Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation, Letter 4 (2 of 3)

Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation · Letter 4 (2 of 3)

p. 49VIII. Many Engliſh Doctors ſay, Rome is a true Church, as a Knave or Thief is a true man, and we ſeparated not from It, but they caſt Us out for doing our duty, and not ſinning as they do. I ſay not as they (for as the Pope claimeth the Headſhip of the Church Univerſally, that form of Policy is not of God, and we ſeparate from that eſſencial form of their pretended Church:) But ad hominem if the Dioceſane alſo be a true Church, and we caſt out of it for not ſinning, are We ſeparatiſts, or are our Ejectors ſuch?

IX. I have ſhewed you that the Canons Excommunicate ipſo facto all that ſay the impoſed Conformity is unlawful. If this be unjuſt, is it Separation to be ſo Excommunicated? and who is the Schiſmatick here? And what ſhall be thought of ſuch Church-men as will firſt ipſo facto Excommunicate us for our duty, and then, as p. 50you do, call us Separatiſts. Would you have Excommunicate Men, Communicate with you? I (and many) do ſo, becauſe you ſhall be the Executioners of your own ſentence, and not I: But with what face can men caſt Men out by Canon ipſo facto, and then revile them for not coming in. You can mean no other in common ſenſe, but that we are Schiſmaticks or ſeparatiſts becauſe we are not of the Conformiſt's judgment: And that is not in our power: And you differ more in judgment in greater matters from each other; and yet call it not Schiſme or Separation. Yea you differ about the very eſſential form of your National Church, one part taking it to be the Kings ſupremacy, and another to be the Biſhops or Clergy's Power: And therefore you cannot be truly of one National Church, that are not for one eſſential Form.

X. If men be wrongfully Excommunicate, are they thereby abſolved from all publick Worſhipping of God? or do they loſe their Right to all Church-Communion? I have elſe where cited you Canons enow that ſay the contrary, and that Clave Errante the excommunication hu…teth none but the Excommunicator: And I have Cited Biſhop Tailor's Full Conſent. Muſt we not then Meet and Worſhip as we can, when you wrongfully Excommunicate us?

XI. Are not the Laity, by your Canon, forbidden to Receive the Sacrament in another Pariſh? or, any other to receive them, if they dare not Receive it from a Non-Preaching Miniſter at Home? And if the People judge, that he that is unable or unwilling to Preach, or that is a Heretick, or that liveth in ſuch heinous Sins, or Preacheth Malignantly, as to do more Harm than Good, may not lawfully be owned by them for Chriſt's Miniſters, nor their Souls be Committed to their Paſtoral Truſt; Muſt they therefore be without a Paſtors Care, or all Publick Worſhip and Communion, and be Condemned for being Wronged?

XII. Were all thoſe Councils Separatiſts, that Decreed, That none ſhall hear Maſs from a Fornicating Prieſt? And, Were the Canons called the Apoſtles, and the Greek-Church that uſed them, for Separation, that ſaid, [Epiſcopus ignorantiâ aut malo animo opplotus, non eſt Epiſcopus, ſed falſus Epiſcopus, non a Dee, ſed ab hominibus promotus?] Was Guildas a Separatiſt that told the Brittiſh Wicked Prieſts, That they were not Chriſt's Miniſters, but Traitours? and that he was not Eximius Chriſtianus, that would call them Prieſts, or Miniſters of Chriſt? Were Cyprian, and all the Carthage-Council, Separatiſts, that p. 51wrote the Epiſtle about Martial and Baſilides, which I Tranſlated; and told the People, It was their Duty to Separate from Peccatore Praepoſito, a Scandalous Prelate? and that the Chief Power was in them, to Chooſe the Worthy, or Refuſe the Unworthy? and that they were guilty of Sin, if they joyned with ſuch Sinners? Who made You a more Reverend and Credible Judge of Separation, than Cyprian, and this Council? At leaſt, Who will think, that you may Judge them Separatiſts, or guilty of Schiſm?

XIII. Are not the Laity, by your Canon to be denied the Sacrament, if they be not willing of your Epiſcopal Confirmation? And when Impoſition of Hands is made the Signe by which Confirming or Aſſuring Grace is conveyed, and ſome Biſhops aſſigne no leſs to it; they fear, leſt it be made a Sacrament. Be their Doubts juſt or not, they cannot overcome them. And▪ Muſt they therefore Live without Sacramental Communion? By what Law?

XIV. Are not the Laity, that dare not Receive the Sacrament Kneeling, for the Reaſons elſe-where mentioned, to be denied the Sacrament by your Rule? And though herein they fear Sin more than they have cauſe, Muſt they that cannot Change their own Judgments, live all their Dayes without the Sacrament? When as General Councils Decreed, That none ſhould adore Kneeling on any Lord's Day, and the Church for a Thouſand Years, practiſed accordingly; Are all Separatiſts, that dare not do that in ſuch an Inſtant, which they judge to be flat Sin; nor yet did caſt off Sacramental Communion?

XV. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptiſed, without ſuch Uſe of the Tranſient Dedicating Image of the Croſs, and ſuch Uſe of Entituling and Covenanting …od-Fathers; which, on the Reaſons largely given by me, they take to be no ſmall Sin; Is it Separation to joyn with Paſtors, that will otherwiſe Baptiſe them? Are they bound to Sin againſt their Conſciences, or to leave their Children Unbaptiſed? or, Prefer ſuch paſtors as Refuſe them?

XVI. Is it Separation for men to Refuſe▪ Paſtors that are Uſurpers, and have no true Power over them? Sure it is not to Refuſe an uſurper of the Kingly Power? and, Why then of the Church-Power? Which of the Biſhops thought it any Sin, in the Dayes of Uſurpation, to forſake their Pariſh-Churches? And in my Abridgment of Church-Hiſtory, I have cited many Canons, which prove it the Common Judgment of the Church for One Thouſand Years, or near; That he was no Biſhop, p. 52that was not Choſen by the Clergy, and the people; or came in▪ without the Peoples Conſent. And if you will Read a late Treatiſe of Father Paul Servita of Venice, (a very Venerable Author) you will ſee this at large Confirmed. And, If this be true, Is it Schiſm to take ſuch for none of our Paſtors? And Patrons chooſe Paſtors for the peoples Souls, who too often care not for their own: Yea, though they believe not that Man hath an Immortal Soul, their Power of Electing thoſe that Man muſt take for the Guides of their Souls, is nevertheleſs for their Infidelity. What Law of God bindeth all Men to ſtand to their Choice? How many Hundred Congregations have Incumbents, whom the People never conſented to; but take them for their Hinderers and Burden?

XVII Diſpoſitio materiae neceſſaria eſt▪ ad Receptionem formae: non ex quovis ligno fit Mercurius. If a Perſon be uncapable of the Miniſterial Office, it is no Sin to Judge him no Miniſter. Thoſe are Uncapable, 1. Who have not tolerable Miniſterial Knowledge and Utterance. 2. Who are Hereticks. 3. Who malignantly Oppoſe ſerious Religion as Hypocriſie, or a needleſs Thing. 4. Who, by their wicked lives, do more Hurt than they do Good. From ſuch, St. Paul bids Men Turn away; that have a Form of Godlineſs, but deny the Power. Is it Schiſm, to Obey ſuch Commands? And how great a Number of ſuch Caſes there are, I need not tell the People.

