Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton, Text

Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton · Text

p. 99Proper Materials drawn from the true and only way of Concord, &c.

QUERY 1.

WHether the Apostle Paul hath not clearly and fully decided the case, against censuring or despising one another for things Indifferent? Rom. 14, & 15. And if Men wi… not understand, nor stand to that Decision, whether it should be any wonder, if they will not understand, or be satisfied with our most cogent Arguments? [Second Plea for Peace. p. 169. § 75.]

Whether they that say, the Apostle doth not forbid such Impositions there, can see Day for Light? 1. Doth he not forbid censuring, despising, and not receiving one another; and command Dissenters to receive one another? And then must he not forbid such Imposition as is inconsistent herewith? 2. Doth he not direct this Command to all the Church of Rome, even to the authorized Pastors and Rulers of the Church, as well as to the People? 3. Was he not a Pastor and Ruler of that Church as fully authorized as any that should succeed? 4. Is not this Scripture (as others) written for a standing Rule, and so obligatory to Rulers still? [ib. p. 170. § 77.] Did not the Apostle speak here by Divine Authority? Are not his Words recorded here, part of Christ's Law indited by the Spirit? And may we think, that any that come after him, or to whom he wrote, should have power to contradict or obliterate the same? [Way of Concord, p. 152.] 5. Do not his Reasons touch the case of all Churches in all Ages, and not only some particular Persons, and Case? As he argueth from the difference betwixt well-meaning Christians as weak, and strong▪ as doubting, and as assured, as mistaken, and as in the right, &c. If such weak, mistaken Christians in such matters ever have been, and ever will be in the Church upon Earth, doth not the reason from their case and necessity still hold? 6. How many great and pressing moral Reasons (that all Christians are bound by) are heaped up here? Does he not argue, 1. From Christian love to Brethren. 2. From human Compassion to the Weak. 3. From God's own Example, who receiveth such, whom therefore p. 100we must not reject. 4. From God's Prerogative to judg, and our having no such judging power in such cases. 5. From God's Propriety in his own Servants. 6. From God's Love and Mercy that will uphold such. 7. Because what Men do as to please God, must not be condemned without necessity, but an holy Intention cherished, so it be not in forbidden things. 8. Because Men must not go against Conscience in indifferent things. 9. From Christ's dreadful Judgment which is near, and which we our selves must undergo. 10. From the Sin of laying Stumbling-blocks, and occasions of Offence. 11. From the danger of crossing the end of Christ's Death, destroying Souls for whom he died. 12. Because it will make our Good to be ill spoken of. 13. Because the Kingdom of God, or Constitution of Christianity, and the Church, lieth in no such Matters, but in Righteousness, and Peace, and Ioy in the Holy Ghost. 14. Because Christ is pleased in this without the other, and God accepteth such. 15. Because such are approved of Men, (i. e.) This Righteousness, Peace, and holy Joy, without Agreement in such Ceremonies and By-matters, beareth its own Testimony for Approbation to the Judgment of all impartial Men; Humanity and Christianity teach us to love and honour such. 16. From our common Obligation to live in Peace with all. 17. From our Obligation to do all to the edifying of one another. 18. Because God's Work else is destroyed by us. 19. Because our own lawful Acts are turned into Sin when they hurt another, and from the Obligation that lieth on us to deny our own Liberty in Meat, &c. to avoid the hurting of another that is weak. 20. From the Damnation of such as are driven or drawn to act doubtingly. 21. From the special Duty and Mercy of the Strong that should bear the Infirmities of the Weak. 22. From the Example of Christ himself, that pleased not himself, and our great Obligation to imitate Christ. 23. From God's Patience to us. 24. Because indeed this is the true way to Love and Vnity, that with one Mind and one Mouth we may glorify God, while we lay not our Concord on impossible Terms. 25. Because Christ receiveth us, and it is to God's Glory, &c. Whether do all these moral Arguments signify no more than this, receive and tolerate such only till you make Laws against them? [ibid. p. 150, 151, 152.]

Query, 2. Whether Men have any Authority to make Laws about God's Worship, but what Christ hath given them? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 28. §. 36.] And whether it be not against the Mind and Law of Christ (declared Act. 15. 28.) that unnecessary Laws and Burthens in Religion should be made for, and laid upon the Churches? [ibid. p. 29. §. 40.] So whether that Determination and Decree of the holy Ghost by the Apostles be not obligatory to all Rulers and Churches upon Earth, even to this day? And whether all that think not themselves wiser, should not p. 101confess that at least it is safe to follow it? [ibid. p. 169. §. 74.] If therefore the Pastors shall contrary to that Decree, impose unnecessary things on the Church, not only under the Obligation of Duty, but as a necessary Condition of Church-Communion, whether this be not a tyrannizing over God's Heritage, and usurping a Power never given them? [ibid. p. 155. §. 33.]

Q. 3. Whether what God hath left to human Prudence to determine concerning Churches and Church-affairs, be not thus limited by his general Laws, viz. That all things be done to Edification (the Circumstances fitted to the end, the Glory of God and the publick Good, the promoting of Truth and Godliness,) that all be done in Love, to the promoting of Love and Unity; and that all be done in order and decently; and as may avoid Offence or Scandal to all, both those without, and those within? [First Plea for Peace, p. 19.] Then query,

1. Whether they do well, that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a Strait, by needless Laws, for Additions in Religion, that the Consciences of Men fearing God must unavoidably be perplexed between a Fear of Treason and Disobedience against Christ, and of Disobedience to their Prince or Pastors? [Second Plea, &c. p. 28. §. 38.]

2. Whether it be not more inexcusable to rack and divide the Church by unnecessary Additions in Religion? [ibid. §. 39.]

3. Whether it be not against the Will and Law of Christ, to use things otherwise indifferent, scandalously or temptingly, to the ensnaring and endangering of Men's Souls, and the Dishonour of Religion? (Rom. 14, & 15. 1 Cor. 8.) And whether Men may make Laws about Religion, enjoyning such an evil use of such things? [ibid. p. 29. §. 41.]

4. Whether to invent and command new publick-Worship-Ordinances (either in God's Name or their own) co-ordinate, or of the same kind with God's own Worship-Ordinances, which have no peculiar usefulness to one Age or People more than to another, nor any new Reason for them, but what was extant at the making of God's Laws, (whether this) seemeth not to be an Accusation of Christ's Laws of Omission and Defectiveness, and an Usurpation of his Legislative Power? [ibid. §. 42.]

5. Whether to forbid Baptism, or to alter it, or make a new Sacrament of Admission, or a new consecrating, or dedicating Symbol for the Solemnization of our Covenant with God, and a new Symbol of the Christian Church, or visible Badge of Christianity, seem not an Usurpation, and Accusation of God's Law, as insufficient? [ibid. p. 30. §. 46.]

6. Whether to forbid Preaching, or Prayer or Praise, ordaining Homogeneal Means of our own, seem not an Usurpation, and unlawful? [ibid. p. 31. §. 47.]

p. 1027. Whether to add more Doctrines, or Articles of Faith, which God hath not revealed in Nature or Scripture, and to require Belief or Pro… of Belief of the same▪ … religious End, seem not an Usurpation, and unjust Accusation of God's Word, as insufficient? [ibid. p. 29. §. 43.]

8. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Church-members, either forbidding those that Christ requires us to receive, or receiving such as Christ forbiddeth us to receive, be not to contradict his Laws by Usurpation, whether Magistrates, or Pastors do it? [ibid. p. 30. §. 45.]

9. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Christ's Ministers, or the nature of their Office, and invent new co-ordinate Officers, seemeth not Usurpation? [ibid. p. 31. §. 48.]

10. Whether to overthrow, or prohibit Christ's Church-Discipline, or to set up another (that is not meerly subordinate to it, modally to promote it) seem not an Usurpation? [ibid. §. 51.]

11. Whether to forbid Religious Assemblies, or alter their Ends and principal Use, be not to usurp, and to contradict the Laws of Christ? [ibid. p. 29. §. 44.]

