substantial and how to know it Sect. 29. It may be he will say that where Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox none are Usurpers but true Pastors whom they impose Ans But doth not this make the people Judges whether Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox and is not that as dangerous as to judge of the Teachers And Orthodox Princes and Parliaments may impose Heretical Teachers and may by Law enable Patrons and Prelates to impose them What more natural than to propagate what men like and oppose what they hate If the many hundred Patrons in England be all orthodox and pious and free from Schism c. we are strangely happy If not we may expect that they choose accordingly But the Bishops will secure us Ans 1. They have not done 2. They say they cannot by Law 3. Would it be any wonder if Bishop Goodman of Glocester kept not out any Popish Teacher Or if such Fathers of the Church as Archbishop Bromhall let in such as would have the Pope Govern us all by the Canons as Patriark and principium unitatis and all pass for Shoismaticks that consent not to such a forreign Jurisdiction contrary to our National Oaths Sect. 30. As to his instance of Solomons putting out Abiathar c. I answered it fully and many more objections in my first Plea and will not write the same again for him that thinks it not worth the answering or taking notice of Sect. 31. When p. 138 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Confusions to deny 1. that the Kings Nomination of Bishops 2. and the Patrons of Parish Pastors proveth them no Usurpers but true Pastors is he not an unreverend dishonourer of Bishops himself who maketh them all that for a thousand years held the same that I do to be the authors of all imaginable Confusion Is he not unreverend to their Canons and to antiquity and to the universal Church itself Whatever in his third part he Cavils against it he cannot be so strange to Church-history as not to know that they were commonly against him Sect. 32. The matter of the next accusation is p. 139 140. having said Plea p. 41. 42. If any make sinful terms of Communion by Laws or Mandate imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion and expelling those that will not so sin I add If any should not only excommunicate such persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with Malice Imprisonments Banishment or other Persecution to force them to transgress this were heynous aggravated Schism Ans And is not this true or doth his bare repeating it disprove it Is he a zealous Enemy of Schisin that taketh all this for none I did not steal it out of his defence of Archbishop Laud but less than this is there made Schism Yet he tells us that he sets not mans Laws above Gods nor pleads for Persecution But lest the repeating of my words should shame the Accuser he hath two handsome devices 1. He puts complying with them in sin that is Conformity as refused instead of those that will not so sin in sinful terms of Communion forbidden by God c. 2. He forgeth an addition as mine and therefore it is no sin to separate from such when I have no such words being only there telling what is Schism and not what is not I confess it will sound odly to say It is Schism not to communicate with those who excommunicate imprison and banish me by Law if I will not do that which God forbids and they make a Condition of my communion For I must not sin And in prison and Banishment under Excommunication they deny me communion And yet I say not that it 's always faultless For if they do not execute their own Law in some cases where publick good requireth it I may best communicate with them as far as they permit me without the imposed sin till they do execute them But this excuseth not their Schism Sect. 33. p. 140. He blames me as charging him with the silencing design Ans I did warn him in real desire of his safety If defending the Church-Laws and Endeavours for our restraint in the words to which I refer the Reader If preaching and writing against our preaching as Schism and all the rest in his Books do signifie no owning of our silencing I am glad that he meaneth better than he seemeth who could have thought otherwise that had read 1. his first Q. whether it be not in the power of those that give orders to limit and suspend the exercise of the ministerial Function Q. 2. And whether the Christian Magistrate may not justly restrain such Ministers from preaching who after the experience do refuse to renounce those Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve us again in the like trouble And Serm. p. 42. the Church of Englands endeavours after Uniformity is acquitted from Tyranny over the Consciences of men by the Judgment c. And p. 54. condemning them as hard thoughts of the Bishops that in cruelty they follow Ithacius c. And in this new Book
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
far to heal us could we obtain it He saith that any one that hath seen them knoweth it to be a mistake to say it was published by John Fox Ans His Reader must be a strong believer and take much on his word 1. I have seen them and spake with men of great understanding that have seen them that yet judge it no mistake 2. The Preface of the publisher is like his Style 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox 4. Ordinary Tradition saith it was Fox's And what should I sooner believe in such a case Instead of proving that they have all a power to their condemnation which we see they exercise not let him procure a real power declared and granted and it will do more than these words Sect. 23. But when it comes to the question whether me may so much as call a sinner to repentance by name before the Church who rejecteth all more private admonition he puts the question whether the obligation to admonish publickly an offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick authority c. Ans The first question is whether Christ have not made his Church so different a thing from the World that they should be openly differenced by a