XVIII. I am loth to diſpleaſe you; and I write not to Accuſe You, or other Conformiſts. But as Paul was conſtrained by Accuſers, to ſpeak ſharply of them, and like a Fool (though not Fooliſhly) of himſelf: So you conſtrein us to ſay that in our own Defence, which will exaſperate you; and, I doubt, you cannot eaſily bear. And God ſaith, Thou ſhalt not Hate thy Brother in thy Heart: Thou ſhalt in any wiſe Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not ſuffer Sin upon him. I have told you only, how many and heinous the Sins are, which we fear we ſhould be Guilty of, ſhould we Conform. The Thirty Aggravations, named Sect. 16. are Tremendous. We have yet heard from none of you, any thing which ſhould excuſe us from ſuch Guilt, if we did Conform. And if the People think, (though they ſhould miſtake) that all the Conformiſts are Guilty of the like, Can ye wonder, that they Prefer leſs Guilty▪ Paſtors, to truſt the Conduct of their Souls with; when Heb. 13. they are Commanded to be Followers of their Guides? If they miſtake, [1 Cor. 5. With ſuch not… to Eat,] and [From ſuch turn away … it I…tolerable?

p. 53But bear with needful Truth, as to your ſelf. You here would diſſwade the Nonconformiſts from their Publick Miniſtry, and Plead it to be their Sin; By this you own the Silencing and Alienation of about Two Thouſand ſuch Miniſters, till they Conform. I ask't you formerly, is it not Sacrilege, to Alienate (unjuſtly) Devoted, Conſecrated Perſons, and worſe than to Alienate Lands or Monies? And, is it not a Hindering of God's Word? for which the Liturgy diſſwadeth Men from the Sacrament, leſt the Devil enter into them. I only ſay, If Men be Guilty of this, (which You think, the Nonconformiſts are, by not Conforming; and They think, Others are.) If you had Robbed Thouſand Churches of the Communion Plate, or the Glebe-Land, or Conſented to the Doing of it: were it Separation and Schiſm for your Pariſh to prefer another Paſtor of their own Choice? And when you Publiſh your Conſent to the Alienating or Silencing about Two Thouſand ſuch Miniſters, If Men think that you do much worſe than a Thouſand Church-Robbers, though they ſhould miſtake, Is not their Truſting another Paſtor with the Conduct of their Souls, a tolerable Thing? Dear Brother, Try to take off the Byaſs of your Judgment▪ and bear with neceſſary Truth, though rough. Though your Logical Faculty run lamentably Low in this your Accuſing Sermon, I impute it to the Badneſs of your Cauſe. Undoubtedly, you have Learning enough, to know that ye muſt Die; and that after Death, Judgment muſt be expected; and that the Time is ſhort; and the Faſhion of theſe deceiving VVorldly Things, doth paſs away. And, Can you think, that your Approbation and Endeavours to Silence ſo many ſuch Miniſters while your own Experience might tell you, That even You do need much Help in ſuch a Charge as you undertake, will be the Matter of a Comfortable Account? If you think ſo, I muſt ſay, That a little ſober, impartial, believing Conſideration, will make a Man VViſer, than the Reading of many Books with an unhumbled, byaſſed Mind. The Day is coming, when you will ſee, that ye were in a better, ſafer way, when with peaceable Dr. Tillotſon, you ſeemed to Conſent to the Plat-form of an Act for our Concord and Reſtoration? which made me tell many Parliament-Men, [Refer our Cauſe to the Councel of Dr. Tillotſon and Dr. Stilling-fleet, and we ſhall preſently be healed.] But, What is Man? And, VVhat need have we to pray, Lead us not into Temptation?

XIX. If Men know the need of the full Uſe of the Paſtoral-Office for their Souls, and cannot ſpare it, and yet live p. 54where they cannot Enjoy one Half or Quarter of it; Is it Schiſm for them to ſeek to Enjoy the reſt? Dr. Hammond, in his Annotations, o…t tells us, That the Office of a Biſhop, was, To Preach, To Direct Mens Conſciences, To Viſit and Pray with the Sick, To take Care of all the Poor, and the Moneys gathered for them, To be their Guide in Publick Worſhip, To Exerciſe Chriſt's Diſcipline, Admoniſhing, Rejecting the Obſtinate, Reſtoring the Penitent, Strengthening the Weak, Comforting the Afflicted, Reſolving the Doubtful, Convincing Gain-ſayers, &c. Some of your moſt Peaceable Conformable Hearers tell me, [We have need of a Frequent Help, by the Company and Councel of a Paſtor.] But we never ſee him, but in the Pulpit. And if we ſhould all go to ſeek him in another Pariſh where he dwells, when ever we need a Paſtor's Councel, were he at Leiſure and willing, he could not have time to ſpeak to one of an Hundred, that might (at once) wait to ſpeak with him: So that, we have none of this neceſſary Paſtoral Help, when we greatly need it. Yea, not the Sixth, or Tenth Part of the Pariſh can come to Hear him in the Church. And when We that moſt deſire it get in, it troubleth us to think, that we thereby keep out thoſe that leaſt deſire it, but moſt need it; who, knowing the Difficulty of getting Room, do ſtay at Home, and never ſeek it: So that, Five Parts of Six of our Neighbours, uſe not to go to any Church at all, no more than Infidels. And if in pity we perſwade them to go to any Nonconformiſt's Meeting, they ſay the Clergy will Damn them as Schiſmaticks. The Queſtion now is, Whether Ten Thouſand, or Twenty Thouſand in a Pariſh, are bound to live without all Private Paſtoral Help and Councel; yea, and to forbear all Publick Worſhipping of God, and Hearing of his Word? And, if they ſeek Relief of Nonconforming Miniſters, Publickly and Privately, Whether it be Sinful Separation? 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, leſt they be called Separatiſts? If the Dean of St. Pauls be called the Parſon of the Pariſh, and Preach to others that can Hear him, Will that ſerve the Needs of all the reſt?

XX. In Moſcovie, where a Chriſtian Prince, and the Laws forbid all Preaching, and Publick Worſhip, ſave the Reading of Homilies and Liturgies; Is it Separation, and Sinful Schiſm, to Diſobey this, and otherwiſe to Preach and Worſhip God?

XXI. Is it Schiſm in France, and ſuch other Countries, for p. 55the Proteſtants to Meet to Preach and Worſhip God, againſt the Wills of the King and Biſhops? It's true, that great Sin is neceſſarily thus avoided by them, which are not Impoſed upon us. But if it prove, that any Sin is made neceſſary to Communion, the Degree will not much vary the Caſe, as to the Point of Separation.

XXII. In divers Countries, the Prince is of one Religion, or Mode of Religion, and the Biſhops of another: The Queſtion is, Who are the Schiſmaticks, the People that in their Aſſemblies, and Mode of Worſhip, do …ollow the Prince, or they that follow the Biſhops? Some great Writers for Conformity tell me, That if the King Command one Liturgy, Tranſlation, Verſion, Ceremony, &c. and the Biſhop another, I muſt obey the Biſhop before the King: Others ſay, I muſt Obey the King before the Biſhop, (of which before.) Biſhop Goodman of Gloceſter (a Papiſt) complaineth of the King, that would not conſent that Clergy-Men ſhould be Chancellours: And I ſpeak with no Biſhop, that diſowneth not Lay-Chancellours Uſe of the Keys. The Helvetian Magiſtrates are Eraſtians, againſt the Clergies Power of Excommunication: Many of the Paſtors are of the Contrary Judgment. The Duke of Brandenburgh is a Calviniſt: His Biſhops and Clergy are Lutherans. Which Party are the Schiſmatick?

XXIII. Were all thoſe Separating Schiſmaticks, who, from the Apoſtles Dayes, did Meet, Preach, and Worſhip God againſt the Will and Laws of Princes; ſometimes of Heathen Princes, and ſometimes of Chriſtians; (Conſtantine, Valens, Theodoſius the Second, Anaſtaſius, Zeno, Juſtinian, &c.) If ſo, moſt Chriſtian Biſhops have been ſuch Separatiſts. I have in my Firſt Plea, and my Church-Hiſtory▪ given Inſtances enough.