Q. 4. Whether Rulers ought not to prefer Christ's Interest before their own, and account that their own lieth in preferring His; and should not value conscionable upright Men, though Dissenters in tolerable Cases, and not encourage their unconscionable Enemies? [Way of Concord, 3d part, p. 26.] And whether the chief Work of Rulers be not to promote the keeping of God's Laws, and the everlasting Good of Men, and the temporal Good in order thereunto? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 108. col. 1. §. 11.] And whether Rulers may command any thing, which will notably do more Harm than Good; or make an unnecessary thing a Means or Occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God, or preaching of his Gospel [Judgment of Non-conformists, in second Plea, &c. p. 76. §. 59.] And whether is it more to common Good, and the Interest of Honesty and Conscience, that all the Persons in a Nation be imprisoned, banished, or killed, that dare not swear, say and practise all that is imposed on them, than that unnecessary Impositions be altered, or forborn [Way of Concord, 3d Part, p. 111, 112.]

Q. 5. Though Magistrates may regulate us in the Circumstances of those Duties, which the Law of Nature or Gospel doth command; yet if on such Pretence they violate, or contradict either the Law of Nature, or the Gospel, and dedstroy the Duty it self, or its End, whether we are bound in such Cases to obey them? Or whether it be not enough that we patiently suffer? [First Plea for P. p. 104.]

p. 103Q. 6. Whether the Kings of Israel had Power to forbid the Priests exercising their Office according to God's Law? Or, whether they could change or abrogate their Office? [ibid. p. 20.] Of Solomon's puting out Abiathar, see (p. 21.) Whether might they then have put out a lawful Priest, that had not forfeited his Life, or Office? Or might they have put any one in his Place, that had not Right from God, or that was unqualified? Or might they have forbidden the Priests the Work appointed them by God? [ibid. p. 22.]

Q. 7. Whether such as Christ's Laws empower to ordain others to the Work of the Ministry, have Power from Christ to hinder the Ordination of such as Christ's Laws admit into the Ministry? [ibid. p. 25.]

Q. 8. Whether the Magistrate (besides the Power of the Temples and Tithes, and publick Maintenance and Liberty also) hath the Power of Ordination, or Degradation, that no Man may be a true Minister without, or contrary to his Consent? [Sacrileg. Desert. p. 11.] Whether were not many of the Non-conformist's true Pastors of their several Flocks, before they were silenced, and cast out? [ibid.] And whether did the ejecting them from the Temples and Tithes degrade them, or make them no Pastors to their Flocks? (Though Prudence may require Minister and People to consent to a Dissolution of such a Relation, when they cannot hold it without greater hurt than benefit▪) [ibid.]

Q. 9. Though Princes or Patrons may. 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted, when there is just Cause for their Interposition. 2. And may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intolerable Men. 3. And when a Peoples Ignorance, Wilfulness, Faction, or Division makes them refuse all that are truely fit for them, may urge them to accept the best, and may possess such of the Temples, and publick Maintenance, and make it consequently to become the Peoples Duty to consent; Yet whether Christ and his Apostles have not settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops, and the Right of consenting in the People? [First Plea for P. p. 33.] And whether any Man can be the Pastor of a Church de jure, or truly de facto, against the Church, or Peoples Will, or without their Consent? [ibid. p. 25.] As the Saying of Cyprian is well known, that [the People have the greatest Power both to chuse a worthy Priest, and to refuse, or forsake the unworthy, ibid. p. 77] And when in England it belongeth, 1. To the Patron to present. 2. To the Bishop to ordain and institute, and therefore to approve and invest. 3. To the People Iure Divino, to be free Consenters, 4. And to the Magistrate to protect, and judg who shall be protected or tolerated under him; if these four Parties be for four Ministers, or for three, or two several Men, and cannot agree in one, Whether the culpable p. 104Dissenters will not be the Causes of Schism? [ibid. p. 50.]

Q. 10. Whether the Churches and Councils were in the right, or no, which for 700, yea 1000 Years held that the calling of a Bishop was null, that had not the Clergies Election, and the Peoples Election or Consent? And if Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and Conformists, and make themselves our Pastors against our Wills, what would the Bishops think of such? Would they hold it unlawful to separate from such, agreeing with them in Doctrine and Worship. [Ans. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 27.]

Q. 11. If a lawful Magistrate, or Prince put in place of Pastors, Persons of untried and suspected parts of Fidelity, Whether will his Imposition make such the true Pastors of that Church before and without the Peoples Consent? [Fi…st Plea for P. p. 55.] If so, then whether might not one Roman Emperour have undone all the Churches and Souls in the Empire in a great Degree, by imposing on them insufficient, heretical, or malignant Pastors? [ibid. p. 56.] If People were as much under Princes for chusing Guides for their Souls, as a Daughter in her Fathers House is under her Father for the choice of an Husband (which yet we have not seen proved) yet as he can be no Husband to her, without her Consent, (though She culpably deny Consent, Query, Whether it be not so here, that they can be no Pastors to People, till they consent? [Way of Concord. p. 209. §. 18.] But whether hath God authorized the Magistrate to chuse what Persons every Man in his Dominions shall entrust his Soul to, as the Pastor, whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey? (Ans. to Dr. Still. Serm p. 14.)

Whether shall the People have any Judgment of discerning, or not? If yea, must not the Bounds of it be shewed, without denying the thing, (as if that would bring in all Confusion?) If Usurpers claim the Crown, must not Subjects judg which is the true King, and defend his Right? Will any say▪ if the People be Judges, they may set up Usurpers, and put down the King? When they are but Discerners of that which is before their Duty, and have no Right to err, or alter the Law and Right, can any dreadful▪ Cons…uence be proved to follow on it? Or if it be otherwise, must they not be ruled as Brutes? and so must not …udg so much as whom they are to obey? Is there any Christian that dare say, that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed, lest the People be made Judges? (First Plea for P. p. 70, 71.)

Q. 12. Whether the Ministerial Office be taken up upon Tryal▪ or for a time; or during Life (with a Capacity to perform the work?) If the latter be granted, then whether it be any less than, 1. Horrid Sacriledg, 2. Perfidious Covenant-breaking, 3. Disobedience to God, 4. Cruelty to p. 105Souls, 5. And unthankfulness for great Mercies, if any of us shall desert our undertaken Office (yea, tho a silencing Diocesan should forbid us the exercise of it, unjustly? Sacriledg. Desert. p. 25, 30.]

Q. 13. If Rulers may silence the faithful Ministers of Christ, who knoweth where to bound his Obedience to such Silencers? If a 1000 or 2000 faithful Ministers must cease Preaching, when so forbidden, why not 3000? why not 4000? If half a Kingdom; can you satisfy the Consciences of the other half, that they must not do so too; and so all Christian Kingdoms conform to Muscovy, when the Prince commandeth it? And if a 1000 or 2000 or 3000 Parishes must chuse the apparent hazard of their Souls, and refuse such helps as Experience certifieth us they greatly need, in Obedience to Man, why must not the rest of the Parishes do so also? May I give away the needful helps to my Salvation, because others have them? should their Salvation satisfy me instead of mine own? [First Plea for Peace, p. 89, 90.] Whether should Men persuade the poor to famish, rather than against Law to beg; because if thousands of them dye of Famine, yet other People are supplied? [ib. p. 102.]

Q. 14. Whether the antient Christian Pastors preached not against the Will of Princes for 300 years; and after that against the Will of Christian Princes (as Constantius, Valens, Theodosius junior, Valentinian, &c.) And whether not only Apostles said, that God was to be obeyed rather than Men; but such as Timothy (who was ordained by Man) were not strictly charged before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judg the living and dead at his appearing, and Kingdom, to preach the Gospel, and be instant in season, &c. [ib. p. 226, 227.]

