Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton, Title page (3 of 3)

Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton · Title page (3 of 3)

p. 54But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine, you tell us; (1.) Every one is bound to submit to their Determination, As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God.

Here 1. You should have told us, whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches, or only such Ancient Churches, as those of the fourth, or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches. Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal, and got the upper Ground, (In Defence of the Right of Kings, p. 398.) where the Cardinal arguing, that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church, in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years, was not to be condemned.] His Majesty replied; In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession, that in the first five hundred Years, the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith, nor approved by Practice. VVherein to my understanding, the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit; for the Church in the time of the Apostles, their Disciples,—was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge,—than at any time since in any succeeding Age, in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea, so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark.

You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant, whether all, or only some of them? And if but some, whether those that only took the Scripture, as their Rule in reforming; or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches, together with it?

2. What are those things, that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God; besides matters of meer Order and Decency, and what relates to Form of Government?

3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule? When you grant the Church may err, and general Councils may err; may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word, that are not s… left? Chillingworth grants, there may be just and nec…ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cath…lick Church (p. 298.) And you say partly the same in your Rational Account (pag. 331, 332.) Those Errors in practice, in the Judgment of the Church, may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word, when yet others are not bound to submit to them. You tell us, Rational Account, p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is, what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ; for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by, it is most sensl…ss pleading Prescription, till you have particularly examined, how far such Prescription is allowed by him. So then it is not enough to say, in the Judgment of the Primitive and p. 55Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law, and the Church hath Power to determine them. But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on, p. 628. It may be you will tell me, that in this Case, Prescription interprets Law, and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side, since you run your self into new Briars; for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law, but by the Practice (here I must say by the Iudgment) of the Church, and which is the foreign of all, that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing, but what was originally given her by the Legislator.—He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title; must prove it impossible, that the Church should ever be deceived.

4. Is this a plain, or rather is it not an Impossible Rule? If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things, that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word; then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive, and Reformed Churches, as to those things. We should think it well, if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures, and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty; but (according to what you have here laid down) this should not be sufficient: but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity, to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils, and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions, that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches. And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders, and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law? Or will you say, that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here, that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches, they must believe without more adoe? Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word, will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission, to the Determination of Church-Governours, till such time as they can be satisfied, that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive, and Reformed Churches? Will you give them time, till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case, reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word, &c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches?

5. Is this a golden, rather is it not a leaden Rule? May it not be turned contrary ways? Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving? Were not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches? And were they for our English Ceremonies? Do not the Lutheran p. 56Churches hold some things lawful, and indifferent, which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable? As things indifferent, and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England, are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches. I do profess plainly (says Chillingworth, p. 376.) that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot, but upon this Rock only (the Bible.) I see plainly and with mine own Eyes, that there are Popes against Popes, Councils against Councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves, a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age, the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age.

6. Is this Rule, of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule? Do you find the one agreeable to the other? Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy, the same Rites and Ceremonies, which they yet held undetermined by God's Word? Was it their Judgment, that each Nation, or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things? Do you find this within the first five hundred years? Can you gainsay those Words of yours, (cited, Rector of Sutton, p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here) We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies; nay I s…arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced, that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs: which might be an Argument of Moderation in all, as to these things, but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church. And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters, whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them? As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus (l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23.) the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters, and yet live in Peace. And foreign So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters, and yet communicate one with another. The Primitive Christians retained c…ntrary Observations, and yet (as Irenaeus said) held fast the bond of Love and Vnity. Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church, or the best reformed Churches, have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office, and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters?

Here comes to my Mind that which you say, Vnreas. of Separat. p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of r…verence to the Ancient Church, than meer opposition to Popery. (Yet with King Iames, Defence of the right of Kings, p. 47c. the Christian Religion reformed, is as to say, purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs.) And p. 17. Altho they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith, and rejected all things repugnant thereto; yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church, but a Reformation of it; by p. 57reducing it, as near as they could, to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors, &c. (Agreeable to Chillingworth, p. 287. … 82.) But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it, from Arch-Bishop Whitgift, I cannot tell. However T. C. (latter part of his second Reply, p. 172.) could not discern it to have any Solidity, but called it a single solid Argument: seeing Transforming may be in part, as well as Reforming. And you have not improved it at all. But what a strange Assertion is that of yours, p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church, but the same wich our first Reformers owned, and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days? And will you stand to this, that they died M…rtyrs for Ceremonies, and for such Impositions, as have thrust out so many Ministers, that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth, for which indeed they laid down their Lives? I had thought, that I. Rogers (the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution) had been a Non-conformist. As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered. And can you make the World believe, that they suffered for Conformity? And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause, whether Conformists, or Non-conformists? Indeed they agreed well in Red (in Blood, and Flames) who before had differed in Black and White. But as you will have it, p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds, &c. And p. 4. I would only know, if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs, and other Reformers, and which are only continued by us, &c. I say, you would persuade us, that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers, who were for Reforming according to the Scripture, rejecting all things repugnant thereto, only they would have the Church reduced, as near as they could, to that state it was in, under the first Christian Emperors, (p. 17.) Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition, that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function, and other Church-Members into Communion, observed in those Antient Churches, or one as near as could be to it; and further to make it good, that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule: Or if you cannot do this, you must then grant, that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers, that is, the Scripture, and those Primitive Churches, and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same. Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire, neque Domini est voluntas, neque purioris Ecclesiae m…s.