XXIV. Is it Schiſm, or Sinful Separation, to Diſobey a Command about Religion, which no Man hath true Authority to Give? Authority is the Objectum Formale of Obedience; and where there is no Authority, there is no Diſobedience, in a formal Senſe, or privative. Moſt Politicks ſay, That Princes have no Authority againſt the Common Good: All Power of Princes and Paſtors is of God, and is for Edification, and not for Deſtruction. God giveth no Power againſt Himſelf, or his Laws, nor the Souls of Men. If the King ſhould Command me to Marry a Wife, whom I know to be intolerably unmeet for me; or to Feed my ſelf, and Family with Food, which I find to be againſt our Health; or to uſe a Phyſician, whoſe Ignorance or Negligence, or Untruſtineſs, would endanger my Life: I am p. 56not bound to Obey him, both becauſe it is a Matter that is without the Verge of his Governing Authority, and becauſe it is againſt the End of Government. Regal Power deſtroyeth not Family-Power, nor Perſonal Intereſt and Self-Government: No Man hath Power to Deſtroy or Endanger the Souls of Men, nor forbid them ſeeking their own Edification and Salvation. I Repeat Biſhop Bilſon's Words, p. 236. of Subjection: [Princes have no Right to Call or Confirm Preachers; but to Receive ſuch as be Sent of God, and give them Liberty for their Preaching, and Security for their Perſons. And if Princes Refuſe ſo to do, God's Labourers muſt go forward with that which is Commanded them from Heaven: Not by Diſturbing Princes from their Thrones, nor Invading their Realms, as your Father doth, and defendeth he may do; but by mildly Submitting themſelves to the Powers on Earth, and meekly Suffering for the Defence of the Truth, what they ſhall Inflict.—Pag. 399. The Election of Biſhops in thoſe Dayes, belonged to the People, and not to the Prince: And though by plain Force, he placed Lucius there; yet might the People lawfully Reject him as no Biſhop, and cleave to Peter, their Right Paſtor.] On this, I further ask,

XXV. If the Nonconforming People can prove; That (notwithſtanding the times of Civil Uſurpation, and Biſhops Removal) their Paſtors had a Lawful Call and title to their Office over them, and they were truly obliged to them, as in that juſt Relation, Whether the Magiſtrates or Biſhops Acts, have made thoſe Relations, and Obligations Null? That the Temples and Tythes are in the Magiſtrates Power, we doubt not: But more than Biſhop Bilſon, even many Councils deny it of the Office, and Paſtoral Relation. Yea, the Univerſal Church was of the ſame mind. And if ſo, how prove you, e. g. that the Relation of the Ejected London Miniſters, and their Flocks was Diſſolved, and that the Succeeders were true Paſtors to the Non-conſenting Flocks?

XXVI. That there are (Alas) Multitudes of Young, Raw, Injudicious, beſides Scandalous Prieſts, no Man can deny that knoweth England, and hath any Modeſty. If then honeſt People, that are not willing to be Damned, ſhall ſay: [We beſt know what is ſuitable to our Needs, and what Teachers profit us, and what not. And we find that ſome are ſo Ignorant that they are unmeet as Plowmen, to reſolve the moſt concerning Caſes of Conſcience; and their Converſation ſavoureth not of any ſerious belief of Chriſtianity, and the World to come, and they do p. 57but Read a few dry words, like School-Boyes ſaying a Weak Oration, without Life or Seriouſneſs, and we can but little profit by them.] How prove you that it is lawful for ſuch to uſe more ſuitable helps, though Men forbid it? A Soul is precious: God Worketh by Means, and according to the ſuitableneſs of Means: That agreeth not to ſome, which others can make ſhift with: Two or Three words from a Conformeſt, that ſaith: [God can Bleſs the weakeſt Means to you; or the Fault is in your ſelf] will not ſerve inſtead of needful Helps. The King or Biſhop have not Authority to Tie a Sick Man to Eat that which he cannot Digeſt, or Hurteth him. Every Man is neerlieſt concerned for his own Soul, and moſt Entruſted with it. Pariſh-Order it ſelf, is but a humane alterable Circumſtance, which I am not bound to obſerve at the hazard of my Edification and Salvation.

XXVII. What if the Magiſtrate grant a Toleration of divers Modes of Worſhip, as the French, and Dutch Churches are here Tolerated, and many in Holland, and in many other Countries? Are theſe ſeparating Schiſmaticks, that differ from each other? If ſo, it is not becauſe they diſobey the Magiſtrate; for he Tolerateth them all: If not, then meer diverſity of Modes of Worſhip maketh not Schiſmaticks.

XXVIII. If it be no true Political Church (in the ſtrict ſenſe as an Organized Society, which hath not true Authorized Paſtors, and if any Pariſh have either Vncapable Perſons▪ or ſuch as were never Conſented to by the Flocks, and ſo have no True Paſtor; and if the Biſhops hold, That Pariſhes are not proper Political Churches, but parts of Churches, having no Paſtors that have the Power of the Keyes, or the whole Eſſence of the Paſtoral Office; but only Half-Paſtors, that want an Eſſential Part of the Power. If on any ſuch Account, any Pariſhes are no true Paſtoral Churches: Qu. Whether to Separate from ſuch a Pariſh, be to Separate from a Church in the ſenſe in queſtion?

XXIX. The mutual Condemnations in the times of the Novations, Donatiſts, Neſtorians, Evtychians, Monothelites, Phantaſiaſts, Image-Patrons, &c. tell the World how needful, mutual forbearance is, to prevent worſe Diviſions and Confuſions: And the Papiſts take themſelves to be all of one Church, though they differ even in Doctrines of Morality, as dangerouſly as the Janſeniſts, againſt the Jeſuits have ſhewed; and though many Sects and Orders be permitted to Live, and Worſhip God with very great diverſity in their ſeveral ſorts of Monaſteries: p. 58Why then ſhould the little differences of our queſtioned Aſſemblies be thought to be ſo great as maketh us not to be of one Church.

XXX. Some good Chriſtians think, That though an undiſciplined Church may be Communicated with, occaſionally, yea, and conſtantly, while there is a hopeful Tryal of its Reformation; yet when there is no hope after Patient T…yal, a better Courſe and Communion ſhould be choſen, where it may be had: And they think, that Multitudes whom they know to be prophane Swearers, Curſers, Drunkards, Fornicators, Haters of ſerious Piety, Hobbiſts, Infidels, Atheiſts, Sadduces, &c. are continued in the Church of England: And they ſay, they ſcarce ever heard one Man of all theſe Excommunicated; nor one Man of them all, ever brought to Publick Confeſſion and Repentance. And they think, Lay Chancellours, having not rightfully the Power of the Keys, there is no ordinary Means of hopeful Reformation, and Exerciſe of Diſcipline; eſpecially, the Largeneſs of the Dioceſſes making it impoſſible to be uſed to One of an Hundred, that (according to the Law of Chriſt) it ſhould be uſed on. And they think, That the Church-Diſcipline is not only None, as to the Right Uſe, and made Impoſſible; but worſe than None, while it is uſed moſt to Excommunicate from Chriſt's Church, the True and Conſcionable Members of Chriſt, that dare not Conform; and ſo to lead to their Impriſonment, and utter Ruin. And they think, That no Man hath true Authority, to confine them to ſuch an Undiſciplined, and Illdiſciplined Church; and forbid them the Uſe of better, where Chriſt's Diſcipline may be uſed. Whether theſe Men be in the Right, or in the Wrong, if the Matter of Fact be true, I ſhould deſire rather the Reformation of ſuch a Church, than the Reproach or Afflicting of Men, as Separatiſts and Schiſmaticks, that chooſe another ſort of Communion, as to their more Ordinary Practiſe; not denying this to be a true Diſeaſed Church.

And ſo much in theſe Thirty Inſtances, about that which I think deſerveth not the Reproach of any dangerous Separation. I told you Thirty Inſtances alſo of Unlawful Separation, which I named. And now you may judge, whether you ſpake to Edification, when you ſaid, That the [People are Condemned by their own Teachers;] without telling, whom, and for what; and how far they Condemn them, and how far not.