Q. 15. Whether any Man hath Authority to forbid a Faithful Minister of Christ, who forfeiteth not his Office-Power, to perform the Office to which he is ordained? And whether such remain not under a Divine Obligation, which Man's Law cannot dissolve? Whether it be not right, as Bishop Bilson saith, [If Princes forbid us, we must go on with our work?] What if an Interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdom? Must all obey? What if it silence more than can be spared without the Churches wrong? And whose Laws be they, that would so bind? Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians? Is it Papists, &c. or only the Orthodox? Must God ask leave of Rulers to be worshipped as God? Hath God made Men Judges whether the Gospel shall be preached or not; or whether People shall be Saved, or left to perish in their Ignorance and Sin? And how cometh the Orthodox to be authorized to do Mischief, or to forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel, any more than an Heretick? or a Christian more than an Heathen? Is he not bound to do more good than they, rather than authorized to do more hurt? [Answ. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 84, 85. or 78, 79.] See also p. 21.

p. 106Q. 16. Where such Sins are made the condition of Ministration by Men in Power, as that all the whole Ministry of a Kingdom are bound in Conscience to deny Consent and Conformity thereto, Whether is it not the duty of all the Ministry in primo instanti to forbear their Ministerial Office, or of none, (the Reason being the same to all?) Now if all these must forbear or lay down their Office, because forbidden by Men to exercise it, then is it not in the Power of a Prince to cast out Christianity when he pleaseth, and to deny God all publick Worship? And must we not then ask leave of Rulers, that Christ may be Christ, and Souls may be saved; (as if the Keys of Heaven and Hell were theirs?) [First Plea for Peace, p. 114, 115.] But whether must not all agree, that to silence all the Ministers of the Nation, is a thing that God hath not given any Man authority to do; because of the necessity of their Ministry: and consequently to silence any necessary Ministry at all? [ib. p. 223.] And if all must not lay down their Ministry, why must a 1000 or 2000 do it rather than all the rest? If it be said, the rest are a competent supply to the Churches; how shall we be sure that other Mens sinning will absolve the Innocent from their Duty? (As if I were bound to be a Minister only till other Men will Sin▪) And where can the Wit of Man ever set Bounds as to this Matter? Will it not be granted, that if the most in France conform to Popery, this will not disoblige all others from the exercise of their Ministry? And who then can say, what those Untruths and Sins are, which a weak and erring Ministry may be guilty of, which shall serve to disoblige the rest? And were not this an easy way to introduce any Error, by forbidding any but the Defenders of it to Preach? [Ib. p. 115, 116.]

Q. 17. Whether God hath authorized the Magistrate to chuse and command in what Words only every Pastor shall publickly pray to God, and what Books and Words of Men he shall profess Assent and Consent to, and what dedicating Symbols of Christianity he shall use as engaging in the Christian Covenant; and to command Ceremonies and Modes for Dissent wherein he shall deny Baptism and Church-Communion to all Dissenters, tho the things be taken to be indifferent by the Magistrate, and great Sins by the Dissenters? [Answ. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 14.]

Q. 18. Whether Pastors usurp not Power over one another, when they command all about them to speak to Men from God, or to God from Men in no other Words, but what they (the Usurpers) shall write them down, making Ministers but Cryers to read their Prescripts and Proclamations? [Second Plea, &c. p. 142.]

Q. 19. Whether any but Volunteers should be taken for true Christians, or admitted to Holy Communion, to receive the Seals of Pardon and Life? [Way of Concord, third Part, p. 27. §. 7.] And whether Pastors of the p. 107Churches should be constrained to administer Sacraments to any against their Consciences? Whether it be not their Office to be Judges, who is to be baptized, and to communicate? [Ib. p. 123.]

Q. 20. If any be urged to take a Re-ordination against their Judgments, whether Morals must not be preferred before Rituals, and Rituals never set against them? And whether they should not be of this Mind, that deny the Scriptures to have unchangeably fixed all Rituals; and yet confess that Morals are fixedly determined? [Ib. p. 214, 215.] It is not contrary to the temper of the Gospel, which ever subjecteth Ceremonies, Rites and External Orders, to Morals, and to Man's Good, and the great Ends? [Ib. third Part, p. 81.]

Q. 21. When the most learned, sober, judicious Conformists, differ not at all from us about the Matter it self, to which we deny Conformity; but confess it to be unlawful (as to the hardest Points of the imposed Subscriptions, Oaths, Declarations, and Covenants) and only take the Words in such a Sence, in which we our selves could take them, were we persuaded that it was indeed the true meaning of them; Query hereupon, How it comes to pass that they, (who are as much as we against that Sence which we disown, and agree with us in the Matter) should deserve Liberty, Honour and Preferment, for otherwise interpreting the Words of the Law, which the Lawgivers themselves will not interpret; when our Supposition, that the Law-makers mean properly as they speak, is taken to deserve Scorn, Silencing, &c. from them that will not expound their Words to us? [Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea, &c. p. 116, 117.] And seeing (as those worthy Conformists must grant) that if the Words of the Laws be properly to be understood, and not with their Limitations, then the Conformists are in the wrong, and the Non-conformists in the right; whether it be not Justice to tell the World, and write it on our Cross, that we are silenced, &c. because we dare not take Oaths and Covenants imposed in Terms excluding Limitations and Exceptions, in a limited, excepting Sence, without the Explication of the Law-makers? [ib. p. 120, 121.]

Q. 22. Suppose the Sin were on the silenced Ministers part, yet if their Errour be in a small and difficult Matter, not deserving silencing (as theirs, Rom. 14. about Meats and Days, &c.) whether it may not be a far greater Sin, and Schism in the Silencers, than in them? [First Plea for Peace, p. 116.] Tho the Magistrate ought to silence all Preachers, that after due Admonition, so grosly misbehave themselves in Doctrine, Worship, or Conversation, as to be the Plagues of the Churches, and to do apparently more hurt than good; yet as to all worthy and able Ministers, if they commit any Fault, whether they should not be punished only as other Subjects, with such Penalties, as shall not by silencing or p. 108restraint, be a Punishment to the Peoples Souls, nor hinder the preaching of the Gospel of Salvation? Even as if the common Bakers, Brewers, Butchers, Carpenters perform their Work perniciously (poysoning their Bread, Beer, Meat, &c.) they should be forbidden their Trade: but should they for other Faults be so punished, that the People be left without Bread, Beer, Meat, and Houses for their Faults? [Moral Prognostication, p. 55. § 32.] Are there no fitter means than silencing, to correct such Ministers? Is it not a Sin to silence them, when their Ministry is needful [Ans. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 20, 21.] Had Images been lawfully used in Places, or Exercises of God's Worship; yet whether was it not Inhuman, and Unchristian in those Bishops and Councils, who cursed from Christ all that were of a contrary Mind, and ejected, and silenced the Dissenters? [Way of …oncord, p. 89. § 25.]

Q. 23. Whether do Men take it to be a Sin, to suffer us to preach the Gospel, and a greater Sin than to suffer the Inundation of Infidelity, Popery and the rest, which they say is ready to break in upon us? Or whether do they judg our not Subscribing, Swearing, &c. so great a Sin in us, that the Punishment laid on Swearers, Drunkards, or Fornicators, will not serve turn to avenge it on our selves, nor any other of our personal Sufferings; unless the Souls of many 1000's, and the Protestant Religion, and our Posterity also suffer for it? [Sacril. Desert. p. 138, 139.]

Q. 24. Whether Magistrates, and Pastors must not distinguish of Errors and Faults of Subjects? whether some are not tolerable, and therefore to be tolerated; and some intolerable, and therefore not to be tolerated? Whether they that cry out, [One and All, why not one as well as another?] will say, If a Foot must be cut off for a Gangreen, why not for a Corn? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 162. § 49.]

Q. 25. Whether he that knows himself to be a Man, and a Sinner, and is penitently conscious what abundance of greater Sins he hath than the conscientious Forbearance of a Ceremony, or needless Oath, or Subscription, will not be very tender of his usage of others for such Matters? [Ib. p. 1…3. § 52]

Q 26. Whether a tender Conscience be not the same with what God hath pro…i…d, even an Heart of Flesh, a Conscience that hath Spiritual Life and Feeling, and is sensible of the evil of the least Sin? [Ib. p. 163, 164. § 54.] And whether the imposing of unnecessary Subscriptions, Professions or Oaths, be not the way to fill the Church with Men that are not troubled with tender Consciences, and that have no fear of God, or Sin? And whether he that believeth, that ever he shall be judged by the great Pastor of the Flock, should not be as much at least afraid of p. 109letting in such Presbyters into the Church, as of enduring holy faithful Men, that fear a Lie, or Oath, or Superstition? [Ib. p. 164. § 55.]