7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule? If never so many Councils, if all the Churches upon Earth determined, that they had such Power, that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law, we could not submit p. 58to such Determination, while we believe the Scripture, which tells us so plainly, that they have no Power for Destruction, but for Edification. I subscribe to that of Panormitan, Magis Laico esse credendum, si ex scripturis loquatur, quam Papae, si absque verbo Dei agat. Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here, 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over God…s Heritage? And tho the Laity, or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there; yet no doubt, by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow, that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy. And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome, he gives this for one good Reason; Because they usurp more Power than the Ap…stle Paul accounted belonging to him. 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith. Quibus verbis testatur fidem n…mini subjectam esse, …isi verbo Dei. And then it would be seriously enquired, whether to require Assent and Consent to another Book besides the Bible, a Book in Folio, and to all things contained in it, be not to have Dominion over Mens Faith? Many are in doubt here, whose doubts you have not (so far as I can perceive) yet resolved. You your self must grant, that the Churches of God have, or should have no such Custom, to tyrannize over the Faith and Consciences of Men (that is Lording it indeed.) As here Vnreas. of Separat. p. 184. You cite M. Claude, allowing, or maintaining Tyranny over Mens Consciences to be a justifiable Reason of S…paration. And Le Blanc, p. 185. And the Confession of Strasburg, p. 188. That they look on no human Traditions as condemned in Scripture, but such as are repugnant to the Law of God, and bind the Consciences of Men. And Io…. Crocius (ib.) Ceremonies forbidden break the Churches Unity; yet its Communion is not to be forsaken for one or two of these, if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. And Bishop Daven…nt, p. 189, 190. Who grants that Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences would be a s…fficient Reason to hinder Communion. As he says (Sentent. D. Dav. p. 6.) If some one Church will so have Dominion over the Faith of others, that she acknowledgeth none for Brethren, or admits none into Communion with her, nisi credend… ac loquendi legem ab eadem prius accipiant—the Holy Scripture forbids us thus to make our selves the Slaves of any Mortals whosoever they are: our one only Master (Christ) forbids —Quae hâc lege in Communionem alterius Ecclesiae recipitur, non pacem inde acquirit, sed iniquissimae servitutis pactionem. Here I set down a little more than you cite; as indeed it was not for your purpose. To these you agree, P. 221. Not but that I think there may be a Separation without Sin, from a Society retaining the Essentials of a Church: but then I say, the Reason of such Separation is, some heinous Error in Doctrine, or some idolatrous Practice in Worship, or some Tyranny over the Consciences of Men; &c. This Tyranny over Conscience with you, is an imposing of unlawful things. Which I infer p. 59from those Words, p. 208. A prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences, and endless Separation. With Bishop Davenant it is credendi ac loquendi legem dicere. Now if this be the Case of Non-conformist Ministers, that others would tyrannize over their Consciences, will it not justify their Separation, which is but a Separation secundum quid? And if you deny this to be their Case, be pleased to give a sound and solid Answer to those few Pages of the second Plea for Peace, towards the end, p. 116, &c. Qui tyrannidem in Christianissimum vel usurpat, vel invehit, ille Christum, quantum potest, ê solio dejicit, &c. Amyrald. in Thes. Salmur, p. 435. §22.

8. Will you say, every Man is bound (for Peace-sake) to submit to the Determination of Church-Governours, whatever his private Iudgment may be; When his Judgment may be, that such a Determination is against the Word, tho never so many Churches, and Councils judg otherwise? And when his Judgment may be, that submission to such Determination of Men, would be real Disobedience and acting contrary to the Will of God? If his Conscience be rightly informed, then he opposeth the Authority of Scripture, and the Iudgment of God to the Iudgment of Men (as Chillingworth says, p. 309.) which is certainly allowable. If his Conscience and Judgment be erroneous, yet he must suspend the act of Submission to such Determination, till he can be better informed: or acting here against his Iudgment and Conscience (tho erroneous) he would greatly sin. As suppose the Governours of the Church to have determined, that we shall all declare our Assent unto that in Preface before the Book of Ordination, [That it is evident unto all Men, diligently reading Holy Scripture, and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as several Officers.] You could not have submitted to such Determination, while your Judgment was the same, as when you wrote your Irenicum. This is evident from what I noted thence, Rector of Sutton, p. 41, 66. Nothing can be more evident, than that it rose not from any divine Institution, &c. Could you have dissembled with God and Man for Peacesake. (But more of this afterwards.)

But I am thinking, you may possibly object, That you speak of things supposed to be left undetermin'd, whereas I Instance here, in a matter that the Word determines. Yet I hope this may be more convincing. Let us for this once suppose, that you could now prove from Scripture, that the Bishops Office is distinct from that of Presbyters; yet I hope you will grant me, that you could not have submitted to such Determination of the Church, while you believed no such thing. And then I have what I would have. Every Man cannot lawfully submit to the Churches Determination, though it be according to the Scripture (that is, so long as p. 60his Judgment, is the Determination is without, and against Scripture) then must not the same be said, of such Determination, as is besides the Scripture? I know you will not say, the Churches Word is above God's. So you see how this part of your Rule falls short of what you aim at.

One thing you have under this Rule, Irenic. p. 124. I should take a little notice of some-where, and let me do it here. There must be a Difference made (say you) between the Liberty and Freedom of a Man's own Judgment, and the Authority of it. So by being under Governours a Man parts with the Authority of his Iudgment; but you would not have him deprived of the Liberty and Freedom of his Judgment▪ otherwise to what purpose is this distinction brought? Now I would not be so uncharitable, as to think, that by the Liberty of a Mans own Iudgment you could mean a Liberty of professing and declaring contrary to his own Judgment, in Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours, for the Churches Peace. And therefore I say, your Rule here is short, and reacheth not to our Case.

2. You say, in this last Conclusion, that in M…tters of meer Order and Decency▪ every one for the Churches Peace is bound to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church.

Here, 1. This is readily granted, if by Matters of meer Order and Decency, you understand Matters of meer Order and Decency. As you seemed to understand no more, when you wrote your Iren. For there you distinguish betwixt Ceremonies and Matters of meer Decency and Order for Ordersake. And you further say that Matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting; but Ceremonies, properly taken for Actions significative, their Lawfulness may with better Ground be scrupled. (Noted, Rector of Sutton, pag. 16.) And thus far (if you please) you and I are agreed, That Rules of Order (not contrary to the end of Order) should be submitted unto; and that not only for the Churches Peace, but also in Obedience to God's Command, Let all things be done decently and in order. And to such orderly Determinations, what Camero says (pag. 314. col. 1.) may in some sort be applied,—Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae, at Leges respectu Dei; nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia, Deus imp…ravit.

2. But I observe, that in other Writings since your mind is changed, and you have learned now to confound, what before you would have distinguished, that is, your Rites and Ceremonies, and Matters of Order and Decency (as was noted, Rector of Sutton, p. 63.) So you say, in your New Account, or Vnreasonableness of Separation, p. 393. We declare, that they are appointed only for Order and Decency. And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you. Of which there hath been, and is so great dispute.

p. 61Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution.

1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies, are Matters of meer Order and Decency?

2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters?

3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them, upon such Determination?

I intend not to say much upon these Questions, supposing they may fall in others Way. And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion, so much hath been written upon these Points, that might excuse us from saying more, till what hath been published, be fairly answered.

Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency?

