Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation, Letter 4 (1 of 3)

Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation · Letter 4 (1 of 3)

p. 25To the Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Pauls, &c.

Richard Baxter returneth this Account of his Doctrine and Practice, which by his publiſhed Sermon, preached before the Lord Mayor, May 2. 1680. he often calleth me to; and the Lord Mayor's and Court of Aldermen's earneſt deſire of his printing it, add to my Obligation.

§. 1. SIR, I apprehend much reaſon for my rendring you this following Account, and ſome againſt it: And it was not eaſy to me quickly to reſolve which did preponderate. It is eaſy to foreſee, that the Papiſts will be glad that your Pen be turned from them, againſt thoſe whom they are moſt againſt, and will laugh to ſee you diverted by ſuch a Scuffle. And Satan, knowing our frailty, will hope to perſuade you, that all that is ſaid againſt the weakneſs and error of your Writings, is againſt your Intereſt and You, and ſo to ſtir up in you Paſſions and Thoughts directly contrary to Love and Concord, and your own and the Publick Good: For with ſome he hath unhappily ſucceeded to carry them from one Error to another, till he hath brought them to the bitter hatred of their Confuters. And though I am not ſo conſiderable as you, the Tempter diſdaineth not ſo low a Game, as to try whether he can make your erroneous oppoſition a ſnare to me. When I ſaw that you had begun this contentious way, it was eaſy to foreſee that Satan's Cauſe was like to gain by it, and therefore I fear that he was much the cauſe.

§. 2. And I remembred Prov. 17. 14. The beginning of Strife is as when one letteth out Water; therefore leave off Contention before it be meddled with. And if you could not forbear beginning, you will hardly forbear when a neceſſary Confutation ſeemeth to diſhonour you. Intereſt, you tell me, is ſtrong; and it is eaſier to ſpeak againſt ſelfiſh Partiality than to overcome it. I never perſonally provoked you, unleſs it was by confuting your Opinion, [That no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Inſtitution] in my Chriſtian Directory: But as I named you not unleſs with honour, ſo your own accuſing of that Irenicon of yours, (otherwiſe a very laudable Book) doth ſeem to juſtify what I ſaid.

§. 3. And I truly fear, leſt the opening of your Miſdoings ſhould rejoyce the Papiſts, and encourage them to ſay, This is the Champion againſt the Catholicks. p. 26For I ſpeak from my heart in my uſual ſaying to them that mention you, That this Kingdom is greatly beholden to you, for your ſeaſonable and open defence of the Proteſtant Cauſe, at a time when— And I am glad that you blame them that accuſe the Conformable Clergy of yeildingneſs to Popery; which implieth, that no Bribe ſhall tempt you, directly or indirectly to ſerve that Cauſe, how ſtrongly ſoever it ſhall ſeem ſupported by the Arm of Fleſh.

§. 4. But yet in ſo publick a Cauſe, to be by your Accuſations ſo loudly called to be accountable for my Doctrine and Practice, and that to the Magiſtrate, and to an End eaſily diſcernable; and to refuſe to tender you or the Magiſtrate any juſt ſatisfaction, when refuſing may make me and thouſands more taken for Guilty, as by our (ſilent) Confeſſion, and conſequently the Magiſtrate and you to incur a far greater Guilt, if you ſhould miſtake, this ſeemeth to me a Crime not to be ventured on. When you have made Anſwering neceſſary, I muſt anſwer: Elſe I ſhould have imitated Melancthon, who oft boaſteth how much he had profited in Philoſophy, ſo that he could ſilently let Illiricus, Oſiander, and ſuch others write and talk againſt him. If poſſible, and as much as in us lieth, we ſhould live peaceably with all Men; but when that which Men make impoſſible to us is no Duty, nor the want of it a Sin, though an Affliction, the Aggreſſor doth make Defence a Duty. And indeed I muſt be guilty of Scandal againſt you and others, if I deny you ſatisfaction. Either I or you live in no ſmall Sin: Though Mr. Cheney think otherwiſe, your words, and many ſuch others, ſhew, that you take our Courſe to be a Sin intolerable. And if it ſhould prove that the Sin is yours, it could not be ſmall, not only to do what we fear would be ſo bad in us, but alſo to accuſe us ſo publickly to Magiſtrates, for not forbearing to preach the Goſpel when we were ſolemnly devoted to it; and pleading againſt the toleration of it, when Non-toleration muſt be by Impriſonment, Baniſhment, or Death, or ſuch Diſablement, againſt ſuch as believe they are bound to preach while they are able.

§. 5. Yet you can tell that they are ill Men that reported you ſtir up Magiſtrates to Perſecution. If that much will prove it, it's like they will be emboldened to call you [an ill Man] too; for ſuch faults are ſo common, that we may ſay as Seneca, [Quid ulcus leviter tangam omnes mali ſumus.] Indeed they do not well that uſe that word, Perſecution; when your words are but againſt Toleration, and the Church of England's endeavour after Vniformity; which are publickly known.

§. 6. And no wonder if they are ill Men; when you are but finding out a certain Foundation for a laſting Vnion, which is impoſſib…e to be attained, till Men are convinced of the evil and danger of the preſent Separation, &c. That is, you are but proving our Union impoſſible; for I have elſewhere proved, that the Conviction which you ſpeak of is morally impoſſible, to become p. 27the terms of a common Union. It is impoſſible that we ſhould all be convinced that none of the Particulars impoſed are ſinful, which I have named in my firſt Plea. And ſecondly, 'tis as impoſſible that we ſhould all be convinced, that it is any more lawful for us to forſake our Miniſtry, to which we were vowed in our Ordination, than to break our Oath of Allegiance, and deny our Duty to the King. So that you do no worſe, than for Union, to prove our Union impoſſible: and who is it that makes it ſo?

§. 7. And this Impoſſibility you infer from this Principle, [That it is lawful to ſeparate on a pretence of greater Purity, where there is an agreement in Doctrine, and the ſubſtantial parts of Worſhip.]

Anſw. 1. Was there not this Agreement in the caſe of Cyprian and the Council, who perſuaded the People to ſeparate from Martial and Baſilides? And is not Union poſſible with ſuch as Cyprian and the Carthage Biſhops?

2. We that are accuſed by you do not ſay that [we differ not from you in Doctrine abſolutely:] viz. in the Doctrine about Dioceſan Church-Forms, or their impoſing Power, we never denied this difference. But we ſay, [in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles,] as diſtinct from the Form of Government, and impoſed Abuſes, we agree. And ſuppoſe that we agreed in ſuch Doctrine and Worſhip with a Church, that yet held, only that the Pope is jure divino the Conſtitutive Vicarious Head of the Vniverſal Church, and would take none that confeſs it not, for Chriſtians, were it a Sin to ſeparate from that Church?

3. Suppoſe that Uſurpers ſhould thruſt out the Biſhops and you, and make themſelves our Paſtors againſt our wills, is it unlawful to ſeparate from them, though they agree with us in Doctrine and Worſhip? And if the Churches and Councils have been in the right, 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. I need not tell you how far this will reach.

4. What if a Church that you agree with in Doctrine and Worſhip will not receive you, unleſs you will deliberately profeſs or ſubſcribe an Untruth, or covenant againſt ſome Duty, or commit a known Sin; is it intolerable for you rather to ſeparate from them than to ſin? And muſt we have no Union till we can in all things think as you do?