Q. 27. Whether every Man hath not Sins of Ignorance, and some degree of Error? And whether have not some Faithful Men more than others? And do they not take some Sins to be Duties, or no Sins? [Way of Concord, p. 181.] And whether he that maketh a Canon to Silence, or Excommunicate, or cast out Men for a Fault common to all Preachers, Christians and Men, doth not make a Canon to Silence or cast out all Preachers, Pastors, and Men? And if we deserve to be cast out of the Church and Kingdom in the case of Non-conformity to the present Impositions, whether it be not either because we are weak, or ignorant▪ or wicked? And whether we may not here profess to the World our joyful consent to be silenced and banished, on condition that the Diocesans will effectually provide, that none more Weak, more Ignorant, and more Wicked, shall be tolerated in Church and Kingdom when we are gone, and that no detriment shall befal hi… Majesties Dominions by the diminution of his Subjects? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 164, 165. § 57, 58.]

Q. 28. Whether a diversity of Circumstances and indifferent Modes in divers Churches or Parishes, and sometimes in the same Church, be such a dreadful Mischief, as some frightful Pastors would make themselves and others believe? Or whether it be to be compared with the consequents of unnecessary Impositi…ns? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 158. § 44.]

Q. 29. Whether was there no difference in their Forms or Modes of Worship, between Basil at Caesarea, and the Church at Neocoeserea; and between Rome and Millane; and between almost all the Catholick Bishops for many hundred years? And whether is there not so now, one Parish-Minister praying freely in the Pulpit before and after Sermon; another by a Form; a third bi…ding Prayer before, &c. [Sacril. Desert. p. 34.] And is not difference in many points of Doctrine as great a difference, as using and not using some of the Liturgick Forms and Ceremonies? [Ans. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 46, or 48.]

Q. 30. Whether the present full Conformity required, will ever be the Terms of the full desirable Unity and Concord of the Christian Protestants in his Majesties Dominions? Whether it be not morally impossible to bring all good Christians Judgments to hold all this Conformity lawful? And whether it be not as impossible to bring them all to conform to that which they judg unlawful? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 172. § 80.] Whether there is a greater difference of Visages, than of Intellectual Apprehensions? [Way of Concord, p. 81.] And while there will be difference in Judgment (even among Christians, and good and tolerable Christians) whether can other be expected, than that there will be also difference in Professions, and p. 110in Practice? Will not honest Mens Professions and Practices agree in the main with their Judgments? Whether then is it to be expected, that if some Men think that long doctrinal Confessions, formed in Men's private Words, or Liturgies, or other humane Forms have nothing in them untrue, or evil, or which all Men may not consent to, therefore all others must think so too, and say as they? Who can think that in many thousand uncertain Words, all Men can and must be of the same Mind, and approve them all alike? Or that honest Men can lye, and say that they assent to what they do not? (ibid. p. 88.)

Q. 31. If Men in all these must be brought to Uniformity and Practising in the same Mode, whether must it not be either by Argument and Perswasion, or by Force? And whether it be not certain, that the first will never do it? Besides a multitude of Reasons, whether doth not many hundred Years experience prove, that all Christians will never be in all things of a mind about lawful and unlawful, Duty and Sin? And whether it be not as certain, that Force will never do it? Will a sound Believer sell his Soul to save his Flesh, or hazard Heaven by wilful Sin to save his Interest on Earth? (ibid. p. 89, 90.)

Q. 32. Whether in regard of the diversity of mental Capacities and Apprehensions, the best will ever agree in any, but few, plain, and certain things? (Way of Concord, 3d Part, p. 109.) And,

Q. 33. Whether universal Concord may not take in most of the differing Parties, though not as such, by receiving any of their Errors; yet as Christians, who agree in the common Essentials of Faith and Piety? And whether we should not hold essential Unity with all that hold the Essentials of Christianity; though with those that hold Integrals more purely, we are to have more full and nearer Concord than the rest, that have more Errors? (ib. p. 72.) Whether Christians ought not to bear with one another (without having their Affections alienated from, and much more without persecuting one another) in greater Matters than most of the dissenting Parties disagree in? Whether Christians of as different Principles may not, yea, and ought not yet to love each other, and live in Peace? (Sacril. Desert. p. 7, 8. 9.) Whether the Novatians for many Ages were not tolerated by the wisest and godliest Emperours and Bishops? (ibid. p. 14.)

Q. 34. Whether the Terms of Church-Communion must not be such as take in all that Christ taketh in, and would have us take in, (i. e.) All that are fit for Church-Communion? And whether they should not be such Terms as all true Christians (fit for such Church-Communion) if imposed, would have united in, in all Ages and Places of the Church since the days of Christ till now? And whether those Terms that would have divided the Church, are fit means to unite it? Or can we think p. 111that the Church should now unite upon such Terms, as it never united before? (Second Plea for P. p. 152, 153.)

Q. 35. Whether Christ himself hath not instituted the Baptismal Covenant (Mat. 28. 19.) to be the Title of visible Members of the Church, and the Symbol by which they shall be notified? and hath not commanded all the baptized, as Christians, to love each other as themselves; and though weak in Faith, to receive one another, as Christ receiveth us, but not to doubtful Disputations, and so far as they have attained, to walk by the same Rule (of Love and Peace) and not to despise or judg each other for tolerable Differences? And whether any mortal Man hath Power to abrogate these Terms of Church-union and Concord which Christ hath made? (First Plea for P. p. 34.)

Q. 36. Whether Christ, who made the Baptismal Covenant, the Test and standing Terms of Entrance, did set up Pastors over his Churches, to make new and stricter Terms and Laws; or to preserve Concord on the Terms that he had founded it, and to see that Men lived in Unity and Piety according to the Terms of the Covenant, which they had entered? (Second Plea for P. p. 154.) And when they have as Ministers, not as Lords, received Men on Christ's Terms, whether they may excommunicate and turn them out again for want of more, or only for violating these? (ibid. p. 155.)

Q. 37. Whether it be not a strange Contrariety of some to themselves, who judg that all Infants of Heathens, Jews, Turks, or wicked Men, are without Exception to be taken into the Church, if any ignorant Christian will but offer them, and say over a few Words; and the Adult also, if they can but say over the Creed by rote, and a few Words more, (that would fill the Church with Enemies of Christ;) and yet when Men are in, deny them Communion, unless they will strictly come up to many humane unnecessary Impositions; as if far stricter Obedience to Men (perhaps in Usurpations) was necessary, than to Jesus Christ? (Way of Concord, p. 118. §. 10.)

Q. 38. Whether the universal Church had not Unity long upon the Terms of Baptism and the Creed and Scriptures, without any other Subscriptions, Oaths, or other Professions made necessary to Communion? And whether it ever had Union upon such additional Terms of new Professions, Subscriptions and Oaths, as most Churches now impose▪ and require? Whether they departed not from Unity and Concord (and so continue divided to this day) when they departed from the antient Simplicity, and the primitive Terms? (ibid p. 157. §. 42.) And whether those Pastors who will make Canons, that al… English Protestants shall agree in Subscriptions, Professions, Oaths, Forms and Ceremonies which p. 112they are not agreed in, nor ever will be; do not in effect say, we will break them more in pieces, and set them farther from each other than before? (ibid. p. 183. §. 100.) Whether the hereticating and cursing Men for doubtful Words, or want of Skill in aptness of Expressions, yea, or for Errors which consist with having Faith in Christ, be not so far from being a means of the Churches Good, that it hath been the grand Engine of Satan, to exercise Tyranny, excite Hatred and Schism, &c. and therefore carefully to be avoided? (Way of Concord p. 195. §. 34.) whether anath…matizing Men for doubtful Actions, or for such Faults as consist with true Christianity and continued Subjection to Jesus Christ, be not a sinful Church-dividing Means? (ibid. p. 195, 196.)