1. You say, and declare, they are appointed only for Order and Decency. But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency (as was noted, Rector of Sutton, p. 63.) whereupon it follows, that you must hold them vainly appointed, or that the contrary might as well have been appointed; and so teach, or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church, for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies, whereby many are deprived of their Ministers, and of some of God's Ordinances; which may seem very harsh, if they are only for Order and Decency, and that in so low a Degree, that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed, without them. Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty, and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause, than their meer Wills?

2. Do you well accord here, with Mr. R. Hooker, who says, Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit; we, that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual? You seemed, (Answer to several Treatises, p. 268.) unwilling that any should urge you with that, Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship, was not not in it self altogether so decent and fit… ▪ But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature, that the contrary implieth no Indecency, then you cannot say, that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them. Wherein you and Mr. Hooker, appear to be of different Minds. And kneeling at Communions with him (l. 5. §. 68. p. 366.) is a Gesture of Piety, which is something more than meer Decency.

3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church? You declare, our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency. Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries p. 62and Sacraments. And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God, by some notable and special Signification, whereby he might be edified. Will you say such things, are only for Order and Decency, which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries, and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God, and for his Edification? One would think, that such things should be good in themselves, and not as you say, of an indifferent Nature in themselves. Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency (whose contrary are as decent) to be the same, or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries? &c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty, whereby he may be edified, then is it not made medium excitans, which you say (Vnreasonableness of Separation, p. 354.) our Church utterly denies? Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies, which you can by no means allow, pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation, to say, they are only Matters of Order and Decency, and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept, Let all things be done decently and in Order,] tho they are things of a quite different Nature. Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere; but it would be no Transgression of that Command, though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed, or used in the Worship of God, nor any others like them.

Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies?

Here 1. You say, pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church, as to appoint things for spiritual Effects,—it is all one as to say, the Church may make new parts of Worship. And then the Question is, whether these are no spiritual Effects, if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries, and for Men's Edification? And as Dr. Field says, they are adhibited, to exercise great Fervour and Devotion. And Hooker, Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider, or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence, Devotion, and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite. If you mak… them unprofitable, idle Indifferents, are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment? and if others make them profitable, edifying Ceremonies, have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such?

2. If Church-Governours have Power, that is, lawful Power, or Authority from Christ, to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies, then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission, or p. 63prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say, Rational Account, p. 103. Is it in that Place, where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them, that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded? And a little before it, what hath he commanded her to do? to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary, which he never made to be so? Surely, you cannot think the Church hath any such Power. In all kind of Grants, says Gurney (Vind. of 2d Com. 45.) The want of an Affirmative is Negative sufficient. Then may not Men question, whether the Governours of the Church have such a Power from Christ, till they can prove it?

If [Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you] doth not imply, that the Governours of the Church may teach and command more, than they have his Word and Warrant for; I can think of no other Text more likely for the purpose, than that, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order] Upon which Mr. F. Maso… grounded [The Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things indifferent, printed 1607.] But here you will fall short too. For (I suppose) the Jews were as well bound to perform the Worship of God decently and in order; yet that was no Warrant or Allowance for their bringing in other Rites and Ceremonies into God's Worship, than what God himself had appointed. And what if Church-Governours forbad the Use of such Ceremonies? Would it be to sin against this Rule? Cannot the Worship of God be performed decently, and in ord…r without them? Antecedently to any Determination of Christ's Governours Men are bound to worship God decently and in Order; but none are so bound to use such Ceremonies in God's Worship, as was hinted before. And that these differ t…to genere from Matters of Order and Decency, may appear, in that if we suppose them approved of God, they are Matters of an higher Nature, than things meerly decent, that is, they are pious and religious, not only finally, but formally, that a Man would do amiss, that used them only as decent, neglecting the spiritual Signification of them. And then will it not follow, that if they be not approved and allowed of God, it is worse for Governours to appoint and command them, than if they commanded some simple indecent thing in God's Worship? As Superstition, or false Worship (caeteris paribus) is worse than a meer Indecency.

3. It would seem, by what we reade, Gal. 2. 11, 14. that the Apostle Peter had no Authority to appoint the Observation of such things. Yet his Power was as great, as any Church-Governours now can pretend to, with Reason.

4. If Church-Governours have such a Power (as you say of Men's separating upon account of their Scruples, Vnreason. of Separation, pag. 379. p. 64which I answered before, pag. 29.) where can you stop them from appointing new Ceremonies? And where will you fix, as to the use of them? And what Assurance can you give us, that we shall see an End of them, that they will never appoint more? Notwithstanding what you say, p. 388. by the same Power that the Church hath decreed these, she may decree more Rites and Ceremonies, as indifferent as these, and how many, who can tell? And being once decreed, you must think you are bound to submit to such Deter…ination, who are to be Iudges, whether such or such Ceremonies be rightly determined and appointed? You well know what was said, Commiss. Account, p. 71. Not Inferiours, but Superiours must judg what is convenient and decent. So, if the Governours of the Church once judg all those Ancient Rites of the Christian Church, we ever read of, with many new ones of the Church of Rome, (as many as they could refine and purge from Popish Superstition) to be all decent, and convenient, then must you not submit to them all? Though it would be a Sign, that Religion was far past the Meridian in the Church (as T. Fuller says) where she can hardly be seen, for the length of her own Shadow. As you plainly declare, from another p. 184. that Separation is not warranted upon the Account of bare Ceremonies, although many more were enjoyned; so you must say, that Submission to them is a thing not to be denied, though many more were appointed. And therefore I say, suppose and grant, that the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint such Ceremonies, and you know not where they and you shall stop. And this Power you grant in your subscribing to the 39 Articles. For Art. 20. saith, The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Cer…monies (without li…iting any Number.) Tho this Clause was not extant in the Articles of Edw. 6, and Q. Elizabeth.

Here now I fall upon those two Reasons you give (Vnre…s. of Separation, p. 16, 17.) for the appointing of these Ceremonies.

1▪ Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity,—Therefore they retained the…e few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church. (And yet you cannot deny, but other Ceremonies more Ancient than some of these are laid aside; and the most Ancient of these, is so in use with you, as it was not used at first; and was so in use in the Antient Church as it is not in use with you. Such is your Respect and Reverence here to the Ancient Church.)

2. To manifest the Justice and Equity of the Reformation, by letting their Enemies (the Papists) see they did not break Communion with th…m for m…er indifferent Things. (As you have it before, p. 14.) Our Bishops proceeded (in our Reformation) more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, than meer Opposition to Popery. Now I would be satisfied, whether it might not shew more Respect and Reverence to Antiquity, p. 65if more Ceremonies were retained, and the more Ancient, rather than such as came up in latter times, (as Standing may be proved before the Ceremony of Kneeling?)