Communion of Saints 2. And whether he hath not instituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it And 3. Whether any man have authority to suspend this Law or Office And then 4. I shall grant that not only Discipline but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic nunc in the present exercise when else the exercise would do more hurt than good 5. But are these Laws good that forbid it and should we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercising true Discipline which is most true and seems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us Answ I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Christ's ends and that he would have it continued to the last and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith and that making small difference between the Church and the World tends to Church destruction and to the reproach of Christianity and the utter undoing of millions of Souls And though Pope and Prelates have abused it to captivate Princes and Nations the just use of it he knoweth is mentioned by the Universal Church and visibly recorded in the Canons of the several ages Though some Erastians are of late against it And Jesuits and worldly Protestants can dispense with it when it would hurt their worldly Interest and turn it chiefly against Gods Servants that displease and cross them Sect. 25. p. 284. He saith The want of Discipline in the Parish Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists destructive to the being of them Answ They did not confound the Power and the Exercise Nor what the Ministers office is indeed and from God and what it is by the Bishops Mind and Rules of Conformity I say as they 1. The Exercise may be suspended without nulling the Power or Policy 2. They are true Pastors and Churches by Gods will against the will of those that would degrade them Sect. 26. But supposing every man left to his own Conscience for Communion 1. He saith the greatest Offenders generally excommunicate themselves Answ 1. And is it your way to leave all the rest to their Consciences and yet to preach and write against and lay in Jail dissenting godly People that communicate not with you 2. And are not all these Offenders still Members of your Church Albaspineus complaineth of their Roman French Church that he never knew any further cast out than from the Sacrament and left still to other parts of communion as Members And so do you by thousands who are all Sons of your Church but we are none He is again at it what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough CHAP. VIII What the National Church of England is Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controversie so long and loudly called for viz. what the National Church of England is which we must obey and from which we are said to separate p. 287. And the answer is such as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it Sect. 2. Our question is of the Church Policy and Political Form All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community from a Political Body This is essentiated of the two constitutive Parts the Pars Regens and Pars subdita the former is much like the Soul and the later the Body The Ruling Part is called the Form by most and the sorts Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical or mixt the form in Specie as the rational or sensitive Soul to Animals But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order Such a body Politick is a Kingdom a City a Church in the proper and usual sense But in a loose sense many other things may be called a Church As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form not yet received 2. An occasional Congregation about Religion as Prisoners that pray together Men that meet about a Religious Consultation or Dispute c. 3. Many Churches as under one Christian Magistrate as an accidental Head 4. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord without any governing Head Either of one Kingdom or of many 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love in distant parts of the World None of these are Churches in the political Sense but are equivocally so called But Politically 1. All the Christian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Christ the Head 2. All single Churches that have Pastors to guide them in the Essentials of the Pastoral Office are true Churches formed by this mutual Relation These two are undoubted 3. The now Roman Catholick Church is one by Usurpation as informed by one Usurping head 4. A Patriarchal Church is one as Governed by a Patriarch 5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan or as mixt where Aristocratically others are joyned with him 6. An Archiepiscopal or Diocesan Church that hath particular Churches and Bishops under it is one as headed by that Diocesane Jure an injuriâ I dispute not 7. A Diocesane Church of many score or hundred Parishes having no Episcopus Gregis or true Pastors and Pastoral Churches under him but only half Pastors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclesia is one even of the lowest sort in their opinion as headed by that Diocesane 8. A Presbyterian Classical Church is one as headed by the Classes 9. A