Q. 39. Whether Addition to Christ's Terms be not very perilous, as well as Diminution; as, when Men will deny Church-entrance, or Communion to any that Christ would have received, because they come not up to certain Terms, which they, or such as they, devise? And though they think, that Christ giveth them Power to do thus; yet whether their Error will make them guiltless? Or whether imputing their Error to Christ untruly, be not an Aggravation of the Sin? (ibid. p. 119. §. 1.) Whether it is a small Fault to usurp a Power proper to Christ? (ibid. §. 2.) Whether it be not dangerous Pride to think themselves great enough, wise enough, and good enough, to come after Christ, and to amend his Work? (ibid. §. 3.) And whether this imply not an Accusation against him, and his Institutions? (ibid. §. 4.) And whether the merciful Lord and Saviour of the Church, that came to take off heavy Burthens and intolerable Yokes, will take it well to have Men come after him, and as by his Authority, to make his easy Yoke more strait, and his light Burthen heavy, and to cast or keep out th…se that he hath redeemed and doth receive, and to deal cruelly with those that he hath so dearly bought, and so tenderly loveth? (ibid. p. 120. §. 6.) When Christ says, Mat. 18. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck, &c. Whether Bishops may curse such from Christ, and excommunicate them? (and whether it be safe for them to do so?) (ibid. p. 144.) And seeing that spiritual Priviledges excell temporal, whether it be not an aggravated Tyranny to deprive Christ's Servants of Benefits so precious, and so dearly bought? (ibid. p. 120. §. 9.)

Q. 40. Whether Christ be not the Institutor of the Church, and hath not himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the Bond of their Unity; yea, for more than Essentials, even the Integrals, and many Accidents? and hath not he given Laws to regulate all Men's Laws that determine of needful undetermined Accidents? And whether any Man should be cut off from the Church, or taken as separated, that breaketh no p. 113Law of God, necessary to Church-Unity and Communion? And whether the grand Schismaticks of the World are not the Engineers that fabricate needless, impossible, dividing Terms and Conditions of Unity and Communion? (Answ. to Dr. Sill. Serm. p. 88, or 82.)

Q. 41. Whether it be not enough, that we are united and agreed with those that differ from us, in more than Circumstances: and that we will hold Concord with all in Faith, Love, and Communion; (if they will admit us without our sinning) upon the Terms set down by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles, Acts 15. 28? And if no Men must be of the same Church or Kingdom, that have any difference; yea, as great as can reasonably be supposed in the meer Non-conformists, whether any two Men can be of the same Church, or Kingdom, except you will compose it of such as hold nothing unlawful, and consequently nothing morally good, which is no Church? [Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea for Peace, p. 85, 86.]

Q. 42. Whether the long and sad Experience of all the Christian Churches, which have been divided by unnecessary human Impositions, and the Voice of all wise Peace-makers in all times, who have still called for [Vnity in things necessary, Liberty in things unnecessary, and Charity in both] do not leave those that yet will not be perswaded to these Terms, as inexcusable Persons as almost any in the World; worse than those Physicians, that would use all those things as the only Remedies, which have killed all that ever took them? [Second Plea for Peace, p. 155. § 34.]

Q. 43. Whether they that confess, that for the Communion of all the Churches, there are no Terms like these now mentioned, should be more cruel to their own at home, turning them out of their Father's House for every Ceremonial Difference? Whether a Pastor should not love his own Flock, as well as the People of a Forreign Land? [Ib. p. 155, 156. §. 35.] And whether it be not a Schismatical Opinion, that tho Churches of many Kingdoms may charitably differ in Ceremonies and indifferent things; yet none in the same Kingdom should be suffered so to differ? Whether the Apostle Paul gave not the Pastors and People of the same Church of Rome those Precepts of forbearing and receiving Dissenters in things indifferent? [Way of Concord third Part, p. 106.]

Q. 44. Whether Uniformity in Circumstantials, and in External Polity, be any more than a Carkass or Image of Unity, without uniting Love (which is its Soul?) Whether all Union in Evil, or in unnecessary Circumstantials, which is managed to the diminution of Christian Love, are any more to the Church, than as the Glory of adorned Cloathing, or Monuments, or Pictures to a Carkass? [Ib. p. 66.]

p. 114Q. 45. Whether Love and Unity (which the most zealous for human Impositions cannot but commend) would teach Men to tyrannize over Inferiors, to contrive the treading down of others that they may rise, and to keep them down to secure their own Domination; to oppress the Poor, Weak, or Innocent, to make S…ares for other Mens Consciences, or to lay Stumbling-blocks before them, to occasion them to Sin, or to drive them on to sin against Conscience, and so to Hell, to shew Mens Authority (about things they call indifferent, or) in a thing of nought? [Way of Concord, p. 36.] Would not true …ove end our greatest Differences, if Men loved the… Neighbours without dissembling, as themselves; and did but as they would be done by? [S…cond Plea for Pe…, p. 156. § 37.] Yea, if many of the Children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of Sin and Hell was the Cause, whether a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case, when his abating it hath no such danger? [lb. § …6.]

Q. 46. Whether Unmerciful Pastors do not tempt the People to question, whether they be sent of God? Whether the People will not judg of Pastors, as Sol…mon of the true Mother of the Child; that the Merciful and Loving is the true Pastor, and the Hartful is the Usurper? [lb. p. 156, 157. § 39.]

Q. 47. Whether they that can bear with such as understand not the Essentials of Christianity, and with Drunkards, Swearers, Fornicators, &c. in their constant Congregations and Communion; and yet will not bear with an honest godly Christian, that differeth from their way of Worship in no greater matter than a Ceremony, have not something more amiss within than a Ceremony? [Ib. p. 162. §. 48.] And whether the Souls of such, as some call humorous, peevish, or wilful, be not worth more than some of that they call their Liberty? worth more than a needless Ceremony? [Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea, p. 66. q. 5.]

Q. 48. Whether as every Hypocrite would be very Religious, so far as he can subject the true common Religion to his own Interest and Lusts; so every Enemy of Peace will not seem zealous for Peace, so that his own Peace be made the Rule of the common Peace, that all Men be brought to center in his Interests, and take their Peace on his Terms, from him? [Second Plea, &c. p. 149.]

Q. 49. Whether all the Arguments for Unity and Peace, which are made use of against Toleration by Prelatists, and all the mischiefs of division which they aggravate, do not principally fall on themselves, if it proves that they are the greatest causes of Division, and hinderers of Church-Concord? [Ib. p. 180. §. 88.] Whether they do not condemn themselves, who cry down Schism, while they unavoidably cause it? And whether overdoing p. 115Terms of Church-Union and Concord be not the certainest Engines of Schism? [Way of Concord, p. 121. § 11.] Is it not a shameful thing to hear and read Mens tragical out-crys against necessary Toleration (which Christianity and Humanity plead for) while they are the causes of that which they exclaim against? If diversity in Religion be such an Evil, whether should Men cause it by their unnecessary Laws and Canons, and making Engines to tear the Church in pieces, which by the antient Simplicity, and commanded mutual Forbearance, would live in such a measure of Love and Peace, as may be here expected? [Ib. p. 272.]

Q. 50. Tho it be a Sin not to joyn with a less worthy Minister, and a less orderly Mode of Worship, when we can have no better; yet whether is it not also a Sin to tye our selves ordinarily to such, when we may have better lawfully, that is, consideratis considerandis, upon terms whereon it will not do more hurt than good? [Sacril. Desert. p. 76.]

Q. 51. Tho it be granted, that such are justly condemned by God, that repent not, tho they had but a Reader: And that they should be thankful for so much in such Churches where they can have no better; yet whether is it in the power of any Man justly to forbid them better, when God provideth it? And whether must they obey such a prohibition, as such? (Tho Prudence may discern forbearance to be a Duty, when the hurt would be greater than the good.) [First Plea for Peace, p. 85.]

Q. 52. Whether Parish-Bounds of Churches be of Divine Institution, and unchangeable, or only of human prudential Constitution? [Sacril. Desert. p. 10.] Can any Proof be produced, that ever God determined, the Churches should necessarily be individuated by Parish-Bounds or Limits of Ground; and that Men in the same Limits might not have divers Bishops, and be of divers particular Churches? [First Plea, &c. p. 13.] Whether is such a distribution of Parishes, a thing of absolute necessity to a Church, or only as the general Rules of Order and Edification do ordinarily in Christian Kingdoms require it? And whether can we be bound to such humane distribution against any of Christ's own Laws and Predeterminations; or when any changes turn them against the good Ends for which they are made? Whether can humane Church-Laws bind to Obedience, when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ, or against the Common Good, or are made by Usurpation without Authority thereto? [ibid. p. 31, 32.]