And whether there are not many Ceremonies in use among the Papists, capable of having a good signification put upon them, and so as innocent and indifferent as these; and therefore for the Reason you have given, to be retained, or entertained amongst us, to shew our Iustice and Equity towards them, that we proceed not in meer opposition to Popery, that we break not with them about meer indifferent things? And will you be for that peaceable Design, for going as near to Rome as you can, without Sin? But thus upon your Principles, the Church might be Reformed I will not call it, but Transformed, (borrowing the Word from you) and become as Ceremonious as was the Iewish Church under the Law. And they that highly applaud such Ceremonies, as mighty Helps to Devotion, &c. may next tell the World that the Iewish Church was priviledged above the Christian, as having more such Helps; (unless they have a Face to say, that the Ceremonies of Gods appointment were no such Helps, as those of Man's Inventions.) And consequently that latter Churches (which some take to have been less pure) had some Helps, which Christ and his Apostles were not mindful to supply the Primitive Church with.

5. It would seem, that if Christ had approved of the appointing of such things, he would rather have appointed them himself, in his Word, (which would have gained them more repute and esteem, and might have ended the dispute about them.) There is the same Reason for all Churches to observe and practise them, as for ours. 'Tis impossible for you to assign any Reason for the Cross in Baptism, &c. à natura rei, now, but what would have been as pleadable even in the Apostles times, and at all times since. Then is it not most probable, that Christ would have made an universal Law for them, that should equally respect all Churches, had it been his Mind to have such things in his Church? Indeed we find, Christ hath instituted what religious Rites and Ceremonies, he would have observed, in the Sacraments of the New Testament. And where he hath determined the matter himself, what have Men to do more, than to submit to his Determination? What can Men do, that come after the King? None are like to do his work better, or know his Mind better, than himself.

6. If the exerting such a Power be found contrary to many express Commands in the Word, how can we imagine such a Power conveyed to Church-Governours in any general Command there? The Scripture is no where contrary to it self. Consult Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, & v. 17, to the end of the Chapter. And Chap. 15. 1, 2. Are there such plain Commands in Scripture for mutual Forbearance, and against judging, and despising p. 66one another for such things as God hath not commanded, and against offending the weak, or casting a stumbling-Block in others way, and for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church; and can we think it probable, or a thing credible, that Christ would have all such Commands set aside, meerly for the sake of things called indifferent Ceremonies? Or that the Commands, or Determinations of Church-Governours about such Matters should be of Force against the standing Rules, and Laws of Christ, who is King of his Church? Matters of Order and Decency are things of another Nature, necessary in genere, as I have said before; and yet Men cannot oblige us to this or that particular Order, when it is repugnant to that, whereunto it should be subservient. Then much less is it the Will of Christ, that meer indifferent things (if no worse) should take place of great and necessary Duties. Such indifferent things must either be made necessary, or else you must say, (it cannot be avoided) That the Churches Peace may be broken, sound Ministers, and Christians (that scruple the lawfulness of them) may be ejected, and cast out of Communion, or their Consciences may be ens…red unnecessarily. And yet one that ever read his Bible might know so much, that the Governours of the Church have other work to do. And as the second Book of Homilies says (p. 3.) Better it were, that the Arts of Painting, Plaistering, Carving, Graving, and Founding had never been found nor used, than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious, should by occasion of Image or Picture perish and be lost: So indeed better it were, that no such Ceremonies had ever been appointed by Men, than one Soul should be ensnared by them, …r one Minister or Member of Christ suffer.

7. I query, If Christ had not appointed the Sacraments of the New-Testament, whether it had been in the power of Church-Governours to have appointed washing with Water in token, and to put us in mind of our being washed and cleansed by the Blood of Christ, and by the sanctifying influence and operation of his Spirit; and so likewise to have appointed the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine, as signifying that our Souls are to feed upon Christ, whose Body was broken, and whose Blood was shed for us? Had not these been of the same Nature, and as lawful as the significant Ceremonies, which the Church hath taken on her to appoint? Then let the People understand the Power of the Church, that if Christ had never instituted Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, she could yet have in part supplied that want with those significant Ceremonies, that would have been something like them.

8. If Church-Governours have power to appoint such a Ceremony, as the Cross in Baptism, (for Instance) then they have power to add to the thing which God hath commanded, and to make new parts of Worship. But Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. forbids that. You grant p. 337. That for Men to make new p. 67parts of Divine Worship is unlawful. For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship, and that Superstition is no Fault, &c.

The Cross in Baptism is an Addition. Tho you seem to understand the prohibition of adding to the Word, of things directly repugnant; yet that is not so properly an Addition, as an Abolition. As one says, Prohibetur hîc additio, non tantùm contrarii, (quae non tam additio est quàm abolitio) sed etiam diversi. (v. M. Poli. Synops. Crit. in Deut. 4. 2.) Methinks, we may know what it is to add, if we understand what it is to diminish; then as they might not diminish, or take away from God's Worship one significant Ceremony which the Lord had instituted, by a Parity of Reason it would seem to follow, that they might not introduce or add one significant Ceremony to the Worship, God had instituted.

The Cross in Baptism is made a new part of Worship. For that which is used in God's Worship in such a manner, and to such an end, that there needeth nothing but Divine Institution, or God's appointing it to be used in that manner, and to that end, to make it a part of the true Worship of God, that is made a part of God's Worship, tho falsly, for want of Divine Institution. Had Christ appointed the Cross in Baptism, as the Church hath appointed it to be used, in token that we should not be ashamed, &c. had Christ appointed it, by that Badg to dedicate us to the Service of him that died upon the Cross; no doubt it had thus become a part of God's true Worship. Here you speak short, p. 348. The Canon says, It is an honourable Badg, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of, &c. And what is that, but a Sign from Men to God, to testify their Subjection? Which by your own Confession there is an Act of Worship; and yet you will have it no such thing. P. 355. you say, If Christ had instituted it with such Promises—(then no doubt, &c. And I say, If Christ had instituted it only in token, that we ought not to be ashamed to confess him (which is less, than that hereafter we shall not be ashamed) had he appointed it only to signify our Duty, it would yet no doubt, have been made a part of Worship. And I hope upon second thoughts, you will say the same.

Some other Passages, relating to this Matter, I would have glanced at▪ but it is time to hasten to an end of this Conclusion I have been so long upon.