one have been the generation of another how many Churches of England have you had 4. The whole Nation did not consent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bishops and Liturgy was there then no National Church 5. How shall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England and to alter it 6. What men make they may destroy May not the Nation withdraw such consent and the Parliament unmake their creature § 7. Next p. 300 he saith The Representative Church of England iâ— the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm to consult and advise about 〈◊〉 of Religion The consent of 〈◊〉 Convocations of Caâ—â—erbury and York Provinces â—â— the Representative National Church of England Answ 1. So here we have a Diffusivâ— Church and its Representative but no Government of either as a Church mentioned but the Civil 2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Representing those that are no Governours themselves Not as the peoples Representatives foâ— they are no Church Governours whatever elsewhere he saith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as representing the whole Church Not as the Presbyters representatives For 1. They are denied Episcopal power 2. And they are Governours at most but of their particular Churches and not of the whole 3. Not as the Bishops representatives for 1. They are there themselves 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as such 3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they consent become the One Common Constitutive Governing Power of the National Church this is intelligible but 1. He after denieth any such 2. And then their dissent would dissolve the Church and one Convocation not oblige it with much more such § 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not answered me and therefore comes to it page 300 saying It 's a false supposition that where-ever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part a standing Governing power which is an essential part of it Answ A true notion belongeth to equivocals The true notion and the proper political notion are words of various signification I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full a Prison full a House-full of Christians as such and to our Parliament and to the Common-Council of the City But not the notion now in question 2. Is not Government essential to a Governed Church Fixed Government to a fixed Church and transient temporary Government to an answerable Church Deny this and few will follow you § 9. He adds Which I will prove to be false from Mr. B. himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church as a Troop is of an Army and a City of a Kingdom Then it will unavoidably follow that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Bs Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness But there are some men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery so they may but vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. B. say that the Universal Church is headed by Christ I grant he doth But the Question is of the Visible Church of which particular Churches are parts And they being Visible parts require a Visible Constitutive Regent Head therefore the whole Visible Church must have likewise a Constitutive Visible Regent part This is to make a Key for Catholicks Answ I am glad he speaketh so intelligibly in denying a Constitutive Regent part though sorry that he speaks so ill 1. When I have written against Johnson alias Terrae the Papist two Books on this subject especially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Christ to be that visible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members Can the Reader think I should write it over again because this Doctor will talk over a little of the same with that Priest and take no notice of my proof or answer 2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not visible parts of God's Universal Kingdom and yet God invisible 3. Dare he say that all true Churches are not real parts of Christ's Universal Church as a Governed body and yet are not they visible Is it necessary then that the Universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so 4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie from the necessity of a Regent head to the necessity of his visibility As if our question had not been Which is the Regent part of the Church of England but whether it must be visible Is this edifying 5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible 1. In its parts and members on earth and their profession 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World Thus far and no further save as seen extraordinarily to Paul Stephen c. is the Universal Head Visible And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously § 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope Why first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope Will he turn Papist if this be proved and the Christian World be not deceived Is this our Champion against Popery now I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it and therefore thither refer the Reader Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts Christians will reject me for the former and Politicians deride me if I hold the last § 11. He proceedeth 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Regent Constitutive part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Universal consent to make a Catholick Answ No consent maketh a Catholick Church but consenting to one supreme Head Christ But I
am glad I understand you § 12. Saith he Quest By what way this National consent is to be declared By the Constitutions of this Church the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their judgments in matters of Religion which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National consent as to any Law And all the Bishops Ministers and People make up this National Church Answ Now we are come to the bottom And 1. Our question is of the Constitution of the Church and the Doctor tells us the Administration makes it To consult and advise and make Laws are acts of Administration and follow the Constitution Men must have Power before they use it and must be a Church before they act 〈◊〉 Church 2. Yea to Advise and Consult are not so much as acts proper to administring Government but belong to those that are no Governours also 3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them such then either the Parliament are your Church Head or you have none that 's Ecclesiastical But having your plain Confession that you have no such Regent part and so are no Church Political save Civil but a meer Association I ask § 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England or that we vent our spleen against it or deny it who deny not Associated Churches in England under one Civil Government 