Q. 53. Whether are the Bishops that dwell in London-Parishes (or others) Members of the Parish-Church where they dwell? If not, whether dwelling in the Parish makes a Christian a Member of the Parish-Church? If not, what makes a Member, and how are the Pastors special Flock truly known to him from others? If the Bishops be Members, Doth p. 116the Canon that forbids Men to go from their own Parish-Churches, extend to the Bishop? And to whom shall we present the Bishop for not coming to Church, or for his Crimes? What? to himself? [Defence of the Plea for Peace, p. 110, 111.]

Q. 54. Whether a Ministry be not ordinarily necessary to the propagating of the Gospel, and the saving of Souls? (See Rom. 10. 14, 15.) [Sacril. Desert. p. 9.] If Men can spare the Ministry, why are they maintained? If they are needful for the safety of Mens Souls, must so many thousands hazard their Souls, for want of needful help? [Answ. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 52. or 54.] And whether is there not need of a far greater number of Assistants, than all the present Non-conformists? [Sacril. Desert. p. 10.] And what harm is there in the Non-conformists preaching, where the tenth Person cannot come to Church, if they would? [Sacril. Desert. p. 12.] And what may we think of such, as had rather 10000 Persons stayed idly at home, or went to Sports or Drinking, in Stepny-Parish, or Giles Cripplegate, or Sepulchers, or Martins in the Fields, &c. than that any Non-conformists should preach to them? (See 1 Thess. 2. 15, 16.) [ib. p. 13.] When in London it is conjectured that not above the 7th or 8th part of the Inhabitants can come to hear in the outer Parishes, and if the other 6 or 7 parts should seek for room in the emptier Churches within the Walls, it cannot be supposed that above one part of those 6 or 7 would find room: and so if all be set together, it may be supposed that there is place but for about the 5th or 4th part at most of all the People in all the Parish-Churches within and without the Walls: and London is to be denominated rather from three, four, or five parts than from one of these: and the great Parishes, where one of twenty cannot hear, are far off from the Churches that have room, and those that have most need, have least desire of the Means; Quaere, Whether the famousest and happiest City for Religion in the World should thus be left to turn Infidels, Pagans, Atheis…s, or be kept from all publick Worship of God? [First Plea, &c. p. 230.] And whether most great Parishes (especially in Cities and great Towns) have not more Souls which call for ministerial help, than Conformists and Non-conformists, if they lovingly joined, are well able to afford necessary help to? [ib. p. 229.]

Q. 55. Whether many in place are not grosly defective in the necessary Qualifications for their Office, (and consequently in the discharge of the same?) [Sacriledg. Desert. p. 10.] And can any Man prove, that if the Parish-Minister cannot, or will not baptize his Children, he must not get another to do it, yea, a prohibited Minister, rather than they should be unbaptized; and yet that if the Parish-Church cannot receive him, or the Pastor cannot▪ or will not do the Office of a Pastor for him, he must be without p. 117Preaching, Worshipping God, and Pastoral oversight? [First Plea, &c. p. 103.] And when the Bishops hold it a Duty to avoid a Non-conformist that hath not their License; is there not as much to be said for avoiding a wicked Priest, who (it is sure) hath not Christ's License, and is a Non-conformist to his Laws? [Ib. p. 111.] When Pope Nicholas and some of the Popish Councils forbad all Men to hear Mass from a fornicating Priest, Whether should not Protestants be as strict? And whether is it not as lawful to depart from the Parish-Priest for being a Drunkard, a Scorner at Godliness, a Persecutor, an insufficient Guide of Souls, as for being a Fornicator? And whether many Councils do not forbid hearing Hereticks? [Way of Concord, third Part, p. 8. §. 20.]

Q. 56. Whether this Argument be not good, our necessity requireth Pastoral oversight, and Christ commandeth us to use it, when we may have it: But from this publick Minister we cannot have it: Therefore we must seek it where we can? [First Plea, &c. p. 100.] And whether People are not deprived of Pastoral oversight as from the allowed Minister, 1. When publick Pastors are at so great a distance from them, as that such Pastors cannot come to them, nor they and their Families go so far, without such cost and pains and loss of time as will deprive them of the Benefit. 2. When Parishes are so great that the allowed Pastors cannot preach to half, or a fourth, or tenth part, and cannot visit half the sick, &c. 3. Where the allowed Pastors are so slothful or proud, that they will not condescend to such Offices of personal Help as the People have need of, especially to the poorer sort. 4. Where they are young, raw, or ignorant, unable to counsel People, as their necessities require in order to their Salvation. 5. Where they are so profane and malignant, that if poor People come to them with Cases of Conscience, or for Counsel what they must do to be Saved, they will but deride them, and would make them believe that to be sollicitous about Salvation, and afraid of Sinning, and seriously Godly, is but to be Hypocrites, Melancholly or Mad. 6. Where they are Heretical, and not to be trusted in point of Faith? When in any of these Cases the People, or part of them are deprived of that Pastoral Help, which their necessity requireth, and God commandeth, whether may they not seek it where they can best have it? [Ib. p. 100, 101, 102.] Whether many Souls are not like to be fed, or famished, and consequently to live or die, as Non-conformists do their Duty, or neglect it? [Sacril. Desert. p. 84.] And whether if the poor were famishing about us, any Law of Mans can disoblige us from relieving them? [Ib. p. 85.]

Q. 57. If they that are vowed to the Ministry, are bound to exercise the Ministry (and otherwise would be sacrilegious and cruel to Souls) can they preach without Auditors? And can those Auditors be no Congregation? [Ib. p. 70.]

p. 118Q. 58. Where both the ejected and imposed Minister are fit Persons, whether may not the People take them both conjunctly for their Pastors, each administring to the same Church according to their various Liberties and Capacities? [ib. p. 11.]

Q. 59. If Conformists generally would set themselves to preach and pray in a sound and serious, holy manner, and encourage and promote Piety in the People, and willingly accept of all the Help they could get here; if they endeavoured to do God and his Church more Service than those that went before them, whether they would not be more honoured, at least by the better sort (and that deservedly) than ever they must look to be for Rigidness about Ceremonies, &c. Whether Godliness be not that which godly People most care for? [ibid. p. 126.]

Q. 60. Whether would they have People taught, reformed, saved, or not? If yea, would they not have necessary help to do it? (If not, are such fit to be Ministers of Christ?) And does that Man truly know what it is to be a Minister, or a Christian, that perceives not a necessity of Help, if he can have it? (ibid p. 129.) And if things in England were once brought to that pass, that really our Labour would be unnecessary in the Judgment of those that are not Infidels, Ignorants or malignant Enemies of an holy Life, whether need any fear coming to loss, if they were bound for us, that we would presently gratify all, that desire our Silence, or Banishment, rather than trouble Men with needless Work? [ib. p. 134.]

Q. 61. Whether is it the Paucity of ignorant and ungodly Souls, or the great Number, Ability, Zeal, and Diligence of the Conformists, that makes the Labours of others needless? Or what are their Thoughts of Souls, of Sin, of Repentance▪ of Holiness, and of their own Sufficiency and Labours? [Ib. p. 57.] As of old every single Church had usually many Presbyters and Deacons with the Bishop; so is it not undeniable, that many of our Parishes have Work enough for many Ministers? And whether the only thing pretended for our present Paucity be not the want of Maintenance (with the want of worthy Men?) [First Plea &c. p. 227.]

Q. 62. Whether then might it not have been expected of such as needed and desired the help of their Brethren, that long ere this they should have petitioned Rulers for the Liberty of their Ministry (when all knew that there was no Hope their own petitioning should have Success?) Whether might they not have humbly acquainted our Rulers, That all our Labours conjoyned are too little; that they needed our Help, and the ignorant our Teaching; that their Judgment was, our Ministry is more necessary than our personal Conformity? And whether should not Ministers of all Men have been most sensible of the Churches Breaches, Loss and p. 119Danger, and most compassionate over Peoples Souls? [Sacril. Desert. p. 135.] And whether had they not healed all our Breaches, if they had petioned, and prevailed but for these two things, viz. 1. That the door of Entrance might not have been barred by any other Subscriptions, Professions or Oaths, than what were used in the Churches of Christ, till the Exaltation of the Papacy (for 600 Years) besides the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and the subscribing the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles, according to the 13th of Queen Elizabeth. 2. That those (so subscribing) who dare not use the Liturgy and Ceremonies, might have leave to preach in the Churches which use them, under Laws which shall restrain them from all unpeaceable Opposition to what they dare not use, or to the Government of the Church? [ibid. p. 136, 137.] And what but a spirit of Envy, or a carnal Interest, cross to the Interest of Christ and Mens Salvation, should grudge at their Preaching, while they are responsible for all they say, or do amiss? [First Plea, &c. p. 249.]

