to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
Certainty lies in the necessary Existence of a being Absolutely Perfect How then saith he shall we come to prove his Existence by such demonstration Cui non potest subesse falsum And then he adds That I have excluded all Demonstration from the Works of God because we must first know that there is an invisible God before we can certainly know that there is a visible World But if I make it evident that I lay down no such Principles of my own and that I do particularly insist upon the certainty of proving a God from his Works What doth this Man deserve for his Calumnies First That which he saith I lay down for a Principle I only propose as an iâ—serence from the Hypothesis of other Men. For my words are And if that Principle be supposed as the foundation of all Physical Certainty as to the Being of things that there is a God I say if that Principle be supposed From hence appears a double Falsification 1. That I make it the Principle of all certainty whereas I expresly set down in their Hypothesis Physical Certainty as to the being of things but Is there no certainty but what is Physical What thinks he of Mathematical or Metaphysical Certainty so that there might be a Mathematical or Metaphysical Certainty of the Being of God though this Principle were allowed How then doth this prove that I render it impossible by any Certain Argument to prove the Existence of a Deity 2. That I make it a Principle of my own whereas I only suppose it as following from a Principle of others To clear this it will be necessary 〈◊〉 lay down the scope of that Discourse which was to prove that there is a certainty of Faith as well as of Sense and to that end I shewed from the nature of the certainty of sense that it doth fall short of Mathematical Demonstrations which having done from other Arguments I then consider their Hypothesis who derive all Physical Certainty from the knowledge of God who will not suffer Mens Minds to be deceived in clear perceptions then from this Principle being supposed I infer several things for the advantage of the certainty of Faith 1. That the Foundation of all Certainty i. e. such as was before spoken of lies in the necessary Existence of a being absolutely perfect Which I deduce as â— just inference from the former Hypothesis and therefore on this Supposition something above our Comprehension viz. Absolute perfection must be made the foundation of our certain knowledge of things and so the difficulty of our conception of matters of Faith ought to be no hindrance to the certainty of Faith 2. That we have as great or greater reason to believe that God will not suffer us to be deceived in matters of Faith as in the objects of our Senses because as I there Argue there is no sueâ— great danger of being deceived or in being deceived in the objects of Sense as in the matters of Faith Let any Man now Iudge whether this be the discourse of one that rendred it impossible by any certain Argument to prove the Existence of a Deity or that I laid down that as a Principle of my own from which being supposed I deduce such inferences as prove the certainty of Faith hath no greater difficulties than the certainty of Sense Secondly I am so far from excluding the certainty of the Argument from the Works of God to prove his Being that I particularly and largely insist upon it from p. 401. to p. 411. but he pretends that I bring no Argument but from the Idea of God in our minds wich is so false that 1. I make use of that Argument only to slex that the notion of a God hath no inconsistency in it nothing repugnant to the faculties of our Minds as appeas by that very place he quotes 2. The main Arguments I insist upon are That the things in the World are the manifest effects of Divine Wisdom Goodness and Power and that there be such things in the World which are unacceptable without a Deity Let any Man now Iudge with what Conscience or ingenuity this Man hath managed such an Accusation against me as that I go upon such Principles as plainly render it impossible by any certain Argument to prove the Existence of a Deity But it may be he will pretend that he did not design to prove me Atheistical but only to shew that I acted very unreasonably in requiring a greater certainty in them as to the Principles of Separation than I do allow in far greater things As to his design I leave the Reader to Iudge by his way of preceeding in it As to the colour he hath to bring it in on the account of the Grounds of Separation it is only this The Sub-Committee of the Assembly arguing against the Dissenting Brethren saith he I say That such tenderness of Conscience as ariseth out of an Opinion cui potest subesse falsum which may be false is not a sufficient ground c. to justifie Separation But here is a dangerous c. in the middle of a Sentence which made me look again into the Papers and there I find such words left out as fully explain and determine the sense for the whole Sentence runs thus We much doubt whether such tenderness of Conscience as ariseth out of an Opinion Cui potest subesse falsum when the Conscience is so tender as that it may be withal an erring Conscience can be a sufficient ground to justifie such a material Separation as our Brethren plead for Where we see the force is not laid upon the bare possibility of Deception for then no Separation could be allowed in any case since all Men are fallible but upon the supposition of an actual deception which an Erroneous Conscience supposes For it is such a deception as doth suppose Tenderness of Conscience which doth not arise from a possibility of being deceived but from an Error of Conscience The Plea is Tenderness of Conscience the Question is Whether this Plea be sufficient to justifie Separation We much doubt it say they Why so the other Reply Our Reason is Because this Tenderness may arise from an Erroneous Conscience But why should you suspect an Erroneous Conscience in the Case Because Persons are liable to be deceived in the Dictates of Conscience especially when they go meerly upon their own apprehensions without producing Arguments ex Naturâ rei For all the debate between them about Tenderness of Conscience proceeded upon this So that their meaning is not here to be taken as to the bare possibility of deception but of such an Opinion as carried a great probability along with it that they were actually deceived And what coherence is there now between this and the Proof that I bring for the Existence of a Deity so that it is apparent that this was an occasion sought after to lay as much load upon me as he could And by