§. 34. And, Did you think the Conſequence good, That becauſe we think it Lawful to Hear you, yea, and to many a Duty; p. 59therefore we Condemn them, for Hearing any one elſe, that Conformeth not? As if they that have Communion with your Dioceſan-Church, muſt have Communion with no other? So far am I from your Opinion, that I take it to be wofully Separating and Schiſmatical: And will never be a Member of a Particular Church, which will forbid me Communion with all others that differ from them; yea, that doth not hold its Communion in Unity with all the True Chriſtian Churches on Earth▪ Though a Schiſmatical Diſputer for Prelacy, tells me, That though I Communicate with the Church of England, I am a Schiſmatick for Communicating with Nonconformiſts, who (ſaith he) are Schiſmaticks. But he that will Communicate with no Church that hath any Guilt of Schiſm, when the Chriſtian VVorld is broken into ſo many Sects, I doubt, will be the greateſt Schiſmatick; and will Communicate with few on Earth. And as Smith Baptized himſelf, not liking any other Baptiſm, this Man may become a Church to himſelf.

And indeed, the word [Condemn them] ſounds Harſh; when it ſignifieth no more, than that we Judge them to be Miſtaken and Culpable. If I Condemn every Man, or every Church, which I judge to be Sinners, I muſt Condemn all Mankind. I uſe not ſo harſh a Phraſe of your Self, as to ſay, I Condemn You: When yet I Judge your Book to be more Schiſmatical, than the Meetings of moſt that I am acquainted with; which you Accuſe.

§. 35. But yet, your Miſtake is Greater than I have hitherto mentioned. I know not many (if any) that uſe to Hear Me, who Separate from You: Many of them are Epiſcopal, and for your Liturgy and Ceremonies. I think, moſt of them go to the Pariſh-Churches; and few (if any) that I know, do deny it to be Lawful. How then can you prove it True, that we Condemn them? What is it for? Is it becauſe they neither Separate from the Conformiſts, or Nonconformiſts? This is it, that we Exhort them to. It was an ill Slip, to put our Condemning them, for Commending them: But a fair Expoſition will make it Lawful.

§. 36. But you ſay [How they can preach lawfully to a people that commit a fault in hearing them, I do not underſtand.]

Anſ. Now you come to your buſineſs: But 1. What if you by Calumny call my ordinary hearers Separatiſts, and they are not ſuch? 2. What if we prove it to be their duty to hear both you and us in ſeaſon, if they need it, or lawful at leaſt; and ſo do commend them, and not condemn them? may we then lawfully p. 60Preach to them? What if the fault which we blame ſome for, be their judging it unlawful to hear ſuch as you? Will your Logick prove, that we call it their fault to hear us; as if hearing us, and not hearing you, were words of the ſame ſignification?

And is all neceſſary which is lawful? Do we condemn men that do not all that is lawful to do? And becauſe you after infer, that if it be lawful, it is a Duty; I would you had told us, whether you take this univerſally, that [What ever is lawful is a Duty,] or only in this caſe for ſome ſpecial reaſon, and what that is. I ſuppoſe it is, becauſe it is commanded: as if every lawful thing commanded were a duty: But we think otherwiſe, unleſs the Command be an Act which God Authorizeth the Commander to do. All mens Authority is limited by God: and they have none but from him. For inſtance, it is lawful to eat brown Bread, and drink Water, (or Wine;) But if the King or Biſhop forbid me to eat better, when my health requireth it, I am not bound to obey them: It is lawful to were Sackcloth, but none have power to forbid me fitter Clothing: It is lawful to ſet a Son Apprentice to a Chimny-ſweeper, or to an Ale-ſeller or Vintner; but if the Biſhop or any other forbid one to place him better, it obligeth not: It is lawful to marry a Blackmore, or an ugly Scold, or Beggar: But the Biſhop or King cannot oblige men to choſe no better, becauſe it is out of the Verge of their juriſdiction, and belongeth to perſonal and family power. It is lawful to put my ſelf into the Hoſpital, and care of an unskilful Phyſician, till my health require better: But when my health requireth it, I will uſe a better if I can, whoever forbids it. For it is uſurpation in them, that ſhall take the neceſſary care of my health and life out of my own hands. It is lawful to give the King our eſtates: But Lawyers ſay, we are not bound to do it, meerly becauſe He or the Biſhop commandeth it.

But perhaps you think, that men may do more againſt our ſouls than againſt our bodies; and have more power in Religion than in civil or bodily things: But we are not bound to think ſo if you do. It is lawful for men to hear one that only readeth the Scripture and Liturgy, and never preacheth: But when my needs requireth more, I will uſe it if I can, whoever forbids me▪ It is lawful to hear an ignorant raw Lad, that ſaith over a dry Sermon as a Boy ſaith his leſſon, and hath neither ſpiritual Life nor Light, nor is fit to take the Charge of Souls: And it is lawful to hear ſuch a Sermon as yours, or one that peacheth againſt other mens preaching: Yea, we rejoyce, and will rejoyce, that Chriſt is preached, though by ſuch as do it in ſtrife and contention p. 61to add affliction to the afflicted, and not ſincerely: But wiſe men that believe a life to come, and love their ſouls, will chooſe better if they can, whoever forbiddeth them. Men have no power to hurt our ſouls, nor to deprive us of the help which God affordeth us, nor to make themſelves the only Judges, what is profitable or hurtful to our ſouls or bodies, or what is beſt for our edification.

§ 37. But [To commit a fault in hearing us] is of doubtful ſignification. In the manner of hearing, all commit faults; by ſome defect of attention, faith or application: But that's not it that you mean: But that it is their ſin to hear us. And indeed, if this were true, is it above your learning to underſtand, that it is lawful to preach to them that commit a fault in hearing them.

1. What if culpably they would hear no other? Is it better let them hear none at all than that we preach to them? If peeviſhneſs or ſickneſs make a Child refuſe the Food or Phyſick which he ſhould take by his parents command; will you ſay, that it is better that he famiſh or die, than that you give him any other? Men may be ſaved that hear not you: But how can they believe, unleſs they hear, or hear without a Preacher? The means is for the End: I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, is a Leſſon which I perceive more than the Phariſees are to learn. Order is for the thing Ordered: Pariſh Order is not ſo needful as Faith and Salvation. It may be, ſuch a mans Sin, that he will not hear ſuch as he ſhould hear; and ſo by Conſequence that he heareth me, and yet alſo Conſequently his Duty to hear me, ſuppoſing that his fault hath blinded him, to think that he may hear no other, till his Errour be Cured: Or at leaſt, it is my Duty to take him as I find him, and Preach to him in his own miſtake.

2. The Canon forbids going out of our own Pariſhes: ſuppoſe twenty or five Hundred Infidels, or Papiſts of the next Pariſh reſolved, we will hear no Proteſtant but Dr. Stillingfleet; were it unlawful for you to Preach to them?

3. If I ſhould Preach to them all againſt ſeparation, and for Prelacy, were it unlawful? One of the Doctors at the Savoy, 1661. motioned, that he and I might go up and down England to Preach for Conformity: and if any ask us why we do not, we may tell them, Dr. Stillingfleet taketh it for unlawful: If it be a Sin to preach to them, it is a ſin to preach to them againſt Separation, or for Conformity.

4. It is ordinary for men of other Pariſhes to hear you, and Dr. Tillotſon, and others, ſuch as you eſteem: And I ſuppoſe p. 62moſt weekly Lectures are Preached moſt to men of other Pariſhes, and yet you take it not for ſin to preach to them.

5. It is ordinary for many Proteſtants to go hear and Communicate wi…h the French or Dutch Churches which differ from you in the Mode of Worſhip: And yet I never heard it proved, that it is a ſin for the Preachers thus to preach to them.

6. What if your Children as Prodigals over-run you, or the Kings Subjects cauſeleſly fly into another Land: They ought not to be there. Is it herefore unlawful, for any to teach them there, or receive them to pub…ike Worſhip?

7. Almoſt all the Chriſtian World, is ſo tainted with ſome degree of Errour and Partiality, that men will hear none but thoſe of their own mind, for their Errour ſake. The Armenians, Abaſſims, Greeks, Papiſts, Neſtorians, Jacobites, Luth…rans, Arminians, Calviniſts, Anabaptiſts, &c. It is unlawful for any of theſe, to refuſe ſounder Teachers than their own, and to Confine themſelves to their own only meerly for their ſingular Opinions: And yet it will be hard for you to prove, that all the Preachers on Earth, muſt give over Preaching to any ſuch as theſe. What ſhame, Blood, and odious Schiſines, followed this Schiſmatical Principle, while in doubtful Diſputations, or tolerable differences, each party Condemned and Curſed the other, I have fully manifeſted in my Abridgment of Church Hiſtory. VVhile by one Emperour and Council all the Orthodox were Depoſed; and by another, all the Neſtorians; and by another, all the Eutichians; and by another, all the Monothelites; and by another, the Corrupticolae; and by another, the Iconoclaſts; and ſo on; How few were there un-Curſed, and un-Cordemned in the Roman World? And this keepeth the Churches in Schiſm to this day.