2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformists disagreed Read Mr. Dodwell and many such others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and see what they will judg of you 3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England who agree what it is than you and those Bishops and Doctors that speak of two different things and agree not so much as what it is 4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair issue by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned political sense 5. What made you before talk of being under one Government If you meant only Civil Is your Governed Church as such only Civil or a Kingdom only 6. Do you not now absolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England aâ— such and from all guilt of disobeying them How can men Govern that are no Governours and how can we obey them It 's only the Civil power then that we herein disobey If you say that all the Bishops are Governours and altogether govern the whole I answer Yes per partes but not as a whole or Church If twenty Families in a Village agree as Masters and Servants to go one way as Consenters this maketh no one Government of the Village If the Physicians of London consent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick If twenty Sea Captains consent to go one Voyage by one rule each one is a Governour of his own Ship but this maketh no Government of the whole All the Justices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes by the same Law But all together make not one Aristocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole Unless your Bishops c. are United in One persona Politica or Aristocracy they may rule their several Churches but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such An agreement of the Emperour Spaniard and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick 7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours 8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them yea and declare their own dissent as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy yea and their chosen representatives Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves 9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives or that as such they make them Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them 10. And as to Convocation consent how binds it all those that never consented to them How is the City of London so bound to Conform when they had not one chosen Clerk but only the Dignitaries in the Convocation that made us our Conformity the two chosen by them being refused by the Bishops 11. Will not you pass for an asserter of the Principles of Independency that not only say The Keys are given to the whole body and the Convocation represent the People c. but also that England is one Church but by consent without consenting to any one Constitutive Regent Church head The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and consent without National Government of it 12. You go further from the Episcopal Politicks than the Presbyterians do For they make an Aristocratical Regent Part but you make none 13. I doubt some Statesmen will be angry with you that say there is no power of Church Government in England but from the King as Head as Crumptâ—â— before Cousins Tables and others ordinarily 14. Do you make England in essentials any more one Church than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one Did the Synod of Dâ—rt make us one with them Do large Councils make many Nations one Church Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom when seven Kings Governed the whole by parts but none the whole as such 15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England Have none of these have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico You dare not say No. If they are You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole by which I bring in the Pope because you think Christ will not serve the turn And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England And if you deny it to have one Regent part do you not then either destroy the rest or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal 16. I pray you tell us from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power If you say from the Bishops and so Inferiours or Equals may give power why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops and generare speciem If it must come from Superiours the Church of England hath none such 17. If the Peoples consent can make a National Church why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church 18. If the Nations consent as such make the Church of England it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament 19. Do the Clergy represent the King or is he none of the Church 20. How prove you that the
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
and my Conscience might have been bolder and less fearful of sin And though I love not to displease them I must say this great truth that I had never been like to have lived in so convincing sensible experience of the great difference of the main body of the Conformists from the most of the Nonconformists as to the seriousness of their Christian Faith and hope and practice their victory over the flesh and world c. I mean both in the Clergy and Laity of mine acquaintance O how great a difference have I found from my youth to this day Though I doubt not but very many of the Passive Conformable Ministers to say nothing of the Imposers have been and are worthy pious men and such as would not perswade their hearers that the Jesuits first brought in spiritual prayer And I had the great blessing of my Education near some such in three or four neighbour Parishes § 4. It grieved me to hear of Mr. Glanvile's death for he was a man of more than ordinary ingeny and he was about a Collection of Histories of Apparitions which is a work of great use against our Sadducees and to stablish doubters and the best mans faith hath need of all the helps from sense that we can get