Yet methinks your slighty Exposition of the second C…mmandment, p. 141. calls for one glance here. Can you find no more in the Affirmative part of it, than a Command to worship God without an Image? What is there more? And are not even Mystical Ri…s and Ceremonies of God's Institution within that Command? And does not Bishop Downham say, It forbiddeth all Will-Worship and Superstition, whereby Men worship God according to their own Inventions? p. 68There is no doubt, but that Law forbiddeth other Inventions of Men, besides the worshipping of Images, or of God by Images. And whether the common Nature of the Inventions there forbidden will not be found agreeing to some of your Ceremonies, I suppose will lye fair in others way to take notice of. And so you may have a fuller Answer to that, pag. 338. What is neither forbidden, Directly, nor by Consequence, is lawful, and may be practised in the Worship of God. And it may seem a little strange, that such learned Men, as have written for the Cross, and kneeling in the Act of Receiving, &c. should endeavour to prove them lawful by Consequence from that Text, Let all things be done decently, &c. (whence a more colourable Argument might be drawn against them. As, if we suppose such Ceremonies there included, it would imply, that the Worship of the Apostles, and Primitive Christians, was not so decent, wanting these Ceremonies, as that of our Church, who observe them;) strange it is, I say, that they could not rather see them forbidden by plainer Consequence in the second Commandment, and such other Texts, as Deut. 4. 2. & 12. … …xod. 30. 32, 33. Lev. 10. 1, 2. Num. 15. 39, 40. Ezek. 44. 2. Col. 2. …, 21, 22. Mar. 7. 5, 6, 7.

Quest. 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to such Ceremonies, being appointed and enjoyned by the Governours of the Church?

And here, 1. I cannot yet find, that you have taken off what you had said, Irenic. p. 64. (cited Rector of Sutton, p. 14.) When the Generality of those who use them, do not use them as indifferent, but as necessary things, it ought to be considered, whether in this Case such an Use be allowable? Now will you allow such Ministers to forbear the use of the Cross in baptizing, till they can find their People better informed, and brought off from any such Superstitious Conceit of that Ceremony? For certain it is, very many (such as are ignorant, and most backward to be instructed) do conceit the crossing of their Children necessary, as if Baptism could not be rightly administred without it. What if a Minister be scrupulous, and in doubt, whether by the use of the Ceremony he be not guilty of confirming them in their Superstition? Will you consider such, to take off the Scruples you may have occasioned by this Passage?

2. And what will you say to them, who cannot believe, but they are made necessary? When they see them as strictly imposed and en…oyned, as if they were Matters of the highest Necessity; this does … the least inform, or satisfy them, that you account them, (for all that) but indifferent things. Would not that considerable Person, you once speak of, Philip Nye, have said, Quid verba audiam cum facta videam? As he says, Our Church-Governours questionless might have brought in one Rite, or p. 69Ceremony, with the same Liberty to Men's Consciences, that they have done another, Scil. The Cross, and Surplice, &c. with the same Liberty, as bowing to the East or Altar. As he also cites, A Petition of the House of Commons to King James, An. 1610. Wherein is as follows, Ministers being removed from their Ecclesiastical Livings for not conforming in some Points, it is a great grief to your Majesties Subjects, seeing the whole People that want Instruction are by this means punished. Here I remember what you say of the Vow Corban, (p. 340.) and how they thought their Tradition to over-rule the Law. Then you can clear your Ceremonies, as innocent, and free from any such Crime. And yet it hath sometimes been known, when no Surplice, no Service. And Conformity to the Ceremonies is made so necessary, that People must have no Ministers without it. By which means many Souls are at great wants. That you should hold it a thing more pleasing to God, that the Ceremonies be used and kept up, than that the Souls of Men in many places be relieved, and taken care for. And if the Worship of God must rather be omitted, than the Ceremonies, is not this, to set up Men's Traditions above God's Law, and Men's Inventions above Divine Institutions? Many cannot be satisfied with that you tell them, p. 346. That these Ceremonies are purged from Popish Superstition and Error. And therefore all Opinion of Merit and spiritual Efficacy is taken from them; which do make them to be Parts of Divine Worship. They know not that an Opinion of Merit is necessary to any part of Divine Worship. And if you would convince them, that you look on them as no more than naked, indifferent Ceremonies, they could wish, that as you disclaim the Opinion of their spiritual Efficacy and necessity in Word, so they might see that you do it in deed, that none may be deprived of the Means, that God is wont to make effectual, and are ordinarily necessary to Salvation, for the sake of such Ceremonies, which you will not say are effectual, or necessary thereto. And to go on one step further with you here, to (p. 347.) either you must grant such Ceremonies are to be altered, dispensed with in this Case, or you must take them to be unalterable, and then (by your own Confession there) you make them parts of Divine Worship. For (as you say) this supposes an equal Necessity (of them) with that of Divine Institution. And if Men must be without the Word, and without Sacraments, rather than without your Ceremonies, as some have been, and still ordinarily are) then do you not make them of equal Necessity with Divine Institutions, if the preaching of the Word, and Administration of Sacraments be such? And thus have you proved (for us) your Ceremonies to be made parts of Worship. This Ios…s Nichols complained of long since, (Plea, &c. p. 120.) That the Reverend Fathers, accounting those things (for which they contend) but meer Trifles, would yet prefer them before the Ministry. p. 70And pag. 229. (but mispaged)—And for not yielding to their Minds, suspended, deprived, and imprisoned their learned and Godly Brethren, and in the mean time preferred the trifling Ceremonies before the weighty work of Preaching. So that, as Mr. Calfill saith, The People of God be sometimes oppressed with Traditions and Ceremonies; and for outward Solemnities the inward true Service of God is neglected.—And they could not see all this while any one thing …miss, no, not so much as the unlearned Ministry, or Non-residency; but defend all, and maintain all to the utmost.

Now if thus it appears, that the Ceremonies are made necessary, in being preferred before the Ministry of the Word, if Non-residency, and a Non-preaching Ministry be counted more tolerable than Non-conformity; and if (as you say… by making the Ceremonies of equal necessity with God's Ordinances, they are made parts of Divine Worship; you will excuse those that cannot submit to them, unl…ss they could be proved of Divine Institution. If they are things not … by the Word (according to what you have, p. 116. they should not be …, they are not bound to use them. No Church-Governours upon Faith hav… su…h a Power to bind men to things not … by the Word. If their … enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid, (as the making of any n…w part of Worship) they are ipso facto null and void. King Iam…s … Right of Kings, p. 428.) It is moreover granted, If a King s…all command any thing dir…ctly contrary to God's Word, and tending to the … of the Church; that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for th…ir Obedience, but also expresly to forbid their Obedience. For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man. And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King's here, and ab…ve Christ…. And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate (Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col. 2.) may be appli…d h…re to Non-submission (in such case, as is spoken of,) to the Determination of Church-Governous. Deirectatio autem illa Obedien…iae, … est in Obedientia, nedum resi…tentia, sed tantum Supremi Iuris …, qu…d Magistratus sibi … adrogat, out userpat, debita Recognitio. It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours, but rather a due Recogni…on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord.