have against our Church For the proof of this I refer the Reader to the BOOK it self This then being my opinion concerning their Practices Was this a fault in me to shew some reason for it And How could I do that without proving those Practices to be sinful and if they were sinful How could they who knowingly and deliberately continue in the Practice of them be innocent What influence the prejudices of Education the Authority of Teachers the almost Invincible Ignorance of some weaker People and the Vncurable Biass of some Mens Minds may have to lessen their Guilt I meddle not with but the Nature of the Actions and the Tendency of them which I then declared to be Sinful and I am so far from being alter'd in my Iudgment by any of the Answers I have seen and I have read all that have been published that I am much more confirmed in it But Dr. O. saith He had seen a Collection made of severe reflections by the hand of a Person of Honor with his Judgment upon them I wish the Doctor had favour'd me with a sight of them but at present it is somewhat hard for me to make the Objections and Answers too And it was not so fairly done to mention them unless he had produced them Therefore to the â—nknown Objections I hope no Answer is expected But there is one expression wherein I am charged with a Scurrilous Sarcasm or a very Unchristian Judging Mens hearts or a Ridiculous piece of Nonsense viz. When I say That the most godly People among them can the lest endure to be to told of their Faults Now saith Mr. A. How can they be most Godly who cannot bear reproof of their Faults which is a main part of Godliness I am really sorry some of my Answerers have so much made good the Truth of that Saying in its plainest Sense But there needs no more to clear my Intention in it but to consider of whom it is spoken viz. of those who will not bear being told of the Sin of Separation by their own Teachers For my Words are Is it that they Fear the Reproaches of the People which some few of the most Eminent Persons among them have found they must undergo if they touch upon this Subject for I know not how it comes to pass that the most Godly People among them can the lest endure to be told of their Faults In all which words I had a particular respect to the Case of Mr. Baxter who after he had with great honesty published his Cure of Divisions and therein sharply rebuked the Separating Dividing Humor of the People who pretended most to Religious Strictness he met with bitter Reproaches from them for the sake of this Freedom that he was foced to Publish a Defence of his Cure in Vindication of himself from them wherein he saith He was judged by them to be too Censorious of them and too sharp in telling them of that which he did not doubt to be their Sin And again If I be mistaken Should you be so impatient as not to bear with one that in such an Opinion differeth from you And why should not you bear with my Dissent as well as I do with yours Again Why should not you bear with lesser contradiction when others must bear with far greater from you Will you proclaim you selves to be the more impatient You will then make Men think you are the most guilty And a little after And yet you that should be most patient take it for a heinous crime and injury to be told that you wrong them and that you judge too hardly of them and that their Communion is not unlawful And when we joyn to this what he saith elsewhere that they are the most Self-conceited Professors who will not be ruled by their Ministers but are most given to Division and Separation in a passage before mention'd there needs no more to vindicate the truth of this saying than to shew that the most Self-conceited do often pass for the most Godly among them which is a figure so common so easie to be understood that it needs no more Apology than our Saviours calling the Pharisees Righteous Men and saying they were so whole as to need no Physician And I cannot think such figures which were used by our Saviour unfit for a Pulpit But notwithstanding all the care I took to prevent giving any just occasion of Offence my Sermon had not been long abroad but I heard of Great Clamors against it At first it went down quietly enough and many of the People began to Read and Consider it being pleased to find so weighty and so necessary a Point debated with so much Calmness and freedom from Passion Which being discerned by the Leaders and Managers of the Parties it was soon resolved that the Sermon must be cried down and the People Disswaded by all means from Reading it If any of them were Talked with about it they shrunk up their Shoulders and looked Sternly and shook their Heads and hardly forbore some Bitter Words both of the Author and the Sermon Vpon this followed a great Cry and Noise both in City and Country against it and some honest persons really pittied me thinking I had done some very ill thing so many People were of a sudden so set against me and spoke so bitterly of my Sermon I Asked What the matter was What False Doctrine I had Preached Did they suspect I was turn'd Papist at such a Time when all the Nation was set against Popery who had Written so much against it when others who are now so fierce were afraid to appear It was something they said had Angred them sorely but they could not tell What which made me Read my Sermon over again to see what Offensive Passages there might be in it after all I could see no just cause for any Offence unless it were that I perswaded the Dissenters to Submit to the Church of England and not the Church of England to Submit to them And this I believe lay at the bottom of many Mens Stomacks They would have had me Humor'd the Growing Faction which under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery Designed to Overthrow the Church of England or at lest have Preached for Alterations and Abatements and taking away Ceremonies and Subscriptions and leaving them full Liberty to do what they pleased and then I might have gained their good opinion and been thought to have Preached a very Seasonable Sermon But supposing my own private opinion were never so much for some Abatements to be made that might tend to strengthen and unite Protestants and were consistent with our National Settlement Had it been seasonable to have spoken of the Alteration of Laws before Magistrates and Judges who are tied up to the Laws in being Is it fit for private persons when Laws are in force to take upon them to Iudge what Laws are fit to continue and what not I think
Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent implicit at least of the People and so are no Vsurpers yet if they be Persecutors or Ithacian Prelatists i.e. if they either act towards or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists the People may Separate from them When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book called The Cure of Divisions to satisfie the People who were much displeased with him for it one of the material Questions he Asks about his Book is Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors As though that had been an unpardonable Crime In the Plea he saith If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin i.e. Conformity but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this persecution appears by the example he makes of me for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers and declared I intended only to speak of Lay-communion yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design And by such consequences all that speak against Separation may be Separated from as Persecuters and Ithacian Prelatists Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them But in this case we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful Ignorance or error of Conscience That there is a real distinction between these two is evident and that it ought to be considered in this case appears from hence that else there can be no sinful separation under an erroneous Conscience As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass and much more Praying by one was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time as Praying by a Form was in point of words and all Men should be required to begin the publick Worship at such an Hour and so end at such an Hour time being a necessary circumstance our Brethren grant that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it Here is then a lawful imposition and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to any certain time On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case Not on the Imposers because they grant such an imposition lawful