Q. 63. Whether the Accusers of the Non-conformists, who feign strange things of them relating to Doctrine and Government (which they do not own) do not, 1. Hereby render them contemptible and odious, as brain-sick Persons, who keep up a dividing Faction, in spight of the Light and Obligation of the common Principles of Humanity and Society? 2. And do they not hereby imprint the Stamp of Satan, viz. the hatred of their Brethren on the minds of such Hearers as will believe them, and receive the Impress? 3. And do they not hereby fill Families, Cities and Countries with all that Spawn of ugly Sins, which are the Genuine Fruits of such Hatred and Contempt; and keep Men also from Repentance for any thing that they have said or done (how cruelly soever) against such Ministers and others, that are represented as so odious to them? 4. And do they not hereby fortify the Peoples Souls against receiving converting, or edifying Instruction by such accused Ministers? 5. And do they not thus furnish Papists, Infidels, and other Adversaries with matter of Accusation against one part of the Ministers and Servants of Christ &c. [Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea for Peace. p. 21, 22.] And whether is it not diabolical, for any to be angry, if (as we have Opportunity) we so f…r undeceive the People, as to acquaint them with our Judgment, and the Untruth of what they have believed of us? [ibid. p. 85.] And whether we may not suppose, that Satan is afraid of their Ministry who hath stirred up so much Opposition against it? [Sacril. Desert. p. 84.]

Q. 64. Whether Popery will come in ever the more for Non-conformist's Preaching? (Whether such will preach for, or against it?) Or ever the …ss, if they renounce their Ministry? [ibid. p. 82.] Whether they that p. 120cry out of the danger of Popery, Infidelity, Prophaness and Heresies; and yet had rather let them all in, then give us leave to exercise that Ministry to which we were consecrated, in Poverty and Subjection; and while they cry out of Divisions, will not lay by the dividing Engines; should rather accuse us, or themselves, if the Evils overwhelm us, which they seem to fear? [ibid. p. 137, 138.]

Q. 65. When any are unjustly cast out of their Parish-Churches, whether all Ministers are thereupon obliged, or allowed to desert, or neglect them? [ib. p. 21.]

Q. 66. If a Patient would not take a Medicine from one Mans hand, whether would not the Physician consent that another should give it him? Whether would the Father let the Infant famish, if it would take Food from none but its Mother? And whether would there be need of the best Conformists, as Ministers, if the People had no Faults, or Weaknesses? [ibid. p. 125, 126.] What if they culpably would hear no other? Is it better to let them hear none at all, than that we preach to them? [Answ. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 59. or 61.]

Q. 67. Whether it be not one thing to deny total Communion with a Church, and another to separate but secundum quid, for some Act, or Part? Whether it be not one thing to separate locally by bodily Absence, and another mentally by Schismatical Principles? Whether it be not one thing to depart wilfully, and another to be unwillingly cast out? Whether it be not one thing to depart rashly and in hast, and another to depart after due Patience, when Reformation appears hopeless [First Plea, &c. p. 38, 39.]

Q. 68. When the publick Good requires Non-conformists to hold distinct Assemblies, for Assistance in Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, as near as they can according to the Will of God, to further, not to disgrace or hinder the honest Parish-ministers, whether are these separate Churches, any more than Chappels be? Or distinct Churches, more than secundum quid, holding personal Communion in a godly Conversation with the rest of the Christians in the Parish, and also sometimes assembling with them? [Sacril. Desert. p. 22, 23.] Or whether those that do their best to keep up the Reputation of the publick conformable Ministry, to further Love and Concord, and the success of their Labours with the People; and profess to take their own Assemblies but as Chappels, and not as distinct, much less as separated Churches; yea, and those who do administer Sacraments and do that which is like the Separatist's Way; yet do it not on their Principles, but pro tempore, till God shall give them Opportunity to serve him in the established Way (it being reformed, or well-ordered Parish-Churches, under the Government and Countenance of the p. 121Christian Magistrates, which are most agreeable to their Desires) whether such (I say) are justly accounted Separatists? [First Plea &c. p. 246.]

Q. 69. Whether we may not set up other Churches, when we are necessarily kept from those established by publick Power? [Ib. p. 77.]

Q. 70. Whether it be Schism to preach, and gather Churches, and elect and ordain Pastors, and assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and Will of Heathen, Mahometan, or Infidel Princes that forbid it; as the Christians did for 300 Years? And if there be the same Cause and Need, whether it be any more Schism to do it against the Laws and Will of a Christian Prince? For, 1. Are not Christ's Laws equally obligatory? 2. Are not Souls equally precious? 3. Is not the Gospel and God's Worship equally necessary? 4. And doth his Christianity enable him to do more Hurt than a Pagan may do, or more Good? [Ibid. p. 51, 52.]

Q. 71. If Competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom, and the other half hath incompetent Men; or if nine Parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied, and but the tenth Part had not such set over them, to whom the People may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their Souls, whether is it Schism, or whether is it not a Duty for those that are destitute, to get the best Supply they can? And whether is it Schism, or whether is it not a Duty for faithful Ministers, though forbidden by Superiours, to perform their Office to such People that desire it? [Ibid. p. 83.] If the Magistrate appoint 20000, or 10000, or one half of a Parish to be excluded for want of Room, and Teachers, is it not ill supposed that the Gospel is truly and sufficiently preached to them, to whom it is not preached at all? Or doth it prove it not necessary to them, that it is preached to others? [Ans. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 22.] And whether is not the general Ordination of Ministers with the Peoples Necessity and Consent, added to God's general Commands to all his Ministers, to be faithful and diligent, a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration, without the Will of (prohibiting) Superiours, yea, against it? And otherwise doth it not follow, that it is at the Will of a Man, whether Souls shall be saved or damned? (for how shall they believe, unless they hear? And how shall they hear without a Preacher?) and at the Will of Man, whether Christ shall have a Church, and God be publickly worshipped, or not? [First Plea, &c. p. 48.] And whether doth not the indispensible Law of Nature oblige every Man according to his Place and Calling, his Ability, and Opportunities, to do his best to propagate Christ's Gospel, and to save Mens Souls, as much and more than to feed Mens Bodies and save their Lives? And whether are not Ministers specially obliged to do it (by their Calling) as Ministers of Christ, thereto devoted? [Ibid.]

p. 122Q. 72. There being so many sorts of Churches in the World, (as Universal, National, Patriarchal, Provincial, or Metropolitical, Diocesan, Classical, Parochial, Congregational) whether must it not be hard to give a just Decision of the Question, [From which of these, and when it is a Sin to separate?] till it be first known, which of those is of Divine, and which of Humane Institution? and which Humane Churches are necessary, which Lawful, and which Sinful? (ibid. p. 7.) How is it proved, and how cometh it to be any great matter to separate from a Church-…orm which God never made? [Answ. to Dr. Still. Serm. p. 33.]

Q. 73. Whether they that say those Species (National, Patriarchal, Provincial, Diocesan) are of God, must not prove that God instituted them in Scripture; or else that he gave some Men power to institute them since Scripture-times? And till the same be proved, whether are any bound to obey them, at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions? (Way of Concord, p. 111. §. 15.) And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority, and impose them on the World (in his Name) and call all Dissenters Schismaticks, be not a far worse Usurpation, than to make and impose new Ceremonies, or Liturgies? (ibid. §. 16.)

Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor, or Pastors, for personal Communion in holy Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship, be not a Church Form of Divine Institution? (First Plea, &c. p. 8.) And whether any Proof hath ever been produced, that many Churches of this first Rank, must (of Duty) make one fixed, greater, compound Church by Association, as Diocesan, National, &c. and that God hath instituted any such Form? Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions? (ib. p. 12, 13.) Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought, that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church (taken in a political Sense, as organized, and not meerly for a Community) without a Bishop, or Pastor, who had the Power of teaching them, ruling them by the Word, and Power of the Church-keys, and leading them in publick Worship? (ibid. p. 13.) And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank (which was not an Association of Churches) consisted in Scripture-times of many (much less of many scores or hundreds) such fixed Churches or Congregations? Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank (that was not an Apostle, or Bishop of Bishops) had more than one of such fixed Societies, or Churches under him; or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion, and mutual Assistance at due Seasons, in holy Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship? As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes, whose p. 123Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish (at least per vices) in those Churches, and in their Conversation; and as a single Congregation may prudently, in Persecution, or foul Weather, meet oft-times in several Houses; so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem (which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes) hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses, when they had no Temples, and yet be capable of personal Communion, as before described? [ibid. p. 13, 14.] And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith, The Church of the Living God, was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop (such as Timothy was) an Oeconomus set over them by Christ, &c. doth he not here suppose (as he elsewhere sheweth) that de facto, Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations? Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino, when they become but parts of a Bishops Church? And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church? (ibid. p. 5, 6.) And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar, and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons, to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation? (Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it, as certain, that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place) (ibid. p. 17.) And see (Answ. to Dr. Still. Serm. p. 75. or 69.)

Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved, that God hath instituted any other than Congregational, or Parochial Churches (as for present Communion) whether must it not follow, that none of the rest instituted by Man, have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ? And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself, and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors, chosen, or at least consented to by themselves (which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years) whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit, or disoblige them from any of this Duty, by just Authority? (Way of Concord, p. 111. §. 13.)

Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom, or a whole Province into one only Church; and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution, which are associated for personal present Communion, allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys, or all essential to their Office; though he should allow Parochial Oratories, or Chappels, which should be no true Churches, but parts of a Church; Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church, against the Laws of such a Prince? (First Plea, &c. p. 52.) Or whether hath p. 124God made such proper Judges, whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws, or whether God should be worshipped, and Souls saved, or his own Institution of Churches be observed? (Ibid. p. 53.)

Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches, and Inferiour Pastors, as their Bishops, who are obtruded on those Churches, without the Election, or Consent of the People, or inferiour Pastors, and these Bishops shall by Laws, or Mandates forbid such Assembling, Preaching, or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty; whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws, or Mandates, as such? (ibid. p. 80.) Bishop Bilson (of Subject. p. 399.) grants, [The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People, and not to the Prince; and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there; yet might the People lawfully reject him, as no Bishop, and cleave to Peter their right Pastor.] (ibid. p. 79.) And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence, and so a Duty to consent; yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches, till they do consent? (ibid. p. 80.) Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God? And doth not Dr. Blondel (de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl.) beyond Exception prove it, with more? (ib. p. 81.) Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power, shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches, and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience; whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command, as such? Or whether is it Schism to disobey it? (ibid. p. 82.)

Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan, that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church, and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses, That he who separateth from a Parish-Church, separates from no Church? (Sacril. Desert. p. 24.)

Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks, if we renounced Communion with all other Churches, except Parochial and Conformists? And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism? Whether ou…s, that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us, that teach not Heresy, nor preach down Holiness, &c. and deny us not their Communion, unless we will sin? or a Conformists, that will hold Communion with none but his own Party, but separates from all other Churches in the Land? [Ib. p. 41.] Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church, and their Communion lawful; but preferreth another as fitter for him: or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies, as unlawful to be communicated with, when it is not so? If the former, then will it not follow, that condemning them as no Church, is a Diminution, or no p. 125Aggravation of Separation, and the local presence of an Infidel, or Scorner, would be a less separate state, than the absence of their Friends? If the latter (which is certain) then will it not follow, that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn, they are the true Separatists that condemn them, and deny Communion with them, declaring it unlawful? [Answ. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 47, or 49.]

Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church, when it is upon unwarrantable Cause, or Reasons? [Ib. p. 31.] (Now, how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them, while they generally refuse, shun, and condemn our Assemblies?) Are there no true Churches to be found in the World, that have no Bishops (of a superior order over Pastors?) And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government? And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism, and Separation from those true Churches, which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy, as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers, and Invaders of other Mens Rights? [Vid. Sacril. Desert. p. 60.]

Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species, whether have any Authority, on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches▪ to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion, or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other, or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other? Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts, change Christ's Laws, or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches? [Way of Concord, p. 111. §. 14.]

Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons, which causlessly silence Ministers, scatter Flocks, and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians, and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful, or unnecessary, ill-made Terms of Communion? [ibid. third Part, p. 13. §. 43.] And if any proud, passionate, or erroneous Person do, as Diothrephes, cast out the Brethren undeservedly, by unjust Suspensions, Silencings, or Excommunications, whether this be not tyrannical Schism? [First Plea, &c, p. 41.] And as we say of the Papists, that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks, whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication; may we not say so of any others? especially if either for that which is a Duty, or for some small mistake, which is not in the Persons power to rectify, no greater than most good Christians are guilty of, their Church-Law says, he shall be excommunicate ipso facto? (ibid. p. 104.) See also [Answ. to Dr. Stil. Serm. p. 47. or 49. §. 8.]

p. 126Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion, imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them, and expelling those that will not so sin, whether this be not heinous Schism? [First Plea, &c. p. 41, 42.]

Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism, who by talk, writing or preaching justify and cry it up, and draw others into the Guilt, and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God? [Ib.]

Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands, as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible; or shall make Churches so great, or Pastors so few, as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight, Teaching and publick Worship, and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other, that would be Pastors indeed, and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances, true Church-Communion, and Pastoral Help, whether this would not be Schismatical, and much worse? [Ib. p. 44.]

Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully s…t over the Assemblies, by just Election and Ordination, if any will causlessly and without Right silence them, and command the People to desert them, and to take to others (for their Pastors) in their stead, o… whom they have no such knowledg, as may encourage them to such a change; Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism? (As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says, that he could be no Bishop, because another was rightful Bishop before.) … Ib. p. 49, 50.]

Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not, 1. To approve the best, 2. To tolerate the tolerable, 3. To have Sacraments free, and not forced, 4. To restrain the Intolerable, 5. This to be the Test of Toleration, Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt, in true impartial Judgment, 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace? [Way of Concord, third Part, p. 144.]

Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest, to divide his Subjects, and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them, and to keep them in such Divisions; seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand? And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People; but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love? Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms, would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love, and willing Obedience, and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom, making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused p. 127Party, which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest, who are as wise and just, and loyal as they? [Second Plea, &c. p. 76. §. 24.]

Si in necessariis sit Vnitas,

In Non-necessariis Libertas,

In u…ris que Charitas,

Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae.

To make a rounder number I may add, from Mr. M. Godwyn his [Negro's and Indians Advocate] pleading for the Instructing of them, and so admitting them into the Church (a Book lately Printed, and Dedicated to the Arch Bisho… of Canterbury.)

Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it, (as he says in the Title-Page) no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith? Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion? (as he says, p. 91.) Are all professed Christians absolutely boun… in their Places to endeavour the same, by their Vow in Baptism, and their very Profession?

Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion, as well at home, as abroad? And do they not owe as much Service herein (for Christ's sake) towards their own Countrymen, as towards Strangers? Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men, as for Indians? And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England (Atheism, Ignorance, Error, Profaneness, Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us) is he for any great Advancement of Religion, that would send away all Non-conformists (if there be thousands of them) to his Negro's and Indians, for this wise Reason, that There is no want of their Labours at home?

FINIS.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London, by the Author, on the latter end of February, or beginning of March last, but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets, they could not get through the Press sooner.

The Ingenuous Reader is …so desired to pass by the Errata, the Author being remote from the Press, these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen, viz.

ERRATA.

PAge 5. l. 6 r. above. P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not. P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages. P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise. P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele, down. P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios. P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd. P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater. P. 63. l. 24. r. Church▪ P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia. P. 72. l. 19, 20. r. betray. P. 81. l. 35. r. for. P. 83. l. 36▪ r. did he at all.

End of the text · Vincent Alsop, Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton (1681)