For haste I have here thrown things on heaps. A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion.

3. You say, Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination.

Here I offer to your Consideration what follows.

1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice, that is, live peaceably under it, and obey Governours in (Licitis & Honestis,) so p. 71far as God's Law allows, should be urged further, to submit their Iudgment to the Divine, or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy, when determined by Governours, whatever their private Iudgment may be? Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination, whose Judgment was, That the Bishops and Priests were not two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion, (as you cite his MS. Irenic. p. 392.) could such a Man as Dr. Holland, (and I need not tell you what he was) who called Dr Laud a Schismatick▪ for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy, saying, It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches? Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination, That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture, &c. who in effect says the contrary, Thes. Salmur, p. 8. §. 33. Ne que , verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus, &c.

And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops, as of Bishops, I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account, whether you could submit to such Determination. For there pag. 298. You speak of it, as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church,—That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts, without any such Subordination or Dependance.—Here I would be satisfied, how you would expound Homogeneal Parts, and so you seem to expound them, p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian (Episcopatus unus) appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church. (But then should not all, that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them, be supposed to be Bishops; and no one Bishop above another; otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them; how is there Episcopatus unus? And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts?) And thus will it not follow, that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them, (which you here suppose to be with a Parity) should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully, p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith, Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur, de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum, he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge; and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders, in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him. Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Man…or or Lordship, in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered, whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake, if not Diocesan Churches too?

p. 722. Whether you could submit, and declare your Assent, if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution, and should require your Assent? Would you then disown, and discard such, whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours? For what you say, (Vnreasonableness of Separation, Preface, p. 89.) we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them. For there you tell us, The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid, or ashamed to own her Cause.—They must not think, that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it (that is, for Union, or the Churches Peace) so as to condemn its Constitution, &c. Then you cannot say, that wholly as to the Form of Government, every one is bound, for the Churches Peace, to submit to the Determination of Governours, whatever his private Judgment be. Here I have put a Case, wherein you could not submit.

3. What if the whole Work of Government, belonging to the Pastor's Office, was quite taken out of their hand, that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop, and such Copy-holders, as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord? Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision, without doing any thing towards a Reformation? Should they betrary the Churches Interest, for the Churches Peace? May they not endeavour any Alteration, not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power, and by humble Petition for Redress?

4. Is every one bound to submit (wholly as to the Form of Government) to Governours Determination? Then what if our Civil Governours, and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments, and Determinations? I make no question, but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil; Moreover, whereas your Lordship said unto me, that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren (lately) to be by God's Ordinance, and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supream Government: If this be true, then it is requisite and necessary, that my Lord of Canterbury do recant and retract his Saying in his Book of the great Volumn against Cartwright, where he saith in plain Words (by the Name of Dr. Whitgift) that the Superiority of Bishops is of God's own Institution; which Saying doth impugn her Majesties Supream Government directly, and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly. And I find something like this, in that small Tract, called (English Puritanism, c. 6. §. 6.) They …old, that all Arch-Bishops, Bish…ps, Deans, Officials, &c. have their Offices and Functions only by Will and Pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm; and they hold, that whosoever holdeth that the King may not, without Sin, remove these Offices out of the Church,—or … these Offices are Jure divino, and not only or meerly Jure p. 73humano: That all such deny a principal Part of the King's Supremacy, which indeed you must hold, as to Bishops, if you can prove them an Apostolical Institution. Though I know the time when you was of another mind, Rector of Sutton, p. 41. Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical Institution? And pag. 40. you believed, that upon the strictest Enquiry it would be …ound true, that Ierome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all for the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and …re…byters in the Primitive Church.

Now suppose the Civil Governours should determine the Government by Bishops, as superiour to the rest of the Clergy, to be only jure humano, that they had Power to alter, if they pleased; and should require Assent to this their Determination: and the Ecclesiasticks on the other hand should be of your mind, resolving not to give up the Cause of the Church, or disown its Constitution, and should determine it to be Iure Divino, vel Apostolico, and to be owned of Men, as such: In such a Case whether must the former, for the Churches Peace, think themselves bound to submit to the Determinations of the latter? Or to which of their Determinations must others submit? For none, but such as the Vicar of Bray, could submit to both.

Thus I have gone over your three Conclusions which you seem to make great account of. What great Service they are like to do you, let the Impartial Reader judg.

Instead of my third Conclusion, I would offer to Consideration Chap. 26 of Corbet's Kingdom of God among Men. [of Submission to Things imposed by lawful Authority,] p. 171, &c.

Particularly, pag. 173. Though the Ruler be Iudg of what Rules he is to prescribe; yet the Conscience of every Subject is to judg with a Iudgment of Discretion, whether those Rules be agreeable to the Word of God or not, and so whether his Conformity thereto be lawful or unlawful. Otherwise he must act upon blind Obedience, &c. (with what follows in that Page) And pag. 174. It is much easier for Rulers to relax the strictness of many Injunctions about matters of supposed Convenience, than for Subjects to be inlarged from the strictness of their Iudgment. And blessed are they that consider Conscience, and load it not with needless Burdens, but seek to relieve it in its Distresses.

You go on with me, Preface, p. 74 But he urges another Passage in the same Place, viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion, their Separation is necessary.—That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome. But will not this equally hold against our Church, if it excommunicates those who cannot conform?

p. 74Now may not it be said here (as Rational Account, p. 336. beginning) They did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of your Church, and therefore are no Schismaticks; but your Carriage and Practices were … them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you? And may not your own Words (ibid. p. 356) be returned, Scil. That by your own Confession the present Division and Separation lies at your door, if it be not made evident, that there were most just and sufficient Reasons for your casting them out of your Communion.—And supposing any Church (though pretending to be never so Catholick) doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds, that she declares such excommunicate, who do not approve all such Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice, which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to, the cause of that Division which follows, falls upon that Church which exacts those Conditions, &c.