§. 8. I think you need not expect the Cenſures of the chief makers of our Diviſions: And as to the inferiour Sectaries, if you are a Sacrifice, it will be an unbloody one. You well admoniſh us in the end, not to complain too much when we are ſilenc'd, impoveriſhed, and impriſoned: The counſel is good, But for the Dean of Pauls, &c. that is deſervedly loved and honoured by us all whom you thus deal with, and by thoſe great Men whoſe eſteem he deſervedly more valueth, while he liveth in this Plenty and Honour, to call himſelf [a Sacrifice] if a few poor Men ſay, He wrongeth them, when he pleadeth p. 28againſt the Magiſtrates enduring them, or againſt their Judgment that think they ſhould be endured, Doth not this ſeem to another greater tendency, than for me only to ſay de facto, I was laid in the Common Gaol, and fain to make away my Goods and Library to ſave them from Diſtreſs?] But ſo much to your Epiſtle: The Sermon followeth.

§. 9. And what could a Man have deſired more to end the main differences among us, than the ſerious conſideration of your Text in its very plain import and drift.

1. That the Text ſpeaketh for Unity and Concord is paſt queſtion. 2. And that it ſpeaketh both to the Paſtors and the Flocks. 3. And that it ſpeaketh to all Chriſtians, though of various degrees of Attainment: And therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Chriſtians; notwithſtanding other differences. 4. All the doubt is, what is meant by the ſame Canon or Rule? And there are theſe ſeveral Expoſitions pleaded for.

1. That by the ſame Rule is meant only the General Concord, idem velle & nolle; to agree, and live in Peace, and to mind the ſame things.

2. That by the ſame Rule is meant the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity received by all Chriſtians; which they ſhould have concordantly practiſed, notwithſtanding other differences.

3. That by the ſame Rule is meant the Doctrine which the Apoſtles had concordantly delivered to all the Churches.

4. That it was the Churches Creed which is ſuppoſed then to be in uſe, as the Symbol of Chriſtians.

5. That it is the Canonical Scriptures, in the times that they were written and delivered to the Churches.

6. That it is the Example of S. Paul before deſcribed, or the matter of it… that is, to hold faſt what he had attained, and preſs forwards towards the heavenly perfection, by deſire, hope, diligence, and patience.

7. Some take the [one Rule] to be [the end as it is to be attained by the means;] that is, the common good of the Church, and furtherance of the Goſpel and our Salvation: Let all be done to edification.

8. Some ſay that it is the great Duty of Love which is made the Rule for our undetermined actions; or, that the fundamental duties are made a Canon to the Superſtructures, as it ſeemeth to be meant, Gal. 6. 15, 16. And by Chriſt, Go learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice. To tell you which and how many of theſe I take to be meant in the Text, and why, is none of the work which you call me to; but to tell you, that which-ever of theſe it is, or if all theſe, we fully conſent: All theſe Canons we muſt all walk by.

9. But ſome ſay, that by the ſame Rule is meant the Tradition and Cuſtom of the Vniverſal Church.

p. 2910. And ſome, that it is the Canons of the Biſhops in General Councils; and under them, in National or Provincial Councils.

11. And ſome tell us, that the Rule of Chriſtian concord is [Obedience to the Biſhops of all the World (or Univerſal Church) who are a College Governing (not only diviſim & per partes, in their ſeveral Precincts, but) unitedly as One Regent College, ordinarily per literas formas, and by General Councils when they ſit.

12. And ſome tell us, that it is the Law or Will of the Civil Chriſtian Magiſtrate which is this Rule.

As to theſe four laſt Rules we muſt put in our Exceptions. As to the 9th, the Traditions and Cuſtoms then in uſe were Apoſtolical Inſtitutions, and ſo are coincident with ſome of the former: But other Traditions and Cuſtoms we take not for this Rule.

And as to the tenth, we give Councils, though wrongfully called General, their due honour; as we do to inferiour Councils, and every particular Paſtor in his place: but take not this for the Rule here mentioned.

And as to the 11th, we know of no ſuch Government in being.

And as to the 12th, it was not then exiſtent, and therefore could not be that meant in the Text: But we take our ſelves bound to obey Magiſtrates, as we have elſewhere at large explained and profeſſed.

In ſhort, either you think it is a Divine or a Humane Rule or Law which is here meant, or both: If a Divine, we ſhall not differ from you of any thing, unleſs it be of the meaning of it. If a Humane, either it is an act of true Power received from God, or not: If not, you will grant us that it obligeth us not as this Rule in queſtion: If yea, then we agree that we are to obey it: So that all that will be uſeful to our Conviction will be, 1. That you prove the Perſons authorized to their Office (and of our Magiſtrates there is no doubt) 2. And that they have authority to make all the Canons and Laws, which you call the Rule. And without this your labour is all loſt to us.

§. 10. But which of all theſe it is that you take for the Rule meant in your Text, we muſt conjecture: 1. You well ſay, p. 11. [It was ſuch a Rule which they very well knew, which they had given them before.] Therefore it was none that was not then in being, but to be made by Biſhops afterward. And, p. 14. you ſeem to include the Canon made Acts 15. whatever the ſenſe of this Text is, we willingly alſo ſtand to that; and to the Holy Ghoſts deciſion, that nothing be impoſed but neceſſary things: And, p. 15. I find you ſay [that the preſerving the Peace of the Church, and preventing Separation, was the great meaſure according to which the Apoſtle gave his directions.] And this is all that I can find of your determination what is that Rule. And if Peace be the Rule, we all agree with you in declaiming againſt the violation of it. But is there no more in your Application?

§. 11. I remember it is ſaid in the Life of Joh. Bugenhagius Pomeranus (the p. 30Paſtor of the Church in Wittenberge, and the Presbyter that ordained the Biſhops and Presbyters of Denmark, and many other places) how much John Frederick the Elector of Saxony was pleaſed to hear him open the Reaſons why Magiſtrates have power to make Laws, but not Paſtors [armatum … poteſtatem politicam authoritate condendi leges, non pugnantes cum Decalogo; & de his traditam ſe veriſſimum praeceptum; neceſſe eſt obedire propter conſcienti…n: ſed paſtoribus expreſſe prohiberi condere proprias leges, eum dicatur, Ne…o … arguat in cibo, in potu nec poſſe hanc libertatem ullius creaturae authoritate tolli.] But I had rather ſtretch my Obedience to the utmoſt conſiſtent with Conſcience and Obedience to God, than ſpeak for any needleſs Liberty.

§. 12. It is certain, that by [the ſame Rule] is not meant, 1. Any Rule that tied Chriſtians to ſubſcribe or declare that there is nothing in our three Books, (Liturgy, Ordination, and Articles) contrary to the Word of God… For none of them were then extant, nor are they 200 years old. 2. Nor any Rule that tied them to any one humane Liturgy which all the Churches i… the Nation muſt agree in: For there was none ſuch. 3. Nor was it any Rul… that impoſed on them any dubious unneceſſary Opinions, Covenants, or Practices; nor, in a word, our Conformity, or any like it.

This is eaſily proved: 1. Becauſe the Rule which they were all to wall by, was ſomewhat then exiſtent. 2. It was a Divine Rule. 3. It was th… which all Chriſtians were to have concord in: But experience telleth us that all Chriſtians (that is, that conſent to the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity) …ver had, nor can have their Concord in any of the fore-mentioned Conformity, as I have proved in my Book of Concord.

§. 13. We will go therefore no further than your Text for the Terms … our Agreement, and for our Defence againſt your Accuſation: What… you will prove to us, by any ſuch evidence as ſhould convince a Man of reaſon … impartiality, to have been THE RVLE which the Apoſtle did here mean, … bid all that are Chriſtians walk by, we earneſtly deſire to agree thereto: An… we will joyn with you againſt any that refuſe it. It will be a way more co… gruous to your Function, and cheaper to your Conſciences, to condeſcend … theſe Terms, and prove to us what this ſame Rule was, than to tell the Magiſtrates that it is no ſin not to endure us.

§. 14. Pag. 16, 17, 18, 19. you come to tell us what Separation it is no… which you ſpeak of; viz. not of the Separation or diſtinct Communion of … Churches from each other, &c. Anſw. You know it's like your ſelf what … mean by theſe words; if you would have us know it, I muſt crave yo… Anſwer to theſe Queſtions.

Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and diſtinct Communion the ſame thing, … divers?

Qu. 2. What diſtinction of Communion is it that you mean? When there are … many things which may diſtinguiſh? 1. Communion in diſtinct places you take … p. 31for Separation. 2. Nor Commnion under diſtinct Presbyters or Biſhops. 3. Therefore I ſuppoſe neither under diſtinct Princes, or Ariſtocracies in Cities, as ſuch. 4. Nor under diſtinct Laws (meerly as ſuch) of the ſame Prince. 5. Nor diſtinct in allowed or indifferent accidents. Why any of theſe ſhould be called Separation I know not, unleſs as the word doth ſignifie but Diverſity or Diſtance.

Q. 3. Do you take Separation here in the ſame ſence as before and after; or Equivocally? If Equivocally, why did you not tell us what you here meant; beſides the difference of Subjects: If univocally, then

Q. 4. Is not the Separation of whole Churches much worſe than of ſingle Perſons from one Church, when it is upon unwarrantable cauſe or reaſons? If one Church unjuſtly renounce Communion with another whole Church, as no true Church, or as Heretical; I think that it is done by a whole Church againſt a whole Church, makes it worſe.

But perhaps you mean, that for two National Churches to have two Kings is not unlawful. No doubt of that: But to what purpoſe is it? Or is it that two National Churches may have different Accidents of Worſhip or Diſcipline? And ſo may two Dioceſan or Pariſh-Churches in our Nation, if the King pleaſe at leaſt.

§. 15. You add: Which according to the Scripture, Antiquity, and Reaſon, have a juſt Right and Power to govern and reform themſelves. Anſ. Have not all Dioceſan Churches power to govern and reform themſelves?

Government is of various ſpecies: Only the King, or ſumma Poteſtas Civilis, hath Power to govern and reform by his Species of Government: But every Biſhop may govern and reform his Church, as a Biſhop; as every Maſter may his Family as a Maſter, and every Man himſelf as a Man. It's a ſtrange Man, Family, or Church, that hath not power to govern and reform it ſelf, though not Regal Power. Though Kings have Power, they have not God's Power; and all Power that is Humane, is not Regal.

§. 16. Serm. [By whole Churches I mean the Churches of ſuch Nations, which upon the decay of the Roman Empire reſumed their Right of Government to themſelves, and upon their owning Chriſtianity, incorporated into one Chriſtian Society, under the ſame common Ties and Rules of Order and Government.]

Anſ. 1. And had not thoſe as good right that were not under the Roman Empire? (as Abaſia, &c.) 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exerciſe their great diverſity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worſhip without right? Had not they a right to govern and reform themſelves variouſly as they did? 3. Chriſtian Societies are of divers ſpecies: Do you mean Chriſtian Civil Societies, Kingdoms, free Cities, &c. or Churches? Or do you take a Chriſtian Kingdom and a Chriſtian Church for the ſame, as the Eraſtians do? If ſo, I ſuppoſe half the Conformiſts will be againſt you, as well as I. At leaſt you muſt confeſs, that if de nomine a Chriſtian Kingdom quaſi tale may be called a Church, it is equivocally; and that there is a ſort of p. 32Chriſtian Churches which are of another Conſtitution. Far were the Chriſtian Biſhops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was eſſential to a Chriſtian Church, or that a Church in the common ſence was not conſtituted of another ſort of Regent part, that had the Power of the Keyes. Two ſpecies of Governours make two ſpecies of the Societies, if they are not ſubordinate, but prime conſtitutive Parts: But the Prince and the Paſtor are two ſpecies, well opened among many by Biſhop Bilſon of Subjection. And verily if you Conformiſts be divided among your ſelves about the very Conſtitutive Rector of a Chriſtian Church, you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you. 4. And what be the common Tyes and Rules of Order which you mean? Are theſe notifying Terms for a Definition? 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government, and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents. 2. There are Rules made by Contract (ſuch as Grotius thinks Canons are), and Rules made by Governours, which are binding Commands or Laws. 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governours to be enforced by the Sword, and Rules made only by Eccleſiaſtical Paſtors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys. Do you mean all theſe? Or which of them?

1. All Chriſtian Churches are tied by the common Divine Rule; and is not conſent to that enough to make a Church? 2. Churches of various Nations may be under one Humane Rule of Agreement or Contract. 3. The ſame Princes may give divers Rules about Accidents to the Churches of one Kingdom, and alſo the ſame Rule for ſome Accidents to divers Churches under them, who differ in other great things: And doth agreement in thoſe Accidents do more to make them O… Church, than their difference in Integrals to make them many? 4. Princes may do as the Roman Emperours long did; leave the Biſhops in Councils to make their own Rules by conſent, and make no common Imperial Rule for them: Are they ever the leſs One Church? 5. The Roman Empire and Councils both left the ſeveral Biſhops to make Rules for Liturgies and other Accidents for their ſeveral Churches: Were they therefore the leſs one National Church?

So that I am no more acquainted by your Words what you mean by a whole Church, than if you had ſaid nothing. There is a whole Dioceſ… Church, and a whole Pariſh Church, as well as a whole National Church: And what the Power is, and what the Rule of Order muſt be, whether the Laws of Princes or Prelates, and whether about Eſſential, or Integrals, or Accidents, and what Accidents, whether all; or many, or few, and which, that muſt make a Church to be One whole Church, you never tell us. An Infidel Prince or a Heretick Prince may give the ſame p. 33Rule of Order to his Chriſtian Subjects in a whole Kingdom; Is he therefore the conſtitutive Church-Head? Or will you ſay, as your Mr. Rich. Hooker doth, That if he be the Head of a Chriſtian Church, it is neceſſary that he be a Chriſtian? To tell us of [Common Ties and Rules of Order] and never tell us what thoſe Ties and Rules are, may ſerve your Ends, but not my Edification.

§. 17. But I remember your Irenicum learnedly maintaineth, that God hath inſtituted no one Form of Church-Government as neceſſary: And if ſo, then not a National Church-Form. And is it not a whole Church, if it be without a Form, which not God but Man is the Author of? Then God made or inſtituted no ſuch thing as a whole Church. Then it is a humane Creature. Then why may not Man make yet more Forms; and multiply, and make and unmake, as he ſeeth cauſe; and ſeveral Countries have ſeveral Forms. And, forma dat nomen & eſſe: And if God made not any whole Church, we ſhould be acquainted who they be (that were not a Church) that had Power to make the firſt Church-Form? and who hath the Power ever ſince? and how it is proved? and how it cometh to be any great matter to ſeparate from a Church-Form which God never made? and whether humane Church-Forms be not eſſential and conſtitutive Cauſes of the Churches; and whether every commanded Oath, Subſcription, Declaration, Office or Ceremony, be an eſſential part of this Church-Form? And there be as many Church-Forms and Species, as there be Orders, Liturgies and Ceremonies. And all theſe Differences in the ſame Kingdom conſtitute ſo many Schiſms and Separations.

§. 18. Do you take all the Chriſtians in the Turkiſh Empire to be one National Church, or not? If not, then one Head or Humane Law is not neceſſary to the being or Government of a Church, nor is it neceſſary that it be National. And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themſelves, though they be not a National Church? Why did Paul write to Corinth (as Clemens alſo did) and to the Galatians, &c. and John to Epheſus, and the other ſix, Rev. 2, & 3. to reform themſelves, if they had not Power to do it? But if all the Chriſtians under the Turk be one National Church; then it is either becauſe they have one Civil Head, or one Eccleſiaſtical Head. Not the latter, for they have none ſuch; though the Biſhops of Conſtantinople have ſome Primacy by their old Canons and Cuſtoms. Not the former, for an Infidel cannot be an eſſential part of a Chriſtian Church (as a conſtitutive Head is)

p. 34§. 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Conſtantine, were true Churches of Chriſt's Inſtitution, and they had power to govern and reform themſelves; and yet they had no humane Conſtitutive Head, Regal or Sacerdotal, though they had a Civil Heathen Governour, which was an extrinſick accidental Head.

It is ſo contrary to all Sence and Religion, that either a Man as a Man, or a Family, or a Church as ſuch, ſhould have no power to govern and reform it ſelf, that I muſt needs judg that while you ſpeak confuſedly, you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power, which yet is totâ ſpecie diſtinct from that which is properly Eccleſiaſtical.

§. 20. Serm. p. 17. [And ſo the ſeveral Churches of the Lydian or Proconſular Aſia, if they had been united in one Kingdom, and governed by the ſame Authority, under the ſame Rules, might have been truly called the Lydian Church.]

Anſw. 1. And is the Controverſy de nomine, Whether they might be called the Lydian Church, when we expected a ſatisfactory explication de re? No doubt but a Church is ſo equivocal a word that many ſort of Aſſemblies or Societies may be ſo called. I have told you of divers Sences, in which we are called a Church National, firſt Plea, pag. 251, &c. Either a Chriſtian Kingdom, or elſe the Churches of a Heathen or a Chriſtian King, as aſſociated by agreement, may be called a National Church.

2. What if they be united in one Kingdom, of a Heathen, Mahometan, or Arrian King, and governed by his Regal Authority, under the ſame Rules which he ſets them? Is this it that you mean in your Deſcription? A King as ſuch is not an Eccleſiaſtick Perſon, and therefore is not an eſſential part of a Church, unleſs as it is equivocally ſo called. And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean, or the Clergies Canons, or God's Laws? The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince, and governed by the ſame Civil Authority and Laws, and alſo are under one Patriarch, and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Eccleſiaſtick Authority and Laws, of another Species: If you confound theſe two Species, or tell us not which you mean in your Definition, it tendeth not to Edification.

3. And what if they be under divers Kings (as the Bulgarians and Greeks were,) and yet ruled by one Eccleſiaſtick Authority and Law? why may not they alſo be called One Church, as the Moſcovites are now called part of the Greek Church?

4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire, as the African and other Countries were? But what is all this de nomine to the Controverſy? All grant that the Civil Power muſt be obeyed in their place, and the Church-power in theirs.

p. 355. But here you grant that they are ſeveral Churches before their Union in one Kingdom. And I ſuppoſe they were Churches, 1. of another ſpecies than the National deſcribed by you, 2. and were of Divine Inſtitution; 3. and continue ſo after their Union in one Kingdom; 4. and have power to govern and reform themſelves ſtill, though not Regal power.

§. 21. Serm. [Juſt as ſeveral Families united make one Kingdom, which at firſt had a diſtinct and independent power: but it would make ſtrange confuſion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families, becauſe at firſt they were made up of them.]

Anſw. And are they not ſeveral Families ſtill? and have they not ſtill a diſtinct Family-power to govern and reform themſelves, tho not a Regal Power? Doth making a City or Kingdom diſſolve Families? You cannot mean it. What mean you then by reducing theſe Kingdoms back to Families, when they are Families ſtill? Had you ſaid, that diſſolving Kingdoms or Cities, and reducing them to be only Families is confuſion, it's undeniable. But ſtill as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power, ſo particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Inſtitution gave them. And this is that we deſire.

§. 22. Serm. [Thus National Churches are National Societies of Chriſtians under the ſame Laws of Government and Rules of Worſhip.]

Anſ. 1. All Chriſtians are under the ſame Divine Laws and Rules. 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Chriſtians, but their Civil Laws for the common Peace. And ſome make various Laws for various ſorts of Chriſtians under them.

§. 23. Serm. [For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men, united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion.

Anſ. 1. There be many true Notions of ſuch an equivocal word as a [Church] is. 2. The Generical Notion ſure is not enough for the definition of each ſpecies. There muſt be more. The Univerſal Church is a Society of Men ſo united; and ſo may the Churches of divers Kingdoms; and ſo is a Chriſtian Kingdom as ſuch; and ſo is a Provincial Church, and a Dioceſan Church, and a particular Parochial Church: yet all theſe are not of the ſame ſpecies, for they have different terminos in ſpecie. 3. This is a very defective Definition, where 1. [Men] are made the qualified Subject, when it ſhould have been [Chriſtians]. 2. The two conſtitutive eſſential Relations of Paſtor and Flock are not mentioned, as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects. 3. They are ſaid to be united in general, without telling us what uniting is meant, whether only by force, command, or conſent; whereas moſt take even the Mode of Inveſtiture (Baptiſm) as well as Conſent to be neceſſary ad eſſe, as to the Viſible Church. 4. It is ſaid they p. 36are united [for Order and Government,] as if theſe were but the Terminus; and ſo may thoſe by agreement de futuro, that yet have no Government: whereas the Government is the conſtitutive Form. 5. This Definition leaving out the ſpecifick Form and Terminus, maketh an Army, a Navy, a Ship, a company of Chriſtian Merchants, or Corporation, &c. to be a Church: For all theſe may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government, according to the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion: For the Chriſtian Religion giveth Rules to all ſorts of Chriſtian Societies. Theſe are not the uſual ways of defining, nor give me any true notice of your ſence. 6. And you make it not intelligible, whether by the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule? and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond, or only as a Rule to ſome humane Rule? But though the application look this way, yet your words ſpeak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuſe, that are [united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion]. If this will ſerve, thoſe are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order, &c. But is not this againſt thoſe Churches, that take not the Bible, but Canons, or other humane Laws, for the bound of their Church-Vnion, or their Rule. If it be uniting for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion, which maketh a Church, let us then try which Societies are ſo united, and let that be the matter of our Diſpute.

§. 24. Serm. p. 13. [And it is a great miſtake to make the Notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worſhip, and conſequently that an adequate Notion of a Church is an Aſſembly for Divine Worſhip; by which means they appropriate the Name of Churches to particular Congregations: whereas if this held true, the Church muſt be diſſolved as ſoon as the Congregation is broken up. But if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worſhip, then there is ſome other Bond that uniteth them; and whatever that is, it conſtitutes the Church.

Anſ. 1. Did you write this as a Confutation of any body? If ſo, you ſhould have told them who are your Adverſaries. I never met with one to my remembrance that ſaith, the Church is no longer a Church than they are congregate, but Mr. Cheney who writeth againſt my Plea for Peace. And ſo the two firſt who now write againſt me, write againſt one another, and I muſt pleaſe them both. When you ſo far differ among your ſelves, you ſhould bear with them that leſs differ from you.

2. What mean you by the [Notion of a Church] which all Men know is an equivocal word? Do you mean that a [Church] hath but one Notion? I pray you tell us, whether the Notion be the ſame as it is uſed, Matth. 16. 18. & 18. 17. 1 Corinth. 11. 18, 22. Acts 19. 32, — 39, 40. 1 Crrinth. 14. 34. Pſalm 26. 5. Epheſ. 5. 27. p. 371 Tim. 3. 15. Acts 5. 11. Acts 20. 28. Rev. 2. 12, 18. Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. 10. Acts 8. 1, 3. Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. & 5. 23. Doth any Man believe that it is in all theſe Texts taken in the ſame Notion (or ſence)? I am ſure I need not ask this of you as to the ſence of prophane Authors, who uſe the word for any ſort of Concilium, coetus, concio, congregatio, convivia, as in Lucian, Demoſthenes, Ariſtotle, Thucidides, &c.

3. If you will pardon me for telling Men in Print ſo often, that a Church is conſtituted not only for Communion in Worſhip, but alſo in Doctrine, and holy Living, I will not ask you, why you diſſembled this? nor why you would intimate the contrary to your Readers? Repetition is not the leaſt fault of my Writings, and all will not prevent the miſ-intimations even of ſuch worthy Men as you. Ad nauſeam uſ que I have repeated, that the Office of the Miniſtery ſtandeth in a ſubordination to the three parts of Christ's Office, Prophetical or Teaching, Prieſtly or Worſhipping, Kingly or Ruling; and that a particular Church is aſſociated for the uſe and benefit of all three conjunctly. Were you not willing to take notice of this? or not willing that others ſhould take notice of it?

4. How many Writings of ours have told the World, that we appropriate not the Notion of a Church to a particular Congregation. Do not my Books which you cite, copiouſly expreſs the contrary? Do we not over and over tell Men, that the word [Church] muſt be conſidered as equivocal, generical, and ſpecifical? Do we take [the Holy Catholick Church] in the Creed for a particular Congregation? Worthy Sir, this is unworthy dealing, whether it be by ignorance, negligence, raſhneſs or wilfulneſs. We diſtinguiſh between Churches of God's Inſtitution, and of Man's Invention. And of the firſt ſort, what Independent is there that holdeth not an Vniverſal Church at leaſt, beſides particular Congregations? And of Man's making, who can number the ſorts that are and may be made?

5. Did you ever know Man, (ſave ſuch Conformiſts as he that anſwered my Plea) whether Greek, Papiſt, Epiſcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, or Anabaptiſt; who denieth a Church Bond, that uniteth them when the Congregation is diſmiſs'd. All confeſs, that the Union of the pars regens and pars ſubdita for Church-ends doth make it a Church. And who doth not diſtinguiſh between the Conſtitution and Adminiſtration, the Status and the Exercitium?

6. How then could you ſay, [If this be true, the Church muſt be diſſolved as ſoon as the Congregation is broken up]? What ſhew is there of ſuch a conſequence? What if we held that the Church were ſo called barely in relation to Publick Worſhip? doth it follow that this Relation ceaſeth as ſoon as the ſeveral Acts of Worſhip ceaſe? Their mutual conſent, and the union of the VVorſhippers, Prieſt and People aſſociated for that uſe, may continue p. 38when the Act of VVorſhip is intermitted. May it not continue a School, when the Boys go home or play? May it not be a Parliament when the Houſe is riſen, tho it be only for the work of aſſembled Men that they are related and denominated?

7. But Sir, do you not confeſs, even in your Iroenicon, where you maintain that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine command: 1. That God hath commanded that there be Aſſemblies ordinarily uſed for his VVorſhip. 2dly. And that Paſtors are to be the Guides and chief Managers of this VVorſhip. 3dly, And that they ſhould be alſo their Teachers. 4thly, And that they govern them by their Keys. And if all this be true, then ſuch Aſſemblies are of Divine Inſtitution; not ſuch as are aſſociated only for VVorſhip, but for Doctrine, Worſhip, and holy Living, under the Teaching and Conduct of their Paſtors. If you deny that ſuch Churches as we call Particular are of Divine Inſtitution, we have often proved it, though few Chriſtians deny it, or need any proof.

And it is ſo oft repeated in the Books which you cite, that I muſt ſuppoſe you know it, though you ſeem to diſſemble it, that the Definition which I give of ſuch a Church doth make the Terminus to be (not the whole Church meeting at one time and place, but) perſonal, preſential Communion in Doctrine, VVorſhip, and Holy Converſation, as diſtinct from abſent Communion by Delegates or Letters only. Your Pariſh is aſſociated for ſuch perſonal preſential Communion, and yet they meet not all at once, but ſome one day, and ſome another, and ſome not at all, which is a fault in exercitio, but overthroweth not the being of the Church, while it is perſonal preſent Communion which they aſſociate for and profeſs, and that ſtates the Church-relation. And they meet not all in one place, but ſome in the Biſhop of Ely's Chappel, (and it is pity but you had many more); and yet Chappels of Eaſe conſiſt with ſome Obligations on the whole Pariſh ordinarily, to have per vices ſometime perſonal Communion in the Pariſh-Church.

If you would have told us plainly, that Pariſh-Churches are no Churches, or that God never ordained ſuch ſingle Churches, as are aſſociated for perſonal Communion in Preſence, in Doctrine, VVorſhip, and Converſation, which have their proper Paſtors, we ſhould have known what to ſay to you. But if you deny not ſuch, (which we undertake fully to prove) plainly confeſs their Conſtitution, VVorth, and Privileges, and we ſhall readily next debate the Caſe with you, how far Men may aſſociate theſe into larger Churches of another ſpecies. But ſtill we ſay, that as Families ceaſe not to be Families, when they are combined into a Village or City; no more do particular Churches loſe their Conſtitution or Adminiſtration by being aſſociated into any lawful larger Churches.

p. 39§. 25. Serm. [And if there be one Catholick Church conſiſting of multitudes of particular Churches, conſenting in one Faith; then why may there not be one National Church from Conſent in the ſame Articles? &c.]

Anſ. 1. I pray confeſs firſt, that your National doth conſiſt of a multitude of ſuch particular Churches of God's Inſtitution, and cannot deſtroy them or their Power and Privileges: Secondly; And once tell us what you mean by a National Church, whether Regal or Sacerdotal. If you mean a Chriſtian Kingdom, who denies it: If you mean all the Churches of a Kingdom aſſociated for Concord as Equals, we deny it not. If you mean that the Nation muſt be one Church as united in one Sacerdotal Head, perſonal or collective, Monarchical or Ariſtocratical, we muſt have further ſatisfaction about this: Firſt, whether it be of Divine or of Humane Inſtitution? Secondly, whether (if humane) its Power be from the Prince, or from the Conſent of the particular Churches? Thirdly, what it is empowered to do? 1. Not to make neceſſary Laws for the Churches of the ſame ſort with Chriſt's already made. 2. Not to croſs any of his Laws. 3. Not to deſtroy any Privilege of the particular Churches inſtituted by Chriſt. 4. But if it be only to determine of ſuch Circumſtances as the Chriſtian Prince may determine of, we ſhall obey them as his Officers.

And now to your [Why not?] I anſwer. Man is not God. God made the Form of the Vniverſal Church, of which the particular are parts; whoſe Form alſo is of his making: And if God hath made National Regent Churches as diſtinct from Chriſtian Kingdoms and Commonwealths, we will obey them; if not, we muſt know what Men made them, and by what authority, and whether God authorized them thereto; if not, your [Why not] is anſwered.

§. 26. Serm. p. 18. [Nay, if it be mutual Conſent and Agreement which makes a Church, then why may not National Societies agreeing together in the ſame Faith, and under the ſame Government and Diſcipline, be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation?

Anſ. 1. Is it only de nomine, or de re that you ask? If de nomine, we grant you, that a Parliament, an Army may be truly called Eccleſia; if de re, we grant you that it is truly a Church of another kind. 2. Mutual Conſent makes a Church, but God's Conſent or Inſtitution muſt go firſt to warrant that Conſent, and make it a Church which he will own: Elſe mutual Conſent may make it but Jeroboam's Church, or a falſe and ſinful Policy. Prove if you can, that God hath authorized Men to make as many new Church-Species, Policies or Forms as they pleaſe; or any againſt, or above, or equal to thoſe of his Inſtitution, beſides Magiſtracy.

p. 40§. 27. Serm. p. 19. Why many of theſe Cities, united under one Civil Government, and the ſame Rules of Religion, ſhould not be called one National Church, I cannot underſtand: which makes me wonder at thoſe who ſay they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England: Sacrileg. Deſert. p. 35.

Anſw. 1. Admiratio eſt ignorantis: I am as ignorant of you, as you are of …; therefore may anſwer wondering with wondering; 1. That ſuch a Man ſhould not know the reaſon when I ſo plainly and diſtinctly wrote it down, 2. And that while you wonder, you ſhould not vouchſafe to give me the leaſt means of Satisfaction. For I ſuppoſe few will think that you do ſo much as attempt it here. 3. You make it ſtill as if the Controverſie were de nomine▪ what it may be called; when I only ſpake de re, and bid you call it what you will, if you will but tell us your meaning. 4. Yea in my Plea, ſect. 4▪ 5. and in the Addition: I fully ſhewed what we grant de re, & de nomine, and what we deny; and what the ſtate of our Controverſie is: and do you think to ſatisfie us, after all this with Wondering that we underſtand not what you mean?

§ 28. Serm. [In ſhort, we mean, that Society of Chriſtian People, which in this Nation are united under the ſame Profeſſion of Faith, the ſame Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine Worſhip.]

Anſw. And will not they, that know not your Heart any otherwiſe than by ſuch Words, deride us, if we ſhould pretend by theſe Words, to be ever the nearer underſtanding your Reſolution of the Controverſie?

1. The eſſential conſtitutive Parts of a political Society are the Pars rege…s & pars ſubdita (as is aforeſaid.) And here is no mention of the Regent part at all; can any Man tell by this whether it be the King, or a Clergy Head, that you take to be the Conſtitutive Head?

2. Laws and Rules, are part of the Adminiſtration, and our queſtion is of the Conſtitution. Is this then any ſatisfying Definition?

3. The Papiſts by this Definition are the national Church [They are a Society of Chriſtian People, which in this Nation are united under the ſame Profeſſion of Faith, the ſame Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine Worſhip] viz. Pap…l. If you ſay, They are not all the Nation. I anſwer, 1. nor doth your Definition require it. 2. You are not all.

If you ſay that they are not the major part. I anſwer, 1. Whether you are I know not. 2. In Ireland they are, and ſo are there the National Church by your Definition.

If you ſay that you mean the Laws of Lawful Governours. I anſwer, 1. The Papiſts take the Pope for their lawful Governour: 2. If a Uſurper get Poſſeſſion (as K. Stephen and many others,) is the National Church then dead or null? 3. There is no mention of lawful in your Definitions.

4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane p. 41Laws and Rules, yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean: for elſe, 1. I am of the ſame National Church that you are; yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you, and ſuch as you, I ſhall prove that it will be a harder queſtion whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am. 2. And you might know that ſuch a Church we no more deny than you do (at leaſt) 3. But then it can be but ſincere (not perfect) Obedience to God's Laws and Rules, which muſt prove one to be of this Church; or elſe no Man is of it. And then you muſt ſhew us whether a miſtake in as ſmall a matter as Meat and Drink, or a Ceremony, or Liturgick Form, or Dioceſan order, do cut one off from that Church. If yea, than how much more would ſuch Conformity to ſin do it? which we fear.

But ſuppoſing that you mean Humane Laws. 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church? If Humane Laws were neceſſary ad bene eſſe, the Chriſtians that I have read and converſt with, think that they are not neceſſary to the Being of a Church in ſenſu famoſiore; why then ſhould they be in the Definition, and only they?

6. But the difficulty recurreth as to Humane Laws, which of them are neceſſary to the Being of the Church: For your Definition diſtinguiſhed not: The King hath great and excellent Laws which we all conform to: Doth not our Conformity to theſe ſeem to prove us of the National Church, though we conform not to your Formalities and Oaths and Ceremonies? Imperfect Obedience ſerveth to continue men Subjects to the King: It is not every Drunkeneſs, or Oath, or Fornication, much leſs the miſs of a Complement or Ceremony, that makes a Man a Rebel or an Outlaw: Why then ſhould the refuſal of a Prelates Subſcription or Formality unchurch a ſound and honeſt Chriſtian?

7. And if the humane Laws and Rules which you mention (what ever you mean by them) be ſubordinate to God's Laws, and ſo be honeſt, good and obligatory, why ſhould they cut off thoſe from the Church which Chriſt's Laws cut not off; yea, which Chriſt receiveth and commandeth us to receive? Receive him, for God receiveth him: and, receive him as Chriſt receiveth us, (notwithſtanding our Infirmities) were good reaſonings in St. Paul's Judgment, which I prefer before any Biſhops that I know.

8. And a Man of leſs Acquaintance or Wit than you, cannot be ignorant, what abundance of Differences there are among your ſelves. I have named you no ſmall number in my …d. Plea: ſome of you are hot againſt that which is called Arminianiſm, and ſome hot for it: ſome are for Biſhops and Presbyters being of one Order, and ſome of divers: all are not of the mind of the Biſhop of Hereford that wrote Naked Truth: ſome (even Biſhops) think that the damnatory part of Athanaſius's Creed is not approved by Conformity: others, think that it is all to be approved: A multitude ſuch p. 42differences there are among your ſelves: And why ſhould not this as much unchurch ſome of you, if it be [being under the ſame Laws] that maketh you one Church, as the forbearing of a Declaration of Aſſent and Conſent, or of a Surplice, &c.

9. Eſpecially tell us, whether the Conformiſt's difference about the Conſtitutive Regent Part of the Church of England, ſome being for one ſpecies, and ſome for another, do not plainly make them to be of two diſtinct Churches of England, and further different from each other than we are from any part. We juſtly ſay the Papiſts, who are for two ſpecies of Soveraigns, ſome for the Pope, and ſome …r a general Council, are plainly of two Churches: for the regent part is eſſential. And I am ſure that one part of the moſt Eminent Diſputers for the Church of England and Conformity, ſay that the King is the Extraneous Civil Governour, but the Biſhops are the Conſtitutive Eſſential Internal Governours of the Church as a Church; and that if the Biſhops command the uſe of one Tranſlation, Verſion, Metre, Liturgie, and the King another, we are to obey the Biſhops, and not the King: And that the efficient cauſe of a National Church, is the Biſhops Agreement among themſelves to aſſociate into ſuch a Church. And others ſay, that it is the King and his Laws, that are the efficient of ſuch a Church, and are to be obeyed in matter of the Circumſtances of Worſhip, &c. before the Biſhops. Can you prove that this difference between the Conformiſts, about the very Conſtitutive Regent Power, is not greater than Mens differences about a Ceremony or Form? and doth not more to make them to be of two Churches?

10. If all this confuſed ſtir be but about a Chriſtian Kingdom, be it known to you that we take ſuch to be of Divine Command: And if you know it not, or diſſemble it, after I have ſaid ſo much of it, in the firſt Plea, and elſewhere, I cannot help that, viz. if you will talk publickly againſt what you know, or know not when told, becauſe you will not know. But I have there largly told you, what the Power of Princes about Church matters is, which if you will not read, I will not repeat.

11. Your Words [Laws and Rules] would induce one to think that you joyned the Kings Laws and the Biſhop's Canons together in your meaning, as the bond of U…ity. If ſo, is it two ſorts of Governours, (by the Swo…d, and by the Word, Magiſtrates and Paſtors) which you take for the conſtitutive regent parts of the Church? If ſo, then either in Coo…dination and Coal…tion, or in Subordination. The firſt cannot be, that the two Species in Coalition ſhould make one Head, unleſs both were in the Kings as Perſona Mixta. both Lay and Clergie, as ſome affirm him to be like Melchiz…deck: But this both King and Clergie diſown. Nor can the ſecond be, becauſe a ſubordinate Power is not eſſential to the whole body politick, but only the ſupreme. And the Magiſtracy & Miniſtry are coordinate p. 43Species, both depending immediately on God, and Subordinate Mutually only Secundum quid: Nor is the Legiſlative Power in England any other than one, which is in the King and Parliament conjunct. The Biſhops Canons are not Laws Ejuſdem Speciei; till the King and Parliament make them ſuch. If this be your Judgment, there are I think but few Conformiſts of your mind.

12. I muſt Conjecture therefore by your words, That the Laws and Rules which you define the Church by, are the Laws of the King and Parliament; and that it is the Civil Chriſtian Sovereign that you take for the Conſtitutive Head of that National Church which you plead for; or elſe I know not what to Conjecture. And if this be your Meaning, I add to what is ſaid: 1. Eraſtians have hitherto been diſtaſted by the Biſhops, and I doubt they will by this take you for ſomewhat worſe.

2. What doth your National Church differ from a Chriſtian Kingdom, which we deny not?

3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church, beſides that which is Conſtituted by the Chriſtian Magiſtrate as Head?

1. All the Chriſtian World, as far as I can learn by Hiſtory (no conſiderable part excepted) have been in all Ages, and to this Day are of another mind. And who then is the great Nonconformiſt and Separatiſt, You or I; if this be your mind?

2. The Magiſtracy, and Paſtoral Office are of different Species: Therefore the Churches Conſtituted by their Regency are of different Species.

3. Conſtantines words have hitherto been commonly received, That He (and ſo Chriſtian Kings) was Biſhop without the Church, and the proper Biſhop within: that is, That he was the Governour of the Church, by the Sword, as the King is of all Scholars, Phyſitians, Families, &c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys; as the King is not a School-Maſter, Phyſitian, or the formal Specifying Governour of School, Colledge, Family, as ſuch. Biſhop Bilſon, of Subjection, moſt clearly openeth the difference, and I think Chriſtians commonly agree to it; between the Office of Governing by the Sword; and by the Word; even about the Church it ſelf.

4. Chriſt ſettled immediately the Paſtoral Office, and did not leave it to Princes to make it: And He ſettled Churches under the Paſtors, when there were no Chriſtian Princes; And when the Emperours became Chriſtians, they never took themſelves to be the intrinſick Conſtitutive Rectors of the Churches, but p. 44Accidental Heads, as is aforeſaid. And all the Councils, and their Canons fully ſhew, that the Biſhops were ſtill of this mind. And our greateſt Defenders of the Power of Princes, Bilſon, Andrews, Buck…ridge, Spalatenſis, &c. were of the ſame mind, and aſcribe to them no more.

5. Elſe Heathen, and Infidel Princes might be Eſſential to the Church in the Goſpel-Notion: For they are the Governours of it by the Sword, and may poſſibly by the Counſel of Chriſtians, make them as good Laws as many Chriſtian Princes do. Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws.

But I Labour in vain, in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species; for I ſuppoſe you cannot deny it; and if you do, few others will. I ſuppoſe it is only the National Form, which you take to be Conſtituted by a Lay-Head. But few Chriſtians will deny, That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church, is of Divine Inſtitution; and that Men have not power to deſtroy that Form; or change the Office there, Inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt. Though the Forms of Aſſ…ciated Churches, Dioceſan, Metropolitan, Provincial, Patriarchal, are judged by very many, to be of Humane Invention: And what Man may make, Man on good Reaſon may unmake or alter. But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned; I ſhall Grant you that a National Church is alſo of Divine Command; if you mean but a Chriſtian Kingdom. But when one Form is Denominated from the Paſtoral Office related to the Flock, and the other from the Magiſtrates Office: What hath a Man that can underſtand the State of the Controverſy, to do here; but to ſhew what is the Paſtoral Office towards the Church, and what is the Magiſtrates? For ſure they are not the ſame. And yet becauſe that it is the Paſtoral Form, which the word [Church] denoteth in the ſtrict and uſual Chriſtian Senſe; Our Sovereignes in England, to avoid the Papiſts Exceptions, have forſaken the Title of [Head of the Church] leſt they ſhould ſeem to claim a Conſtitutive Headſhip of a Church ſtrictly taken, and uſe only the Term [Governour.] Even as Chriſt is ſaid by St. Paul, Eph. 1. to be Head over all things, To the Church [Over and To] much differ.

And I yet ſee not why on the ſame Reaſon that we call a Chriſtian Kingdom, or Republick a National Church; we may not … call Lo…don, York, &c. a City-Church, as Headed by the Mayor, as the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and ſo talk of Provincial, p. 45Conſular, and Proconſular Churches, Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, Democratical Churches; and make all the Controverſies [which Church-Form is beſt] as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is beſt.

And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations (which I think yet moſt of them diſclaim) do this way quite exceed them in Popularity, and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches, even National including the particulars. For I ſuppoſe they will not ſay, that Democratical, Civil Government is unlawful.

And whereas Cyprian ſaith: Ʋbi Epiſcopus, ibi Eccleſia; you will ſay, Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is, there is the Church. But I trow the Biſhop of London believeth that there is another ſort of London-Church-Form, beſides my Lord - Mayors Relation to them. But what abundance of Church-Forms, Supream and Subordinate may diverſity of Magiſtracy make?

§. 29. Sermon p. 19. [I do not intend to ſpeak of the Terms upon which Perſons are to be admitted among us to the Exerciſe of the function of the Miniſtry; but of the Terms of Lay-Communion, i. e. thoſe which are neceſſary for Perſons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments, and other Offices of Divine Worſhip.]

Anſw. 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to ſpeak of: I ſuppoſe it is not for want of Charity, nor Concern, that you intend it not; and therefore, ſuppoſe that ſomebody elſe will do it at laſt. I have heard of ſome above your order, that could better ſpare the Nonconforming Miniſters than the People, and ſaid plainly, that they increaſed the Impoſitions, becauſe they could do better without us, than with us: And ſome have ſaid, If this will not caſt them out, more ſhall do it. I take it for granted, that this pretermitted part of your Work, is indeed, the All that you have to do, in the Works of Accuſing, and Afflicting the Nonconformiſts; and till this be done, the reſt of your Accuſations will confute themſelves; and I doubt not but it will be attempted; and if it be truly, and ſatisfactory, I will give you thanks.

2. Your Term of [Lay-Communion] remembreth me, that if (as you ſeem) you Eſſentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler, and his Laws, viz. the King, and the Laws made by him for Religious Government; the People that you accuſe are no Separatiſts, though they Separate from the Dioceſanes; p. 46becauſe they hold this Lay-Communion; that is, though they are not perfectly Obedient, they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour, and ſo Members of the Kingdom, which is the National-Church.

3. And as to your Lay-Communion here ſpoken of, So far as it is Lawful, where you have Preach'd or Written for it once, I think, I have done it many times: I ſhall be far from Contradicting you in that.

§. 30. Sermon p. 20. [I will not ſay, there hath been a great deal of Art uſed to confound theſe two (and it is eaſy to diſcern to what purpoſe it is.)

Anſw. 1. I have not Art enough well to reconcile your Negative, and your Parentheſis, which intimateth an Affirmation: If you will not ſay ſuch Art was uſed; how can you intimate [to what purpoſe it's uſed.] Can you tell ſo eaſily why it was done, and not tell that indeed it was done at all? But perhaps you can tell, though you will not. I would fain know why: No Man that Reads your Words, can well believe that it is through the redundancy of your kindneſs.

2. Forgive this Truth: Of all Men that have Written againſt Nonconformity, I remember few that may, worſe than you ſpeak againſt CONFOVNDING; as I ſhall further prove.

3. If I be one of thoſe that you ſpeak of, Confounding is not the greateſt fault of your words; while it is viſible that in my firſt Plea I diſtinctly enumerated the Caſe of the Nonconformity of the Laity and the Clergy. And I ſpake by conſent for many of my acquaintance. And I am likeſt to be meant by you, becauſe divers others, that go farther from you, take Lay-conformity to be unlawful, and largely give their reaſons for it. How then did you expect to be believed when our Books are in ſo many hands?

4. None are fitter Judges of Arts, than the moſt exerciſed Artificers: If you are skill'd and exerciſed in ſuch Arts your ſelf, you may the eaſiler diſcerne both the, Art and purpoſe. And yet we are ſo neer our ſelves that I cannot eaſily believe that you know my Arts or purpoſes ſo well as I do my ſelf.

§ 31. Serm. [I dare ſay the People's not underſtanding the difference of theſe two Caſes, hath been a great occaſion of the preſent ſeparation.]

Anſ. No doubt but there is a great difference between the Miniſters Caſe of Conformity, and the Peoples, which makes ſome of them think much worſe of a Conforming Miniſter, than of a Conforming Lay-man: which ſheweth that the difference is not p. 47wholly unknown to them. But I think I have done more to acquaint them with the difference, than you or any of your tribe have done.

§ 32. Serm. [For in the Judgment of the moſt impartial men of the Diſſenters at this day, though they think the Caſe of the Miniſters very hard on the account of Subſcriptions and Declarations required of them, yet they confeſs, very little is to be ſaid on the behalf of the People, from whom none of thoſe things are required.]

Anſ. 1. This is but ſuch Confuſion as conſtituteth this Sermon. We think that nothing of truth can be ſaid for any of the People's errors; no more than for the [very hard] and ſinful caſe of our ſelves if we ſhould Conform: If any go one ſtep too far from you, they are unjuſtifiable therein: But we have ſhewed thoſe that will ſee, that much may be ſaid on the People's behalf for much of their Nonconformity, and alſo for ſuch aſſembling as you call ſeparation.

2. And ſurely if you had the due ſenſe of your Brethrens Caſe, of your Own Caſe, and of the Kingdoms Caſe, you would perceive how neceſſary the forbearing of the impoſition of thoſe very hard things is to the healing of that which doth offend you; and to greater ends than that.

§ 33. Serm. [So that the People are condemned in their ſeparation by their own teachers; But how they can preach lawfully to a People who commit a fault in hearing them, I do not underſtand.]

Anſ. 1. The People that are guilty of any ſinful ſeparation are reproved by us; but not thoſe that ſeparate no further than is their duty. In my firſt Plea I deſcribed no leſs than 30 Caſes in which ſeparation is a ſin; and neer 40 Inſtances in which ſome ſeparation is a duty or no ſin: And of all this you here take no notice, and toſs the bare confounding name of Separation, as if the Sound ought to affright men from all that you are againſt; ſure you could never think that we had Brains or Conſciences, if ſuch dealing ſhould paſs for ſatisfactory with us: Can any man tell by this bare Name, or any thing in your Book, what that Separation is which you condemn. The word Hereſie with a Papiſt, and the word [Separation] and [Schiſm] with ſome Conformiſts, ſeem to be terms of Art: But what Art is it? Sure it is not the Carteſian nor the Epicurean Philoſophy, which layeth ſo much on Atomes and Motion: I cannot Imagine what Contexture of Atomes ſhould cauſe the Sound of the word [Separation] or [Schiſm] to make ſuch a motion as ſhould drive men out of their Religion and Wits. I am not ſo happy as to be an Academical Graduate; but I have long ago read Lullius …nd many of his p. 48Commentators; and I find no Philoſophy more likely, to lay much on the Power of words; except that which we call Magick or Charming. For my part, I was born with a diſeaſe (if it be ſuch) that hateth Confuſion and Deceit, and inclineth me to bring things into light, and to diſcern between things that differ. And if you Doctors have learned the Art of Reduceing a Syllogiſm into a Simple terme or Na…e, it is quite above my kind of Learning: I ſuppoſe it is ſuch a Logical contracted Syllogiſm that you intend: But as ſhort writing called Characters, though expeditious, is hard to be read by others; ſo your contracted Syllogiſm, in the name [Separation] and [Schiſm] will be more uſeful to you and yours, than to ſtrangers that never ſaw your heart. If Vſefulneſs and Vſedneſs, even by ſome of the Reverend, may afford us a Prognoſtick, I may conjecture that even Lying (and other neceſſary arts) are aſcending in hope to be placed among the Cardinal virtues, and thoſe that ſcruple it, may be numbered with Schiſmaticks, Separatiſts and Rogues.

§ 34. If I would here again tell you what Separation I take to be lawful, and what unlawful, and deſire you to define that which you accuſe me of, I may expect that in your Reply you will diſſemble it; But I will trie you with a few inſtances of one ſort, and deſire you to tell me which it is that you mean.

I. Do you think that he is a Separatiſt that meeteth not in the ſame Pariſh Church with you? No ſure: For then you are one to others, and other Pariſhes ſuch to you.

II. Is he a Separatiſt that liveth in your Pariſh, and ordinarily meeteth not in your Temple, but another allowed place? If ſo, the Biſhop of El… is a Separatiſt in your Pariſh, that keepeth a Meeting in his Chappel when you preach. If not ſo, when we had the Kings Licenſe at leaſt, the place made Us not Separatiſts.

III. Is every one a Separatiſt that differeth from you in Doctrine, in publick Preaching? If ſo, are you not Separatiſts one from another, when one Preacheth for that wich is called, Abſolute Election, Reprobation, Univerſal Redemption, Free-will, Falling from juſtification, the morality of the Sabbath, &c. and others againſt theſe? If not; Is not difference in ſuch Doctrines as great a difference, as uſing and not uſeing ſome of your Liturgick Forms and Ceremonies?

IV. Are all different modes of Worſhip enough to make our Party Separatiſts? Then the French and Dutch Churches are Separatiſts, and either the Cathedrals or the Pariſh-Churches, as to their Veſtments, Organs, Chore, mode of Singing, &c. And the allowed private Baptiſmes and Communion with the ſick, are Separations.

p. 49V. Doth every diſobedience to the King, and Laws, and Canons in matters of Religion, Government and Worſhip, make men Separatiſts? If ſo, then when ever a Conformiſt diſobediently ſhortneth his Common-Prayer, or leaveth off his Surplice, or giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not, or receiveth one of another Pariſh to Communion, &c. he is a ſeparatiſt. Yea no man then is not a Separatiſt ſometimes.

VI. If the Dioceſane be the loweſt political Church, and a Pariſh but a part of a Church, as they hold that take a Biſhop to be a Conſtitutive part; how is he ſaid to ſeparate from the Church that owneth his Dioceſane and the Dioceſs, what ever place in that Dioceſs he meet in, ſeeing he ſeparateth not from the Kingdom that ſtayeth in it and owneth the King, though in ſome acts he diſobey? Nor doth every Boy that is faulty ſeparate from the School.

VII. Is he a greater Separatiſt that confeſſeth you to be a true Church, and your communion lawful, but preferreth another as fitter for him; or he that denieth Communion with true worſhiping aſſemblies as unlawful to be Communicated with, when it is not ſo. If the former, then Condemning you as no Church is a diminution or no aggravation of ſeparation, and the Local preſence of an Infidel or a Scorner would be a leſs ſeparate ſtate, than the abſence of your friends. If the latter (which is certain) then if I can prove the Aſſemblies lawful which you condemne, you are the true Separatiſts that condemn them, and deny Communion with them, and declare ſuch Communion to be unlawful. I Communicate with your Aſſemblies, and you utterly ſhun, refuſe and condemn Communion with ours; which then is the Separatiſt, if I prove ours to be as good as yours?