And I feared lest that work had perished with him But I gladly hear that by the care of Dr. H. More that worthy faithful man of peace who never studied preferment it is both preserved and augmented And as for his Origenisme as I like it not so I confess in matters of that nature I can better bear with the venturousness of dissenters than hereticators can do But when I saw this Rag called a Letter left behind him my grief for him was doubled And I saw what cause we have all to fear the snares of a flattering world and what cause to pray for Divine preservation and for an unbyassed mind and a humble sense of our own frailty that we may neither over-value prosperity nor our own understandings I did not think that he that had wrote the Vanity of Dogmatizing could so soon have come to perswade men in power that dissenting from our Churches dogmatizing and imposed words formes and ceremonies was worthy of so severe a prosecution of us as he describeth and that all their danger is from the forbearing such prosecution of us and that though for their own ends he could abate us some little matters the only way to settled peace is vigorously to execute the Laws against us He that can think the silencing and imprisoning of about 2000 such Ministers is the way to bring this Land to Concord hath sure very hard thoughts of them in comparison of Conformists And that you may see how little his judgment against such should weigh with others who is so lately changed from himself I will give you here one of several Letters which I had from him and leave you to judge whether he have proved that he was much wiser at last than when he wrote this or whether his character of me agree with his motion to silence and ruine all such I am so far from owning his monstrous praises that I fear I offended him with sharply rebuking him for them But lest his wit and virulence here do harm I give it you to shew the unconstancy of his judgment or if he would have excepted me from his severities I must profess that I believe the most of the Nonconformable Ministers of my acquaintance are better men than my self and therefore his excessive praise of me is the condemnation and shame of his persecuting counsel § 5. As to his praise of the Bishops Writings against Popery I had rather magnifie than obscure their deserts But I am not able to believe that the old ones who write to prove the Pope Antichrist c. and the new ones who would bring us to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis Catholicae were of one mind because both are called Protestants and that such as Bishop Bramhall and the rest of the defenders of Grotius were of the same judgment with Bishop Usher Bishop Morton Bishop Downame c. nor that Grotius who describeth a Papist to be one that flattereth Popes as if all were right which they said and did did disclaim Popery in the same sense as the old Church of England did Two men may cry down Popery while one of them is a Papist or near one in the others sense As to the folly of calling that Popery which is not I have said more against it in my Cath. Theologie than he hath done And as to his excuse of an ignorant vicious sort of Ministers because no better will take small Livings It is not true The silenced Nonconformists would have been glad of them or to have preached there for nothing The tolerating of ignorant scandalous men were more excusable if better were not shut out that would have taken such places But it 's notorious that for the interest of their faction and prosperity they had rather have the ignorant and vicious than the ablest and most laborious Nonconformist Bishop Morley told me when he forbad me to preach that It was better for a place to have none than to have me when I askt him Whether I might not be suffered in some place which no one else will take Most of the old Nonconformists were suffered by connivance in small obscure places which was the chief reason why they set not up other meetings which Dr. Stillingfleet thought they avoided as unlawful because forbidden § 6. And as to his excuse by blaming ill Patrons I would know then by what true obligation all men in England are bound to commit the Pastoral conduct of their Souls to such men only as our English Patrons chuse § 7. And when he so blameth the tepidity and irreligiousness of the Members of their own Church I would know 1. Whether all men that are more seriously religious must be forsaken by us and ruined by them if they be not of their mind and form 2. And whether the numbers of the irreligious that are for their way and the numbers of the religious that are against it should not rather breed some suspicion in them than engage them to ruine so many such men § 8. And when page 3. he confesseth that the sword is their Churches strength and Government and how contemptible words paper Arguments and excommunications are without force doth he not shame their whole cause and shew that it is not the same Government which the Church used for many hundred years which they desire and that their whole power of the Keys which they talk so much for seems to themselves a dead and uneffectual thing while we Nonconformists desire no coercive power but to guide Consenters § 9. As to his project to save religion under a Papist King if the Dean and Chapter may but chuse the Bishop I leave it to other mâ—â—â— consideration But