Here it is to be noted, that your own Words (Irenic. p. 123, 124.) objected against you, (Rector of Sutton, pag. 30.) are as follow, This (Scil. entring into a distinct Society for Worship) I do not assert to be therefore lawful, because some things are required, which Men's Consciences are unsatisfied in; unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of Communion on that account, in which Case their Separation is necessary. Whence I inferred, that if Ministers be wrongfully ejected, and wholly cast out of their publick Ministry, for such things as their Consciences are not satisfied in (for not conforming in unlawful, or suspected Practices) it becomes necessary for them to have distinct Assemblies in this case (at least) if there be need of their Ministry. Yet I cannot find that you have one word in Answer to this. That one would think, either you knew not well what to say to the Case of the ejected Non-conformists, or that they were so very despicable in your Eye, you thought them not worth taking notice of at all.

Now to your Answers. (1.) Our church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites.

Yet whatever you say here, I doubt, a Man (though he hath his Child lawfully baptized) is not secured from the Sentence of Excommunication, if he bring it not to the Church to be crossed. And though a Man would joyn in the Communion, yet if he be not satisfied to receive the Sacrament kneeling, by the Rules of the Church he is to be debarred from the Sacrament, and then liable to Excommunication for not receiving. And being once excommunicated, I would know what parts of publick Worship the Church allows him to communicate in. Thus there seems to be little more than a Colour and Pretence in this first Answer, if the Rules of the Church be followed.

p. 75But you further say, Preface, p. 74, 75. (2.) The Case is vastly different, as to the necessity of our Separation, upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome; and the necessity of others separating from us, supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto, against those who publickly defame the Orders of the Church,—In the Church of Rome, we are cast out with an Anathema. —

Now 1. If there be a necessity of our Separation from the Church of Rome, upon account of that highest Censure of Excommunication with an Anathema, and her pronouncing us uncapable of Salvation, if we do not return to her Communion, (as you here suppose): why then do you allow a Protestant to joyn in some parts of Worship in the Roman Church, as in hearing Sermons? &c. (as is plain you do, pag. 108.)

2. I shall not oppose you in this, that the general Excommunication ipso facto in the Canons, lays no Obligation, till it be duly executed. As you say, pag. 368, 369. General Excommunications although they be latae sententiae, as the Canonists speak, do not affect particular Persons, until the Evidence be notorious, &c.—And the Question is, whether any Person knowing himself to be under such Qualifications which incur a Sentence of Excommunication, be bound to execute this Sentence upon himself? Yet another Question may come in here, viz. supposing such a Sentence unjust, though that alone would not justify Separation, whether yet it may not something extenuate it? You are not for extenuating at all, I can bear you witness.

3. And may I not say, that this is answering but by Halves? It never reacheth the Case of so many Ministers, who have been wholly cast out of their publick Ministry. It reacheth not the Case of many private Christians, who have been formally, and actually excommunicated for such Causes, as can never be proved by Scripture to deserve such a Censure and Sentence. You know that Canon of the Council held at Agatha (Can. 2. Carranza, fol. 159.) that if Bishops excommunicated any unjustly, they were to be admonished by other neighbouring Bishops. And might not the Admonishers have received such into their Communion, whom the other had unjustly cast out? As the Council at Wormes, (Carrenza, fol. 388. Can. 2. cut short there, as I suppose.) Can. 14th is cited in Mr. B's Church History, p. 275. §. 56. saying, That if Bishops shall excommunicate any wrongfully, or for light Cause, and not restore them, the Neighbour-Bishops shall take such to their Communion, till the next Synod. And to my weak understanding you say nothing here to what you have Iren. p. 119, 120. where you fairly clear Non-conformists, but lay the Imputation of Schism upon those who require such Conditions of Communion, as they cannot conform unto for Consciencesake. The very requiring of such Conditions, you would have there to be p. 76no less than an ejecting Men out of Communion. And therefore I should wonder, if by being wholly cast out of Communion, you then meant only being excommunicated with an Anathema. As I doubt not, but Separation is as necessary, where one cannot have Communion, with-out joyning in unlawful or suspected Practices, as where one is formally excommunicated, yea, and if an Anathema were annext to the Sentence too.

You add, (3.) That Author could not possibly mean, that there was an equal Reason in these Cases, when he expresly determines, that in the case of our Church, Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it; being only about Matters of Decency and Order, and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God.

Here 1. Be pleased to note, that as much as you seem taken with, and hug this Conceit of yours, (as you have it once and again here, and likewise in your Conferences, p. 171. as if you thought it would do you Knights Service) yet it remains wholly unproved, that the things imposed are only Matters of Decency and Order. (Still I conceive, that if Man only had ap…ointed such a use of Bread and Wine, to signify and put us in remembrance of Christ's Body broken, and his Blood shed for us, it had been something more than a meer matter of Decency and Order, or something worse. And whether the same may not be said of the Sign of the Cross, I am in doubt; for they seem to be parallel.) And so it neither is, nor ever can be proved that such Imposition of such things, in the Iudgment both of the Primitive, and of all Reformed Churches, is allowable by God's Law; and that Men are bound to submit to them, whether they are satisfied about them, or not.

2. When you say, The Author of Irenicum could not possibly mean, that there was an equal Reason in these Cases; I would fain know what those Words mean, Irenic. p. 119. (cited Rector of Sutton, p. 21.) Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will, by the very same Arguments that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful, because she required unlawful things, as Conditions of her Communion, it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms, if the things so required be, after serious and sober Enquiry, judged unwarrantable by a Man's own Conscience. Did you not here suppose some Equality in these Cases? And which way did you wind and turn your self, to get off from those Arguments?

3. And let me say this further, How could you then possibly mean, that Men should be bound in Conscience to submit to significant Ceremonies, as meer Matters of Order and Decency, when you so plainly distinguished them, Iren. p. 77pag. 67. And say of such Ceremonies, that their Lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled, p. 68. (cited Rect. of Sutton, p. 16.) Could you then possibly mean, that such Ceremonies, and Matter of Order and Decency were all one? certainly you could not, any further than you might possibly contradict your self.

Preface p. 76. And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton, and the Dean of St. Paul's.

But if this be all you have to say, they are not yet well agreed. And whether there be not the like Disagreement betwixt your Rational Account, and this your Impartial Account, where I have compared them, let the Indifferent and Impartial Reader judg.

Thus I have gone thorow so much of your Preface, as I am concerned in.

As you take little notice of me in your Book, I have little more to say. I would not take others Work out of their hands, who are (by so great odds) fitter for it.