therefore it must lie on those that Separate although they judge such terms of Communion sinful If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power as the necessary circumstances of time and place c. then mens apprehending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side and not on the imposers Because it is to be supposed that where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary care and judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required As for instance when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful condition of Communion but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy and Ceremonies which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion Where is the prohibition In the same Second Commandment say some I desire them to read it over to me They do so Where say I are the words that forbid a Liturgy or Ceremonies I am mistaken they tell me it is not in the words but in the sense I Ask How we should come by the sense but from the words Yes they say there are certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments Are they Divine or Human Where are they to be found What are those Rules One they say is that where any thing is forbidden something is commanded So say I there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image What is there more Yes say they 1. That we must not Worship God with our own Inventions now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions But I say no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God but such as God himself hath somewhere forbidden but he hath no where forbidden these And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God but then 1 They are such inventions which go about to represent God and so to disparage him and no other inventions are to be understood than the Reason of the Law doth extend to i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God 2. They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law For otherwise all use of mens inventions as to Preaching or Reading or Interpreting Scripture would be forbidden And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful because it is a meer Invention of Men as much as Liturgies or Ceremonies By this we see what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be to make Liturgies or Ceremonies unlawful terms of Communion And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain prejudices of Education or Reading only one sort of Books and taking some things for granted which they ought not before they can esteem the terms of Communion required by our Church to be sinful and therefore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily Deluded and then Separate from our Church upon it But there is another plain instance in this case wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism Many of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful On whose side doth the Schism lie on theirs that require the allowance of it as a condition of Communion or not If on the Imposers side they must condemn themselves who blame the Anabaptists for their Separation And so did Fr. Iohnson and so did the New-England Churches From whence it appears that they do all agree that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side but on those that separate
against the Teachers of the Circumcision Vers 2. Beware of Dogs beware of Evil Workers beware of the Concision But speaking so reproachfully of them he shews in the next words that every thing that was excellent in the design of the Law was accomplished in the Gospel and so he proceeds to declare how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest priviledges of the Law in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel which shews that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers who were very busie in disturbing the Peace of the Churches and drawing Disciples after them pleading the necessity of observing the Law and dividing the Christians into different Communions on that account as appears by their proceedings at Antioch where they did separate themselves from the Gentile Christians and St. Peter for a time complyed with them If such as these had not been busie at Philippi where it appears that Iews inhabited What need St. Paul give so much caution against them What need all this dispute concerning the Priviledges of the Law If it be allowed that they were there carrying on the same designs which they did in other Churches then it follows he had great reason to perswade them to Vnity so earnestly as he doth Philip. 2. 1 2. and to give so much caution against them and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law which being done the Apostle after his usual method makes a digression concerning himself viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward toward Christian perfection making no longer any account of legal priviledges Which I take to be his meaning when he saith Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward c. So St. Hierome understands it Legis obliviscens ad perfecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo Forgetting the Law I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel This being understood the Apostles sence naturally follows according to his former design Let us therefore as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14. agree in pursuing our main end But then comes the case of those who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law there being many and plausible Arguments on their side well saith the Apostle if they are doubtful I advise them however not to hearken to these false Teachers for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you wait patiently upon God which is the best means for your satisfaction If any be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law let them make no disturbance in the Church about it And so Erasmus saith It ought to be understood of the Iudaizing Christians who did not yet discern that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished however saith he they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it But What sence can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded Otherwise than what As many as be perfect be thus minded to pursue your main end but if any be otherwise minded Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end that is incredible Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat about which there were then very different apprehensions and that it is certain there were about the Law among the Christians then The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into but of such as were at that time among them and so one Copy reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded they had no difference concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things before them viz. the happiness of the Gospel but they had concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things behind viz. the force and obligation of the Law And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion but was carried on so far as to break the Peace of the Church about it it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians Secondly Whether the Rule which the Apostle layes down be only a Rule of mutual forbearance Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things The sence according to Dr. O. is this That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences Which is a sence very uncertain and doth not reach to the differences then among them It is very uncertain because it sets no bounds to differences and