A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 41 – Section 42
Sect. 41. E. B. Laſtly, admitting there are ſome worthy and able men, among the Pariſh Miniſters (which for my own part I believe never a whit the more becauſe you affirm it) yet this we muſt ſay, that their ſin is great in ſubmitting to ſo undue a way of entering into the Miniſtry; and therefore we both forbear our ſelves, and warn all others not to hear them; becauſe we cannot think our Lord Chriſt ever ſent ſuch to Preach in his name, who directly and by a ſolemn Oath have renounced their Chriſtian liberty under pretence of Preaching Chriſt; and are indeed nothing elſe (as to the whole diſcharge and exerciſe of their office) but ſervants of men—in conſiſtent with being ſervants of Chriſt.
R. B. 1. Either you think there are ſome worthy able men among them, or you do not. If you do, why ſhould you be ſo malignant as to queſtion the aſſertion of it, and ſo loth to grant it? If you do not, how unfit is ſo falſe and malignant an accuſer of the brethren,All ſinners are not to be ſeparated from. to be the conducter of ſouls, or the Hiſtorian of the age, that will not know a thing ſo publick and notorious.
2. As for your not believing me, no men are ſo hardly brought to believe the truth from others, as they that are conſcious of ordinary falſhood from themſelves.
3. I think I could prove their ſin as effectually as you can: But muſt we ſeparate from all ſinners? or from all that ſin in their entrance into the Miniſtry? And why not as well from all other ſins of equal greatneſs? Do you warn all others not to hear your ſelf? Or do you yet take your ſelf to be no ſinner? or no great ſinner? What if the Presbyterians think the Independents way of entrance to be undue? And the Independents think ſo of the Presbyterians? And both of the Anabaptiſts? and the Anabaptiſts of them both, &c. Muſt they all therefore warm all men not to hear each other? Mr. Nye thought not ſo, when he wrote for ſuch hearing publick Miniſters. Is it fit for the Author of two Books of Calumnies and bold Untruths, beſides falſe Doctrines and other Crimes, to ſay [Their ſin is great, &c. and therefore we both forbear our ſelves, and warn all others not to hear them?]
4. Moſt that I ſpeak of did enter into the Miniſtry in the Presbyterian or Independent way heretofore, and do but continue on the terms which I diſſent from as well as you. How then can you ſay they unduely enter into the Miniſtry?
5. Did you know before you wrote this, that all ſuch as we perſwade men to hear, have by Oath renounced their Chriſtian Liberty? what Oath is it that you mean? If you mean the Oath of Supremacy or Allegiance, unleſs Popery be Chriſtian Liberty, we know of none ſuch which theſe renounce. And I know of no other Oath, except that of Canonical obedience in licitis & honeſtis. And for that, 1. I find not that the Act, or Canons do impoſe it on thoſe that come for Ordination; (nor am ſo well skil'd in the Law as to know by what Law it is done;) 2. I know that men have been ordinarily ordained without it. And to ſuch your reaſon for ſeparation is vain. 3. Mr. Bradſhaw and other old Non-conformiſts were wont to ſay that they obeyed the Dioceſanes, and ſo did promiſe them obedience, only as they are the Kings Officers, deputed for the exerciſe of that Civil or Coercive power which Magiſtrates have in Cauſes called Eccleſiaſtical. And what Liberty doth that give away?
4. But ſuppoſe that you are the wiſer man, and that thoſe that are more ignorant do miſtakingly think that Canonical obedience,6th Falſe doctrine. and the Oath (with that of Supremacy) to be their duty, and no renouncing of their Chriſtian liberty▪ Is it not falſe doctrine to conclude, that Chriſt never ſent out any that had as great a ſin as this? what none? when he ſent out Judas himſelf, who was firſt a Thief and after a Traytor? Do you think then that Chriſt ever ſent out Lyars, Railers, furious Church-dividers, falſe accuſers, &c?
5. That indeed they are nothing elſe, 34th Falſhood and ſlander.as to the whole diſcharge and exerciſe of their office, but the ſervants of men, is another ſlander and untruth. He that is a ſervant of Chriſt, and a true Paſtor of a Chriſtian Church, and a ſound Preacher of the Goſpel, and an helper of believers faith, and a lover of the peoples ſouls, and a diligent upright labourer for mens ſalvation, is ſomething elſe than a ſervant of man (even in the diſcharge of their Miniſterial office.) But ſuch are many of the Conformable Miniſters: Ergo—
Prove if you can that Dr. Preſton, Sibbes, Stoughton, Whittaker, Mr. Bolton, Whateley, Gataker, Fenner, and all the late Aſſembly ſave eight or nine at moſt (being all Conformiſts) were nothing elſe but the ſervants of men, and not at all the ſervants of Chriſt. Your Father thought otherwiſe of Mr. Bolton, and perhaps they were both as wiſe as you. Prove now that Mr. Gurnal, Mr. Trap, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Walker, Mr. Langley, and many others that I can name that are worthy men in London and round about it, are nothing elſe but the ſervants of men? And will it not be as hard to prove one to be a ſervant of Chriſt who ſerveth Satan by falſhood and malice, and calumniating Chriſts Churches and Servants, as thoſe that are thus the ſervants of men.
Sect. 42. E. B. 35th Falſhood.For the queſtion is not (as you weakly and inſignificantly word it) whether a Defective, faulty, true Church may ordinarily (or at leaſt ſometimes be joyned with] But whether a defective, faulty, impoſing Church is not to be ſeparated from.]
R. B. 1. You begin here with another untruth: I was the ſtater of the Queſtion, and did not referr it to you to ſtate it: I choſe that queſtion to diſpute which I thought fitteſt: Therefore to tell me that it not the queſtion, which is the queſtion, is untrue.
2. We have here another taſte of your inſolency: To call them Magiſterially [weak and inſignificant] words, which you deſign not to examine, nor once notifie to the Reader, wherein the Weakneſs or Inſignificancy is, nay which we ſuppoſe you in the next ſentence uſe your ſelf, expreſly in all the words ſave one, and implicitly as to that: For Defective and faulty are words that you condeſcend to uſe: And when you ſay [a Church] you muſt mean a Church that hath Truth of Eſſence▪ or elſe you ſpeak equivocally or contradiction. And may not a True Church be faulty and Defective? where then is the inſignificancy of theſe words?
3. And as to the Predicate, Is there a difference between the Queſtions, whether ſuch a Church may be joyned with? and whether it muſt be ſeparated from? If there be, I will put the queſtion as hath leaſt ambiguity. I mean [ſuch ſeparation, as conſiſteth, 1. In holding that ſuch a Church may not be joyned with. 2. And as conſiſteth in a privative not-joyning, or refuſing Communion as unlawful.] If you mean any thing elſe, you talk not to me, and to my queſtion.
4. But is all the ſtreſs of ſeparation laid upon the word [Impoſing?] I undertook to prove that the Pariſh Miniſters that I ſpeak of, do not Impoſe upon the people; unleſs officiating be impoſing: As Separatiſts themſelves impoſe their own Words of Prayer, upon the people that are to joyn with them; It being the Miniſters office to word his Prayers and praiſes, he impoſeth them on the people: And all other circumſtances in which the Paſtor doth and muſt guide the flock (as what Chapter ſhall be read, what Pſalm, Meeter, Tune, Time, &c.) I think the Separatiſts impoſe. And I know not that the Miniſter whom I hear doth impoſe any more on me: Therefore by your own rule▪ I am not bound to ſeparate from this Pariſh Church, becauſe it is no Impoſing Church. It is Impoſed on, but it doth not Impoſe that I know of.