I give you his Letter to me because page 34. He â—aith The greatest part of thâ—se that now scâ—tâ—r and run â—bâ—â—â— do it out of Hâ—…â—ancy or Faction or Interest or Aâ—…y or desire of being câ—… godly 〈…〉 really out of Conscience and Conviction of duty and thâ—se the penalties duly exacted would bring back with much more sharp and cruel As if he knew the consciences of the most But see how much otherwise he lately thought of some Agapetus Diacon ad Justinian Adhort cap. 35. Episcopis vi gladio invitos regentibus quam Regibus magis congrua NOMIZE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Existima tunc regnare te tutò cum volentibus imperas hominibus Quod enim invitò subjicitur seditiones molitur captâ occasione Quod vere vinculis benevolentiae tenetur firmam servat ergatenentem observantiam 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. The Elders which are AMONG you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the Flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly Not for FILTHY LUCRE but of a ready mind Neither as being Lords over Gods heritage bâ—â— being ensamples to the Flock And when the chief Shepherd shall appear ye shall receive a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away See Dr. Hammond on the Text. Mr. Glanviles Letter Reverend and most Honoured Sir I Have often taken my pen in hand with a design to signifie to you how much I love and honour so much learning piety and exemplary goodness as you are owner of And how passionately desirous I have been and am to be known to a person with whom none hath a like place in my highest esteem and value But my affections and respects still growing infinitely too big for mine expression I thought I should but disparage them by going about to represent them And when I sate down to consider how I might most advantagiously set forth my regards and high sense of your great deserts I always found my self confounded with subject And the throng of mine affections each of them impatient to be first upon my paper hindred one another's gratification Great passions are difficultly spoken And I find my self now so pained with the sense that I cannot write suteably to the honour I have for you that I can scarce forbear thâ—owing away my pen being near concluding that 't is better to speak nothing in such a subject than a little But when I consider you as a person that have high affections for those excellent qualifications which in the highest degree are your possession and suteably resent the worth of those that own them I am incourag'd to think that you may conceive how I honour you though my pen cannot tell it you by reflecting upon your own estimate of those that are of the highest form of learning parts and exemplary piety or more compendiously such in your judgment as I take you for Incomparable And yet I have a jealousie that that will not reach it for though I think your judicious esteem of such cannot be surpassed yet I am apt to think that none ever got such an interest and hold upon your passions as hath the object of my admiration on mine Nor yet can I rebuke them as extravagant though at the highest since they take part with my severest judgment and were indeed inflamed by it And I profess I never found my self so dearly inclin'd to those of my nearest blood or so affectionately concern'd for my most beloved friends and acquaintance as for you whom I had never the happiness to converse with but in your excellent writings nor ever often saw but in the Pulpit Yea I speak unfeignedly I have always interessed my self more in your vindication when your unreasonable prejudic'd enemies have malign'd you and delighted my self more in your just praises from those that know you than ever my self-love or ambition could prompt me to do in any case of mine own Sir I hope you believe that I speak my most real sentiments and do not go about to complement you For I must be very weak and inconsiderate did I think to recommend my self to so much serious wisdom by such childish fooleries Therefore if my expressions savour any thing above common respect I beseech you to believe 't is for that their cause is not common but as much above ordinary as their object I know your humility and remarkable self denyal will not bear to read what I cannot but speak as often as I have occasion to mention your great worth and merits However I cannot chuse but here acknowledge how much I am a debtor to your incomparable writings In which when you deal in practical subjects I admire your affectionate piercing heart-affecting quickness And that experimental searching solid convictive way of speaking which are your peculiars for there is a smartness accompanying your pen that forces what you write into the heart by a sweet kind of irresistable violence which is so proper to your serious way that I never met it equal'd in any other writings And therefore I cannot read them without an elevation and emotions which I seldom feel in other perusals And when you are ingag'd in doctrinal and controversal matters I no less apprehend in them your peculiar excellencies I find a strength depth concinnity and coherence in your notions which are not commonly elsewhere met withall And you have no less power by your triumphant reason upon the judgments of capable free inquirers than you have upon their affections and consciences in your devotional and practical discourses And methinks there is a force in your way of arguing which overpowers opposition Among your excellent Treatises of this nature your Rational confirmation of that grand principle of our Religion the Sacred Authority of Scripture your solid dependent notions in the business of justification and your striking at the Root of Antinomianism in them which I look on as the canker of Christianity and have always abhorr'd as the shadow of death And your excellent Catholick healing indeavours These I say deserve from me particular acknowledgments I profess the loose impertinent unsound cobweb arguings of the most that I had met with in the Matter of the Divine Authority of Scripture had almost occasioned my stumbling at the threshold in my inquiries into the grounds of my Religion For I am not apt to rely on an implicit faith in things of this moment But your performances in this kind brought relief to my staggering judgment and triumph't over my hesitancy As they did also to an excellent person a friend of mine who was shaken on the same accounts that I was And we are both no less obliged by what you have done in the other things formentioned Which I profess I judge so rational that I cannot but wonder almost to stupor to behold the fierce though
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