supposes the continuance of such differences among them which he designed to prevent by perswading them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind of one soul as well as to mind the same things Besides the difference then on foot was none of the smaller differences of opinions but that about which they differ'd was urged on one side as necessary to Salvation by the false Apostles and opposed on the other as pernicious and destructive to it One of my Answerers saith That the Iudaizing Christians were leaven'd with such a corrupt Opinion as was by no means to be born with which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main shewing the dreadful consequences of it And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbearance in such a case as this especially when in the same Chapter he gives so great a caution against them with so much unusual sharpness of expression Beware of Dogs beware of Evil Workers beware of the Concision Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance as to the differences then among them these we know there were let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mutual forbearance But now if we suppose the Apostle to speak to the difference about the Law about which the Churches were then divided the sence is plain easie and pertinent For so either 1. It takes in those who hitherto differ'd about the Law and then the sence is although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians you live with keep within one Rule break not the bounds of Peace and Vnity which Christ hath set you run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing courses 2. It is directed to those who have got the start of others and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them especially so have a mighty regard to the Peac◠and Vnity of Christians not to break the
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent 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 Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
then can justifie this Separation but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship Hold saith he the consequence is not good for there are certain middle things between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances about which it will be lawful to divide though otherwise we agree in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship So that here a Separation is justified 1. on the account of such things which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship 2. Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship and consequently although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship For that he charged us with in the Antecedent and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence he must grant that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies although they be made no parts of worship at all For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship they can be none at all and yet he saith it is lawful to divide about them And which is more pleasant when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things he doth it by undertaking to shew that they are made substantial parts of Worship For thus he argues The Church of England hath exalted these things i. e. Ceremonies to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them and therefore they conclude them sinful If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful then they must be either substantial or circumstantial parts of Worship and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship which I have answered already But after all our arguings about these matters Mr. A. saith the Controversie stands still where it did these hundred years and more I utterly deny that for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years than they did in a hundred years before as appears by the foregoing discourse However they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters and so long they cannot joyn with us and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation which I shall consider both wayes 1. As it respects the Churches censures 2. As it respects the judgement of Conscience 1. As it respects the Churches censures This Mr. B. often insists upon The Canons saith he excommucate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it separation to be so excommunicated And who is the Schismatick here Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you And if men be wrongfully excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion To this I answer That the Excommunication denounced is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it The words of the Canon are not as Mr. B. quotes them If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy Ceremonies c. to be unlawful are excommunicate ipso facto but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England established by Law to be impious Anti-Christian or Superstitious let him be Excommunicate ipso facto Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon for to say if any man do but affirm c. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto but when the Canon saith if any shall affirm c it implies these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately Both which the word Affirm will bear For as S. Augustin very well saith every mans errour is born with until he either finds an accuser or he obstinately defends his opinion Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujusâ—ibet donec aut accusatorem inveniat aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition according to the Rule If he will not hear the Church let him be as an Heathen or a Publican Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular persons until the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it Besides such excommunications which are de jure latae sententiae are rather to be looked on as Comminations than as formal excommunications For Gerson putting the question what the effect of such excommunications is he answers that it is no more than this that there needs no new judicial process but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence Which he saith he learnt from his Master who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray And if it requires a new sentence then it doth not actually excommunicate But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath discoursed coursed at large to whom I refer the Reader As to the practice of Canon Law in England Lyndwood saith that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto And it is a Rule in our Church that Persons excommunicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months that others may have notice of them and until the sentence be thus declared I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication though it be said to be ipso facto For although the sentence seem peremptory yet ipso facto doth suppose a fact and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church of which there must be evident proof brought before the sentence can take hold of the Person And to make the sentence valid as to the person there must be due execution of it and the question in this case then is whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication be bound to execute this sentence upon himself which he must do if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point Although saith he we are excommunicated ipso facto yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us And so he hath fully answered his own objection But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating