A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 53 – Section 57
Sect. 53. E. B. More of the Cauſes of ſeparation.[For it is not, as I ſaid before, Corruption barely, no nor Impoſition barely, that is a ſufficient ground for any to ſeparate (For where ſome leſſer errours are held but not Impoſed; or, where only neceſſary things are impoſed, we ſhall not forbear Communion.) But when errour is once impoſed, and by a ſtrong hand forcibly maintained (notwithſtanding all admonitions and endeavours of reformation,) here we muſt ſeparate or conſent to ſin.—
R. B. Better and better: Here it is granted that neither Corruption barely, nor Impoſition barely, will juſtifie ſeparation. But by Corruption and Impoſition barely ſeemeth to be meant ſuch formaliter quoad actum, without including the degree of the matter. For it is expounded of [Leſſer errours] held and not Impoſed; or of neceſſary things Impoſed. So that if it be Impoſed on us to Worſhip God, it will not prove us no Chriſtians: we are beholden to you for this clemency. And if we ſhould miſtake a point of Genealogie or Chronologie it will not un-church us. This is ſomething.
2. Well, but what is the crime that maketh our Communion unlawful? [when errour is once impoſed, &c.] ſo then (if you can ſpeak ſenſe) any errour Impoſed will do it. What if it be Impoſed on the Church, to uſe a Tranſlation of the Bible that hath ſome errour in (And is there any without?) Muſt that Church needs be ſeparated from? And yet the Church that uſed the ſame Voluntarily (and therefore more ſinfully) is not to be ſeparated from? What if erroneouſly it be impoſed on the Church to meet at an inconvenient time or place? What if ſome flaw or errour in Chronologie on ſmaller-matters, were in their impoſed Confeſſion, which the Paſtour erroneouſly ſubſcribeth to? It ſeems an Infallible Impoſing Church may be communicated with, and no other. But do you not know that there is a Miniſterial as well as a Magiſtratical forcing Impoſition? Every Paſtour that ſpeaketh as by Commiſſion from Chriſt, Impoſeth ſomewhat on the people! He Impoſeth doctrine, and Method, and words in prayer, and times, places, utenſils, orders, metres, tunes, as aforeſaid. Muſt all theſe be ſeparated from (that is almoſt all the Paſtors in the World;) And is there no remedie?
3. But perhaps you lay all the ſtreſs [on a ſtrong hand and force!] If ſo, prove that your Miniſterial Impoſition of errour in your Prayer or Conduct, doth not make Communion unlawful; and yet that forcible impoſition doth? As if Voluntary reception made leſs the ſin! Prove that the Church of the Jews was nullified whenever any errour was impoſed by authority! Or when the Phariſees then in power had corrupted it in Chriſts time by force. If this were your meaning, then ſeparation could ſcarce be Lawful, till there was a Conſtantine, a Chriſtian Emperour, who (being not infallible) might force or impoſe ſomething amiſs, whereas you before talk of an early univerſal failing, neceſſitating ſeparation. It ſeems then that no Countries are ſo unhappy as thoſe that have Chriſtian Magiſtrates, who being fallible, impoſe ſome errour: And that in all the Ages and Countries that have Heathen or Infidel Rulers, (notwithſtanding Church Corruptions not forced) Separation is a ſin.
4. But I would fain know, whether it be the Impoſition, that nullifieth the Church, or makes Communion unlawful, or only the obeying that Impoſition? If it be the Impoſition, then a Heathen Prince may nullifie the Church at pleaſure. If it be only the obedience, then, 1. Muſt it be once obeying or continual? What if Aurelian or Diocleſian forbid Church-aſſemblies: will once obeying them nullifie all the Churches, or make their Communion unlawful? 2. Why will not obeying a Miniſter or de…ver make it as unlawful as obeying a King? 3. Why doth not the doing it without conſtraint (as is ſaid) make it as unlawful as obedience?
5. Is it the King and Parliament, or the Biſhops whoſe Impoſitions have this ſad effect? If the former, then (as is ſaid) it was 300 years after Chriſt, before ſeparation was lawful. If the latter, then it is not force only that doth it; And Independent, or Anabaptiſt or Presbyterian Paſtors may Impoſe as well as Biſhops. For the Biſhops diſclaim all coercive power in the Church, (as I have ſhewed to Dr. Moulin.)
Sect. 54. E. B. The ſecond Argument is the example of the former Non-conformiſts, who you ſay were all againſt ſeparation, &c.
R. B. Here you cite a paſſage of Mr. Hilderſhams, that the authority of man is not to be ſet againſt Gods, and that we may know more than thoſe that went before us, &c. And did not) I tell you ſo my ſelf? who diſſenteth from you in this? Bring your proof from Scripture againſt them and us, and we will hear you. Or give us but good proof that you are a wiſer and better man than they, and are better taught of God, and we will yield this by-reaſon from authority. But to bring Mr. Hilderſhams acknowledgement of Gods authority above mans, againſt Mr. Hilderſhams arguments againſt ſeparation, and his perſwaſions to come to the beginning of the Churches prayers, and to imply that you know more than thoſe worthy men, when you give the world ſo little evidence of it, doth prove the goodneſs of your cauſe as much as it proveth your humility or ſelf-acquaintance.
Sect. 55. E. B. p. 17, 18.Boaſting Ignorance. [The former non-conformiſts held Arminianiſme ſo fundamental and dangerous an errour, &c. But you do not only ſpeak favourably of it, but alſo Proudly tell us that you are confident, not one of many hundreds, who ſpeak againſt Communion with Arminians, do underſtand what Arminianiſme is—As if—plain Chriſtians could not eaſily come to know it.
R. B. 1. As under Church-tyrants all is Schiſme, which contradicts their Schiſme, ſo with ſome men all is Proudly ſpoken which contradicteth their Pride, and ſuppoſeth them to be but half as ignorant as they are.
2. Were all the Non-conformiſts of one mind about Arminianiſme? Was not Arminius himſelf againſt Prelacy and Ceremonies? and many of his followers? Who were the great Antiadiaphoriſts in Germany, but Iliricus, Amſdorſius, Gallus and other Lutherans? Is not Mr. Dury a Non-conformiſt who hath forty years laboured to bring the Lutherans (who are as far from us as Arminius) and the Calviniſts to Communion?
3. Who would be at the labour to read over the many Volumes that are written about Pre-determination, Free-will, Concurſe, and Grace, by which ſuch Ignorant ſouls as I, cannot to this day tell what they mean, nor in many or moſt points wherein they differ, when this man, and his plain followers (Women and Boyes) ſo eaſily know it! But like the Pope that can Infallibly expound the Scriptures, but is ſo wiſe that he will not do it. Le Blank, and many more might have ſpared their pains of right ſtating the Controverſies, if they had this mans Key. I never yet met with the man that could but make me well underſtand, what it is that is meant by Free-will, nor what by the Power which they diſpute of, to do good, much leſs open all their meanings de ſcientia media, de Concurſu prae-determinations, &c. But here's one can eaſily tell us all. But I warrant him he will not. Some men (alas, and ſome Treachers) will be wiſe, and humble, in deſpight of Wiſdom and Humility; and Chriſtians in deſpight of Love, Unity and Peace.
Sect. 56. E. B. p. 18. His own Free-will hath not the leaſt power to receive the things of God.
R. B. 1. What not ſanctified Free-will? 2. What! not a Receiving obediential power? A receiving power is a paſſive power (as it is ſtrictly taken.) Hath a free-agent leſs Power to receive Grace, than a marble to receive the engraving of the work-man? Doth no man ever receive Grace? Or do they receive what they cannot receive? Hath a man no more Receptive Power than a block or ſtone? I know its ſaid [The natural man Receiveth not, &c.] that is, Vnderſtandeth not, believeth not, and loveth not in ſenſu Compoſito: But its never ſaid, that [Our free-will hath not the leaſt power to receive.] But I have ſaid ſo much of this, and the next point (the badneſs of nature) to which he giveth not any anſwer at all, that I wonder that the man thinks that one that is all tongue and no eares or eyes, is fit for credit or humane converſe.
Sect. 57. E. B. You,12. Falſe doctrine and pernicious. Jeſuite like, are not afraid to ſay, The Scipture tells us not ſufficiently and particularly which Books in it ſelf are Canonical, nor that the various Readings are the right, nor whether every Text be brought to us uncorrupted.]
R. B. 1. And by implying your aſſertion of the contrary, you become a falſe Teacher of pernicious doctrine; As if you deſigned to make men Jeſuits or Infidels, by renouncing the Scriptures, as ſoon as they find, that theſe things are not ſufficiently there done and thence to be proved, without ſubordinate teſtimonies.
2. Why do not you ſave ſuch as Dr. J. Reignolds, Chamier, and others their great labour, and prove out of Scripture it ſelf, which of all the various readings mentioned by Beza, Capelus, and others, and found in various Copies, is the right? and ſo of the reſt?