8. Do not you thus teach the Nonconf…rmiſts to require you with the like; and by your own Rule to judg it unlawful for you to Preach. They judg indeed, that it is lawful to hear you; 1. When better …, without greater hurt than benefit. 2. To ſ…ew their … by their Practiſe, viz. that they ſeparate not from you as … Church, nor …ke it for ſimply unlawful to have … you: But they that think Conformity as great a … have told you, they fear it would be to them, muſt needs think that it is a fault in thoſe that chooſe your Aſſemblies, when c…teris paribus, and without greater hurt than good, they might have better. And muſt we therefore conclude, that it is unlawful for you to Preach. Suppoſe it were …ut, when we had the Kings Licence. Or, if in the times of p. 63Uſurpation, and thought to leave the Pariſh Churches tended Culpably to Diviſion: It followeth not, that it was unlawful for a Biſhop to preach in private, though when you, under the Uſurpers, kept the Pariſh Church, he had preacht to ſome of your Flock.

But here you ſhew what your Labour tendeth to, viz. To prove it Unlawful for us to Preach, that you may perſwade Us to give over. If God will, I ſhall elſewhere give you an Account of the Reaſons of our Preaching; and Anſwer what You, and Others ſay againſt it: And therefore, ſhall ſay but little of it here. But I am heartily ſorry, that you are come to ſuch a Deſire: That you had rather ſo many Hundred ſuch Miniſters were Silenced, than ſuffered to Preach without your Covenants, and Ceremonies! That you no more regard the Needs of the People, that abound in Ignorance, Careleſneſs, and Vice; nor obſerve no more the Power of Sin, nor the great Want of Help to ſuch Pariſhes, as your own, and too many in the Land, that have need on other Accounts.

O! How dreadful and unſearchable are the Judgments of God? That when ſo many Hundreds were Forbidden to Preach the Goſpel, the Plague muſt firſt give them ſome Degree of Liberty, and the Flames continue it the next Year, and the Kings Clemency after, and Horrid Popiſh Treaſon next divert their Proſecutors; while the Laws and Biſhops all the while forbad them: Even when the Pariſh-Preachers fled from the Plague, and it was dying Men that the Nonconformiſts Preach't to. And when the Churches were Burnt down, and the People had no Prieſt, or Place to go to for their own way of Worſhip; yet neither Laws nor Biſhops conſented to our Preaching: And ſuch Men as Dr. Stillingfleet alſo, come in to engage their Wit, Reputation, Induſtry, and Conſcience, in the Silencing Deſign. O! What Cauſe have we all to VVatch and Pray, That We enter not into Temptation? and to dread the Spiritual Judgments of God? Remember Lot's Wife, was a needful Warning. A Solomon, that is Numbred with the Wiſeſt Men, may be ſe… up as a Frightful Monument, to bid us Take heed, leſt we Revolt.

And I take it for a greater Injury to us, to perſwade us to Silence our ſelves; than to perſwade the Magiſtrate only, to Silence, Baniſh, or Impriſon us: For ſo to Suffer from another is not our Sin. But Sacrilegiouſly to break our Miniſterial Vow, and forſake the Calling, which we were Solemnly Vowe… to, and p. 64this while the Neceſſity of Souls cry for Help; is a Sin, which few Men are ſo bad, as to perſwade us to with open Face, without ſome pious fraudulent Pretence.

§. 38. Serm. p. 20. [I do not confound bare Suſpending Communion, in ſome particular Rites, which Perſons do modeſtly Scruple, and uſing it in what they judge to be Lawful; with either total, or ordinary Forbearance of Communion, in what they judge to be Lawful; and proceeding to the Forming of Separate Congregations, i. e. under other Teachers, and by other Rules, than what the Eſtabliſhed Religion alloweth. And this is the preſent Caſe of Separation, which I intend to conſider, and to make the Sinfulneſs, and the Miſchievouſneſs appear.

Anſw. I am ſure, I am one that you expreſly Charge, as of this Number; and I can beſt ſpeak for my ſelf, and thoſe of my Acquaintance. 1. Is it true, that I totally or ordinarily forbear?

2. What mean you by [Forming] a Congregation? If their Preſence be my Forming them, it is but becauſe I ſpeak to them: For, I neither Perſwade nor Drive them to be there. But if you mean, Forming them into a Diſtinct Church, and becoming their Paſtor, I was never Related as a Paſtor, to any Church, but Kiderminſter; nor have theſe Twenty Years, been a Paſtor to any; but borrowed other Mens Pulpits, to Preach a Lecture …o ſuch as ſay they need it.

3. Your word [Separate,] I have Examined before. You Separate from My Auditory, and more than Separate; and I Separate not from Yours: Who then is the Separatiſt?

4. All the Pariſhes about you, and the Biſhop of Ely in your Pariſh, that judge it Lawful to Hear you, yet are Abſent from you; and ſo are ſome Nonconformiſts, that think they muſt Preach themſelves; and cannot be in Two Places at once. Is that Separating?

5. The French and Dutch Churches do all that, which you here deſcribe, as Sinful and Miſchievous; only they have more Leave, than we.

6. Is all the Matter, that We are Teachers, which the Law alloweth not? So were the Orthodox under the Neſtorian, Eutychian, Monothelite, &c. Princes. And ſo I have proved, That the Chriſtian Religion hath been much propagated in the VVorld.

7. VVhat are the Rules which we go by, which the Eſtabliſhed Religion alloweth not? Doth it not allow the Sacred p. 65Scriptures? Or, Have you proved, That I go by any other Rule? If the Act of Vniformity, or the Canons be your Religion, Do not they allow God's Word? Or, if they be your Rules, omitting that, Is not Vſing another? Yet thoſe that do joyn in Churches under Choſen Paſtors, when I do not, I ſhall not Condemn, till I hear their Reaſons: They may have more Cauſe than I have.

§. 39. Serm. p. 21. [They Vnanimouſly confeſs they find no fault with the Doctrine of our Church.]

Anſw. 1. And yet are you one that would have them all Silenced? 2. But this is not true: You name Four or Five, and then ſay [Vnanimouſly;] and this becauſe they offer to Subſcribe the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles: And yet I ſuppoſe you know, that they more Unanimouſly diſſent from the Doctrinal Article in the Liturgy of Baptized Infants, certain undoubted Salvation without Exception, and ſome of them to the Doctrinal Damnation of all Condemned in Athanaſius Creed; And ſome of your ſelves, as well as Mr. Humphrey could wiſh the Article againſt Free-will, and that which Damneth all the Heathens, and ſome others, had been otherwiſe than they are.

§. 40. [They generally yield, that our Parochial Churches are true Churches; and it is with theſe that Communion is required]

Say you ſo? 1. The Dioceſans are little beholden to you, if this be all! Do you require no Communion with them.

2. I think I ſhall ſhew you anon, that you take your Pariſhes for no true Churches your ſelf: At leaſt your chief Brethren do not, who make them but Parts of a Church, the Dioceſan being the loweſt proper Church.

3. Are you ſure, that the Independents take your Pariſhes for true Churches? I cannot tell. But I know John Goodwin and Mr. Brown have Writ to the Contrary.

4. And for my ſelf, how oft have I told you, that I diſtinguiſh, and take thoſe for true Churches, that have true Paſtors (but that is, becauſe I judge of their office by Gods Word, and not by the Rule which depriveth them of an eſſential part of the Office of a Paſtor of a true Church.) But I take thoſe for no true Churches, that have. 1. Men uncapable of the Paſtoral office. 2. Or not truly called to it. 3. Or that deny themſelves to have the power eſſential to a Paſtor. Such Congregations I can joyn with, as Chappels or Oratories: But they are p. 66not Churches of the political organized from which we ſpeak of, as wanting an eſſential part.

§. 41. Next you tell men, what I ſaid in print, of our Concluſion, that communion with you, was lawful.] Anſ. This is true: and when ſaid we otherwiſe? Dr. Manton, Dr. Bates, Dr. Jacomb, Mr. Poole and others were there! I told you before, how far lawful.

§. 42. Serm. p. 22. [Who could have Imagined, but they ſhould have all joyned with us, in what themſelves judged to be lawful, and in many Caſes a duty. But inſtead of this, we have rather ſince that time, found them more inclinable to courſes of ſeparation, &c.]

Anſ. If this be not true, I take it not for ſinleſs. Since that time 1. Mr. Pool, Mr. Humphery, my ſelf and others, that took our ſelves to be no Pa…ors to any particular Church, have uſually joyned in your aſſemblies; and I uſually keep to my Pariſh-Church.

2. Since that time, in a Treaty ſet on foot by the Lord-keeper Bridgman, we agreed in terminis, with Biſhop Wilkins, and Dr. Burton; and Judge Hale drew up our Agreement into the form of an Act.

3. Since that time, at your own motion, we treated with honeſt Dr. Tillotſon and you; and the ſame men and more, conſented to the form and words of an agreeing Act, and you both ſeemed to conſent.

4. Where you read my words, you might have read the Reaſon, why no more Communicated with you. And it is not like a lover of Truth to diſſemble them; 1. I told you, that even at the preſent, new heats ariſing againſt Diſſenters, we thought it our duty, till they were over, to forbear a lawful thing; which was like to occaſion the ſufferings of ſuch as in that were not ſatisfied as we were. Marriage is lawful: But if it be not neceſſary, one may forbear it, if it would ruine another, though the Biſhop command it him. 2. I told you, that the Oxford Act of confinement, came out when we were intending to come to your Churches: and then had we been ſeen there in the City or Corporations, we had been ſent to Jayle: but many in the Countries came to your Churches. This is your Cathedrall Juſtice; The Law is [come to Church in London, &c. and you ſhall go to Jayle ſix Months.] And if we do not, ſuch as you tell the World, that we are Separatiſts. 3. I told you, men cannot preach to others, and hear you both at once. Muſt we repeat theſe things as oft as you accuſe us?

p. 67§ 43. In the charge are joyned Dr. Owen and my ſelf, my error is [p. 24. Serm. that to deviſe new Species of Churches (beyond Parochial or Congregational without Gods authority▪ and to impoſe them on the world yea in his name) and call all diſſenters Schiſmaticks, is a far worſe uſurpation than to make or impoſe new Ceremonies or Liturgies].

Anſ. A man would think that this doctrine ſhould juſtifie it ſelf and confute the Accuſer. 1. Will you own your Churches de Specie to be new, and yet appeal to antiquity? 2. Will you own them to be deviſed without Gods authority, and yet to be preferred to thoſe that he inſtituted? 3. Will you own that yet they may in his name be impoſed on the World? 4. And will you own that for theſe, diſſenters may be called Schiſmaticks? 5. And is not this a worſe uſurpation than to make new Ceremonies? If you will plead for ſo much preſumption, profanation of Gods Name, uſurpation, uncharitableneſs, and Schiſm, I will leave you to fight againſt the Light, and not labour in vain in a needleſs confutation. 2. But, Sir, you ſhould have told your Reader the full truth. 1. That I never denied but largely aſſerted the Magiſtrates power of the Sword over all perſons and cauſes Eccleſiaſtical; much leſs Chriſtian Kingdoms, or Cities de re. 2. And that I maintained that Magiſtrates make officers to judge of the Circa ſacra; or undetermined accidents of Religion. 3. And if you will equivocally call theſe Churches, I quarrel not de nomine. 4. Nor yet at the thing or name of the Aſſociation of many Churches for Concord. 5. But I ſay (in the Page cited by you) that as humane forms ſhould not be pretended falſly to be Divine, ſo neither have they authority againſt thoſe that are Divine, to change them and deſtroy their priviledges: Unleſs you will fight for man againſt God, you muſt reverſe this Accuſation.

§ 44. As to your caſe, of the extent of the firſt Churches, I have ſo much to ſay of it elſewhere, if God will, that I ſhall not here ſtay on ſo ſhort a touch. Only you put me to repeat, If God make families, and men make Cities, do but confeſs the different efficients, and uſurp not a power to deſtroy the power inſtituted by God, and we ſhall not much differ.

§ 45. You greatly ſtrengthen my Cauſe by the teſtimony of ſo well Read a man [Serm. p. 27. [Though when the Churches increaſed, the occaſional meetings were frequent in ſeveral places, yet ſtill there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptiſm, and one Biſhop, with many Presbyters aſſiſting him: And this is ſo very plain in Antiquity, as to the Churches planted by the Apoſtles themſelves in ſeveral parts, that none but a great ſtranger to the Hiſtory of the Church can ever call in queſtion.

Anſ. Biſhop Gunning will give you no thanks for this, It ſeems after all the anger we are much agreed. I never denied Chappel… to a Church, nor thought they muſt all meet at once. If they all meet p. 68per vices at one Altar, they are aſſociated for preſential Communion, and not diſtant only, and this is that I am for. Make it but ſuch a Church that meet at one Altar, and that can know one another, and are aſſociated for ſuch perſonal Communion in preſence, and (though I could wiſh it neither too ſmall nor too great) it is of the Species which I plead for as of God. There is certainly a Specifique difference between a Church that hath a Conſtitutive formal Governour, who hath the whole Paſtoral power, and is aſſociated for preſential mutual help in faith worſhip and holy living, and one that either hath but a half Paſtor without the power of the Keyes, or that is aſſociated only for diſtant Communion, and never ſee each other; even for another ſort of Communion. Conformiſts hold that Biſhops and Presbyters are diſtinct orders: Therefore Churches differing in the very Order or Species of the Conſtitutive Governours, and in the Triminus or end, and the nature of the Communions are certainly of diſtinct Species, and not only of diſtinct degrees in the ſame Species: But ſuch are our Parochial and Dioceſan Churches. Juſt ſuch a Church as you here deſcribe is it that I would have, and yet if the Chappels alſo have Altars, and there be more than one to the Church, as long as they are under the ſame Biſhop and Presbyters, aſſociate for Communion in preſence, it alters not the Species.

§ 46. I thank you alſo for adding p. 28. [And yet this diſtribution even in Creet was ſo uncommon in thoſe Elder times, that Epiphanius takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria and therfore it is probably ſuppoſed that there was no ſu…h thing in all the Cities in his time].

Anſ. 1. Its true of Creet, which had an hundred Cities: But your [therefore] makes me think, you put Creet for Cyprus: For there it was that Epiphanius was a Biſhop. 2. But you grant me the foundation of all my cauſe. Let the Dioceſs or Pariſh or Church (call it what you will) be no bigger than that the ſame Biſhop may performe the true Paſtoral office to them in preſent Communion, and not only by writs, and delegates, rule men that have no perſonal preſent Communion, nor ever intend it as the end of their relation, and I have my deſire as to the Species of the loweſt ſort of Churches. 1 Theſ. 5. 12. 13. Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admoniſh you. But ſuch are not thoſe whom we never ſaw nor heard, and never laboured among or admoniſhed the twentieth or fortieth or hundredth Congregation in their Dioceſs, and whom the people cannot know.

Heb. 13. 7. Remember then which have rule over you, who have ſpoken to you the word of God, whoſe faith follow, conſidering the end of their converſation. p. 6917. Obey them that have the rule over you and ſubmit your ſelves, for they watch for your Souls as thoſe that muſt give account. But ſuch are not they that the people never heard the word of God from, nor knew their converſation nor the men: And Biſhop Taylor ſaith, No man can give account of thoſe that he knoweth not; that is, Paſtors account. Make Pariſhes true Churches, and reſtore them Church diſcipline, and we are ſatisfied.

§ 47. Serm. p. 29. [If we look over the ancient Cannons of the Church, we ſhall find two things very plain in them: 1. That the notion of a Church was the ſame with that of a Dioceſs; or ſuch a number of Chriſtians as were under the inſpection of a Biſhop.]

Anſ. 1. Very true; and the Biſhop was their ordinary Preacher, and only pronounced the bleſſing &c. Therefore till the Species was altered it was like a School, whoſe Schollars lived in City and Country, but were under a Biſhop that Governed them perſonally in preſence. But after they were like many ſcore or hundred Schools that had Teaching Uſhers, and one abſent Governour (to the moſt). To Govern as a Schoolmaſter in preſence ſpecifically differs from Governing as Princes or viſitors, by Laws, or extraordinary inſpection.

2. I pray you forget not that by this meaſure (if you hold to it) you unchurch all our Pariſh Churches: Every Church then had a Biſhop, no Pariſh now hath a Biſhop (proper to it ſelf), or at leaſt not many: Therefore no Pariſh (by this rule) is a Church. Eccleſia eſt plebs Epiſcopo adunata. You make no Church below a Dioceſs.

§ 48. Serm. [2. That thoſe Presbyters who rejected the authority of their Biſhop or affected Seperate meetings, where no fault could be found with the Doctrine of a Cburch, were condemned of Schiſm].

Anſ. Good ſtill: They were not to ſet up altare contra altare, but joyn with the Biſhop in Governing the ſame Church in preſent Communion at leaſt per vices: But if a Biſhop than had put down a hundred or a thouſand Biſhops and Churches about him, and ſaid, you ſhall be all but one Church in another ſort of Communion, and I will be your only Biſhop, Chriſtians then would have abhorred him: Now we have hundreds of Altars locally ſeparated from the Biſhop.

2. But yet if then the Doctrine of faith had been never ſo ſound, Chriſtians would have ſeparated. 1. From unlawful worſhip (ſpecially Idolatry), 2. And from wicked Biſhops; as the forementioned Epiſtle of Cyprian and the Carthage Council ſheweth.

§ 49. You Confeſs Martin and Theognoſtus ſeparation from the p. 70Synods and Communion of the neighbour Biſhops: And if it were not lawful for neighbours to communicate with them, I ſhall believe as Cyprian, that the ſame reaſon would at leaſt warrant the people to forſake them, till you ſhew reaſon to the contrary. And you confeſs the Joannites ſeparation, and only ſay that after they returned. Its true: But did they do well or ill before? they returned not till gentleneſs and honouring Chryſoſtome reduced them: and though Cyril Alex. called them Schiſmaticks and ſaid it was fitter the Church Canons ſhould be kept, than ſuch refractory Nonconformiſts gratified by reſtoring the honour of their ejected Paſtor, yet Atticus had more wit and honeſty then to follow his Council or be moved by his threatning; Our caſe hath ten times more to be ſaid for it, than the Joannites had, who were not caſt out, but departed, nor had any Impoſitions forced on them, which they took to be many hainous ſins. Had you been impartial, you had eaſily ſeen this: But as Cyril and others accuſation of the Joannites, as ſeparatiſts and ſchiſmaticks, did not finally attain his ends againſt the Joannites, no more ſhall yours againſt the more excuſable. In an Ale-houſe or Crowd of the debauched or ignorant [They are Puritans, Presbyterians, Fanaticks, Separatiſts, Schiſmaticks, Hereticks, Rogues] is effectual arguing and convincing, and ſome preachers it ſeems take their hearers for ſuch Judges; But men will be men, and reaſon will be reaſon, and truth will be truth, and innocency will be innocency, and pride, and ſlander will ſhame their Authors more than the ſlandered, when you and I are dead and gone.

§ 50. Serm. p. 30. [But ſuppoſe the firſt Churches were barely Congregational by reaſon of the ſmall number of believers at that time, yet what Obligation lies upon us to diſturb the peace, of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant State] And here is mentioned the community of Goods, waſhing Feet, and then [They believe that the firſt civil Government was appointed by God himſelf over families: Do they therefore think themſelves bound to overthrow Kingdomes to bring things back to their firſt inſtitution, &c.]

Anſ. 1. We call them not [barely Congregational] but [aſſociated for perſonal Communion] If all the Kingdom had but one Biſhop, that were another Species of Government and Communion than Parochial.

2. If one like you ſhould plead for turning all the families in London into one, and making only one Common Father or Maſter of a families, who ſhould ſend Stewards to every houſe, of his own making, to give them their victuals, he only being the proper Governour, and this man ſhould plead as you do, that it is diſturbing the peace of the great family, to reduce them to their Infant State, by reſtoring p. 71particular families, more wit or reputation than yours would not keep his cauſe from ſhame. Or if he pleaded that all the Schools in a Dioceſs, or many 100 or 1000, ſhould have but one Schoolmaſter with Uſhers that have no power to take in or put out or uſe the Rod, and that to retrive this to the Infant State is ſeditious, the reaſon of mankind would ſhame his reaſoning. And when men know what Paſtoral Guidance is, the caſe here will be as plain.

3. Our Reaſon for deſiring (not the Primitive paucity of Chriſtians, but) the Primitive form of Chriſt is. 1. Becauſe Chriſt by his Apoſtles inſtituted it: (Mr. Thorndike once ſpake well to that). 2. Becauſe we can prove that he was faithful in forming his houſe and Church, as Moſes was in forming that of the Jews. 3. Becauſe we never heard it proved that man had power to alter what Chriſt by his Spirit in the Apoſtles founded: neither having their infallibility nor commiſſion. 4. At leaſt we think it is the ſureſt way to hold to that which we are ſure God ſetled, till we can prove that men have power to change the very form.

4. Teach us what to ſay to the Papiſts, when they ſhall accordingly ſay to us [what though there was no Vniverſal Paſtor in the Primitive times? what though many things in diſcipline and worſhip be changed ſince? why muſt you diſturb the peace of the Church by reducing things to the infant State? what though there were no Cardinals, nor General Councils of Prelates to make univerſal Lawes for the Churches, what though the Sacrament was given in both kinds, and there were no private Maſſes, or prayers for the dead? muſt the Church be ſtill in infancy? What though the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day for publick worſhip and holy Communion, may not the Church put that down, and ſet up one day of her making once a month or year inſtead of it?

But I will not be one of thoſe that will fight for man againſt God; for I know who will overcome. If you can prove that Chriſt gave your Church authority to pull down the Church Offices and form which he appointed, and ſet up another, and call it the Churches growth, or emendation, I will obey them.

But I have elſewhere asked who they were that made your new Church form. If the firſt Church (of Gods making) it was only the univerſal headed by Chriſt, and particular Churches for perſonal Communion, if theſe made the new forms, tell us who, when, and by what power, and why they may not unmake them, if there be cauſe: and whether the efficient Church be not better then the effected as the Parent than the Child. If you ſay that Biſhops of Pariſhes did … by conſent in Aſia or elſewhere above a thouſand years ago, how come we in England to be bound by them? If you ſay that Princes were the p. 72makers of the new Church Species. 1. Heathen Princes did it not. 2. The Biſhops will give you little thanks, if you grant not that it was done before there were any Chriſtian Princes to do it. 3. One Prince cannot make Laws for anothers Country. 4. Prove that ever Chriſt authorized Princes to change the Conſtitution of the Churches inſtituted by him, and make new ones above his form; except making officers for the Circa Sacra or variable accidents. 5. And what Princes do, they have power to undo.

And it concerneth us to enquire (much more then about ceremonies) how far this power of man extendeth. May they make as many new Church Species as they pleaſe. Why then may they not make as many forms as there are Kingdomes, if not an univerſal Pope by the conſent of moſt?