The first place where I find Rector of Sutton cited, is p. 95. There you take notice, how far I say, we agree with you; but you over-look what follows upon it, that it seems very hard, that notwithstanding you break with us for things you count but Trifles, yet would be Sins to us. Will you grant, that such as agree with you in all things necessary, may not, should not be debarred Communion, by imposing things unnecessary? Or will you assert the contrary, and prove it?

Again, pag. 98. You cite Rector of Sutton, p. 35. All the Parish-Ministers a…e not near sufficient for so populous a City. And can you say, they are sufficient? Is there no need of more? Why then do you say, This is but a Colour, and Pretence. The case is plain, that there is real need of more Ministers, than are in place. And I desired to know, whether it was better that Men shoul… be untaught, (and so p…rish for lack of Knowledg… than taught by such as the Non-conformists? Whether the Souls of Men are of no more value, than our Ceremonies? But as yet I have no Answer from you, that may satisfy.

What you further say to me p. 137. I have fully answered before.

Again pag. 144. You cite a few Words of mine, wich I know to be true of some, and pitty them. And though it is said, we would certainly give but bad Quarter to others; yet I hope if I had been all this time in plac…, for me, they should have had their Liberty to hear those they were … …tisfied with, and could profit more by.

Pag. 168, 169. You contradict not what I said Rector of Sutton, p. 15, 16. Onl… … little use of it, as seem'd to serve your purpose there; while yet … …ands good against you.

p. 78Pag. 196. You do not fully set down my meaning; though it was plain enough, Rector of S…tton, p. 42. Neither do you take any notice of what you had said your self, Irenic. p. 65. though you there meet with it again. Wherefore I wonder how you could overlook it. If that Council at Gangrae, had enjoyned the religious use of a peculiar habit, appropriate to the Service of God, and others had refused to submit to it, I question then, whether the Council would not have been the Schismaticks! (As, whether any, without being guilty of making a Schism, can exclude and silence Ministers for wearing Beards, or for not obeying such a trifling command as that was, Mr. B, Church-History, p. 360, 361. §. 55.) But upon that matter of the Council's condemning the followers of Eust. Sebastenus, I still query, whether you ought not to make a difference betwixt such as separated meerly upon pretence of Purity, while they were indeed defiled with gross Errors both in Opinion and Practice, (as I there shewed;) and such as are necessitated to withdraw, and cannot otherwise keep their Consciences pure? This you should consider. As Chillingworth says, p. 282. § 71. A Murderer can cry, Not Guilty, as well as an innocent Person, but not so truly, nor so justly▪ And P. Martyr (Loc. Com. cl. 4. l. 6. p. 894.) Si quaedam partes ab eo (toto) se dividant, quod …itiari & infici nolint, discessio erit laudabilis.

The seventh and last place, where you take notice of me is, p. 307. And there I am brought in, as concluding with and for you, about your National Church.

But if we are agreed herein, why then do you call that which I say of it, (Rector of Sutton, p. 20, 21.) A weak Assault, as you do implicitly, p. 303. § 23. Assaulting (tho never so weakly) is not agreeing, but quite different, or rather contrary. But there I say, 1. That we will thank you, if you can prove the National Church of England, as it is now established, to subsist by a Divine Law, and positive Institution of Christ. 2. I put it to the question, whether it be not Schismatical, for any National Church to make such Terms of Agreement and Communoon, as are …ot agreeable to that same Rule, by which all Christians ought to walk? (And that your Terms are such, is easy to prove from your own Words there recited) And whether they that so far separate from such a dividing National Church, tho they comply not with its established Rule, may not yet be found walking by the same Rule, in the true sence of your Text? Yet these things you thought fit to pass by, and would notwithstanding persuade your Readers (that had rather take your Word, than be at any pains to compare things together) that we are agreed, and this point is thought fit to be given up.

And yet I do not deny, but Christians of whatsoever Society, (whether a less or greater) should be for uniting so far as they can, to preserve and strengthen the Society, and to promote true Religion and Christianity. So p. 79I agree with you in what you say, p. 292. The best way of the Churches Preservation is by an Union of the Members of it; provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it. And doubtless this is a good and necessary Proviso. for that which overthrows the ends of Vnion, is a wicked Conspiracy against Christ and his Church, rather than true Christian Vnity, or Concord. But then it should be considered, if a National Church sets down such Terms of Union, as have no tendency to promote the common cause of Religion, and true Interest of Christianity, such terms as are sure to cause Dissention, as evidently tend to divide, break and shatter the Society, whether the Churches Preservation be therein truly consulted, or any way likely to be thereby secured? And whether (as Mr. Corbet says, Kingdom of God. &c. p. 155. The Constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incomp…ssing of all true Christians, which indeed makes for its most fixed and ample state? And whether the taking of a narrower compass, be not a fundamental Error in its Policy, and will not always hinder its stability and increase?

Thus I think I have spoken to all the Passages in your Book, wherein I am properly concerned.

Yet am I not at an end of my Task. In your Preface you direct me to three Letters you have subjoined to your Treatise.

Preface, p. 76. You say. There is one thing more which this Author takes notice of—(Rector of Sutton, p. 6. If we are condemned by oothers abroad, we may thank our Friends at home, who have misrepresented us to the World, while we have not been allowed to plead for our selves. Therefore, to give satisfaction, as to the Judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad, now living, I have subjoyned to the following Treatise, some late Letters of theirs, &c.

Now whether you have put these Letters in print with the consent of those that wrote them, or by some Law or Priviledg peculiar to your self, I know not, nor shall I trouble my self to enquire.

And whether they were procured on purpose, to grace and set off this Book of yours, (as by their Date they appear to have come lately, as you say, the first written in September 80.) The second in October. The third in November.) this however is not very material. But it is likely some may think your Five Answerers confronted and confounded, with the Authority of these three Letters of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living. Yet to tell you my Thoughts, I could not but think thus with my self, That if we had no more cause to fear a French-Army confuting us by Club-Law, than that any eminent French Protestant Divines would condemn us (if they thorowly examined, and knew our Cause) we were so far safe enough.

p. 80Now as to these Letters, it concerns not me to descant on the whole: but especially to enquire, and observe, whether it be not, as I said. Or as Calvin wrote to Dr. Cox and his Brethren (Ep. 165. as you have it not far from the beginning of your Book. p. 12.) That the state of the Case at Frankford, had not been truly represented to him, which made him write with greater shar…ess than otherwise he would have done. I think, we shall see it plain, That either they had not the true state of our Case laid before them, or if they had, then they wrote very much besides it. I suppose their Letters here faithfully translated.