5. But that which the Papiſts take for the Churches growth from Infancy, the Proteſtants take for its gradual depravation; And have written many treatiſes to ſhew when and how ſuch corruptions were introduced: And the forementioned book of Paulus Sarpi Servita lately tranſlated, tells us by what degrees much of that evil did ſpring up, which ſome take to be the Churches Man-hood, and the amending of the defects of Chriſts inſtitutions.

6. And you that wonder that I know not what you mean by [the Church of England] may next wonder that I know not what it is that you call [the Proteſtant Religion] In my [full ſatisfaction] I have told you that I mean by it, ſimple Chriſtianity expreſſed in the ſacred Scriptures as the Recorded rule, with the rejection of all humane additions which ſuppoſe the Scriptures imperfect as to their regulating uſe: But if you ſuppoſe that men may, without any Scripture proof of authority, take down and change the Church Species, which Chriſt by his Apoſtles made, and make new ones inſtead, and thus add to Chriſts Laws, equal, yea ſuperior and derogating Laws of their own, this is not that Proteſtant Religion which I am of, and therefore I intreat you to define what it is you ſo call.

7. When you have as well proved the very eſſential form of the firſt Churches to have been inſtituted but pro tempore as a mutable thing, as we can prove the like of waſhing Feet, and community of Goods, we will ſubmit. And ſo we will when you have proved that God that made families made not Cities or Republicks, that is, did not inſtitute civil Government of many families; or that men who diverſifie the forms of Republicks, may overthrow families or their proper power: Yea and that God hath left men as much power to make new Species of Churches, as to diverſifie the Forms of Commonwealth.

p. 738. And as to our [diſturbing your peace] if you had built your frame on Chriſts foundation, and laid your peace on the unity of the Spirit, and the ſeven particulars named Eph. 4. 45. 6. and had not built it on uncharitableneſs, on imperious uſurpation, nor that love of the world, which Paul Servita ſaith brought in the Church corruptions, you would not have been ſo tender, nor your peace like an aſpen leaf in the wind, as that your Brethren, who, you ſay, agree in Doctrine and the ſubſtance of worſhip with you cannot quietly joyn near you in the worſhip of God, without your impoſed words, and ceremonies, but they become diſturbers of your peace. Its a ſickly peace that is ſo eaſily diſturbed by ſo ſmall diſſent. As Rome thinketh that all wrong her that do not obey her, and pleadeth for Empire under the name of Communion, ſo do ſome others; and will enter a ſuite againſt them as Schiſmatiks, that will not let them ride and laſh them without complaint. If you have the humility and Charity of a Chriſtian, without envy &c. What harm doth it do you that I and ſuch others worſhip God in another room, without your book, while your Church is as full as it can well hold? Do you not differ much more among your ſelves; as I before ſhewed? And the Papiſts yet more among themſelves; and yet are in one Church, and tollerated. But ſo their Power and Wills may be obeyed, ſome men can bear with much more againſt God. Who heareth ſuch out cries againſt ten thouſand or twenty thouſand in a Pariſh that come not to any Church at all, as againſt a few Chriſtians that pray and preach without your book? what Informers, what indictments, what proſecutions, what invectives are equally againſt all theſe aforeſaid?

§ 51. Serm. p 31. [It is very uncertain whether the Primitive form were ſuch as they fancy &c, but its certainly our duty to preſerve peace and unity amongſt Chriſtians].

Anſ. 1. Then it is certainly a ſin to make racks to tear them, and make concord impoſſible, and ſay, none ſhall have Communion with us, that will not ſay and Swear what we bid them, and that think any thing ſin which we impoſe; and to ſhut men out by Cannonical Excommunication, and then call them Schiſmaticks in Preſſe and Pulpit for not coming in.

2. If it be uncertain whether that which we deſire be the Primitive form, it is uncertain then whether you oppoſe not and fight not againſt the Primitive form.

3. What you ſay is uncertain I ſhall God willing prove certain elſewhere (and have done). All is not uncertain to others which is ſo to you.

p. 744. Mark this, you that are for the Divine right of Epiſcopacy as the Primitive forme inſtituted by Chriſt; As he taketh it for uncertain (as beyond Congregational formes), ſo were it ſo, if the Church ſhould caſt it out, he ſeemeth to hold your endeavours to reduce it, to be a ſinful breaking of the Churches peace. You are diſturbers if in Holland, Geneva, Helvetia, you would reduce them to that which you ſuppoſe to be the Primitive form. It may be it was but from the circumſtances of the times: And ſo the head of the Church hath made no particular Church Species, but left all to the better wit of men (who knowes to whom).

§ 52 Serm. [It is impoſſible ſo to do, if men break all orders in pieces, for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform].

Anſ. Anglice, [It is impoſſible to preſerve Peace and unity among Chriſtians if men will not ſuppoſe that Chriſt never inſtituted his own Church formes, or will not forſake his Inſtitutions, but fancy that they muſt be conformable thereto, and will not preferre the wills and commands of Biſhops to whom they never conſented, and take it to be a breaking of all orders in pieces, not to do all that they enjoyn us, though we take it to be heynous ſin, and will not give over Gods worſhip and our Miniſtry when they forbid us. Dan. 6. We ſhall find no fault againſt this Daniel, except it be concerning the Law of his God, but if he pray openly when forbidden, away with him to the Lyons for the Laws of the Medes and Perſians are more inflexible than Gods.

§ 53. As to what you ſay of preferring Morals and the ends, it is more truly than prudently mentioned as to your cauſe: For the very naming of it will make the Readers think, whether your ſubſcription and declaration and oaths and impoſed practices, which the Nonconformiſts judge unlawful, be greater matters than their preaching the Goſpel, avoiding great ſins, the concord and ſtrength of the Proteſtant Churches, and the avoding temptations to wrath, and perſecution and diviſions which will be bitter in the latter end. Go learn what this meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice; (or needleſs Ceremony)

§ 54. Serm. p. 32 [Men may pleaſe themſelves in talking of preſerving peace and Love under ſeparate Communions: But our own ſad experience ſhews the contrary: For as nothing tends more to unite mens hearrs than joyning together in the ſame Prayer and Sacraments; ſo nothing doth more alienate mens affections, than withdrawing from each other into ſeparate Congregations].

Anſ. 1. But do all ſeparate from you that are in other Pariſh Churche… than yours; if not, do all ſeparate that differ, as Cathedrals p. 75from Pariſh Churches, or as conforming Preachers do from one another: If not, do they ſeparate that omit a form or ceremony of yours?

2. I am ſorry, if you have experience of the alienating of your affections from your neighbours, that quietly worſhip God by you: but its like you know what you ſay: For my part many of them have ſaid and written more againſt me, them againſt you, and, I thank God, I love them heartily; yea and that your own party from whom I have ſuffered far more. It is mens diſeaſes that make them impatient of a croſs opinion or word or cenſure, and then they cry out of mens unpeaceableneſs: As Seneca ſaith, They that are ſore complainif they but think their ſore is touched.

3. Let the Magiſtrates keep Peace and puniſh all that abuſe their brethren.

4. But we eaſily grant to you, that when men do not only differ, but fly from each others Communion as unlawful, it hath a great tendency to the alienations and evils which you mention. Had we not thought ſo, we had never ſtoopt, and pleaded, and begg'd of the Biſhops to prevent or heal it as we did 1660, and 1661. And wo to the impenitent that are the cauſe of all, and to this day will not be perſwaded by all the ſad experience that they complain of.

Sir, inſtead of all your accuſations and reaſonings, it would have better diſpatched all the buſineſs, would you but conſider, who it is that muſt cure the diſtance which you complain of? I have fully proved to you in my book of Concord that we are utterly unable to remedy it. If you will not know, who can make you know. Do you think, that when you ſay to all the Land [ſay and do all that is impoſed, or you ſhall not be admitted to our Communion] that it is morally poſſible to make all good Chriſtians agree in b…lieving that it is all lawful? or to make them all do that which they think to be unlawful? I muſt freely tell you, that he that thinks that his own or any others reaſonings will ever ſo far change all the truly honeſt Chriſtians in the Land, knoweth ſo little of matters, men or Conſcience, as that he is unmeet to be a Biſhop or a Prieſt.