A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter
An ANSWER to the falſe ACCUSATIONS and REASONINGS of the Dr.'s SECOND PART.
HEre the Dr. begins with the deſcription of their principles whom he accuſeth (I am one of them:) And the firſt ſort are thoſe [that hold partial and occaſional Communion with our Churches to be lawful, but not total and conſtant,] viz. [at ſome times to be preſent, and in ſome part of our worſhip, and on particular occaſion to partake of ſome acts of Communion with us; but they apprehend greater purity and edification in ſeparate Congregations, and when they are to chooſe they think themſelves bound to chooſe theſe, though at certain ſeaſons they may think it lawful to ſubmit to occaſional Communion with our Church.] The ſecond ſort are ``Such as hold any Communion with our Church unlawful: And he pretends to proceed with all poſſible clearneſs.]
Anſw. I am ſorry if more clearneſs and truth is become impoſſible to him. He taketh not me to be one of the ſecond ſort, and therefore deſcribeth me as of the firſt: Its no preſumption to ſay that I know my own mind and practice better than he doth, though he would ſeem to know the old Nonconformiſts minds better than they did themſelves.
Sect. 2. The matter of fact muſt firſt be notified: 1. I ever diſtinguiſhed the National, Dioceſan, Parochial, and Segregate Churches: And the National as ſuppoſed organized, or an Eccleſiaſtically political Society, from the National as a Chriſtian Kingdom, and as an agreeing Aſſociation of Churches, without any Governor of the whole (Single or Ariſtocratical.) And I diſtinguiſhed Dioceſans that are as Arch-Biſhops over lower Biſhops, and thoſe that are like ours, infimae ſpeciei: and I diſtinguiſhed Pariſh Churches that have true Paſtors, from thoſe that have none but uncapable men, through inſufficiency, hereſie, malignity, or as uſurpers are not truly called.
2. Accordingly I concluded, 1. That the Pariſh Churches in England that have true Paſtors, are true political governed Churches. 2. That though ſome would make them none, by denying to the Paſtors an eſſential part of their office, and make the Biſhop the ſole Paſtor, and the reſt but his Curates, and the Pariſhes no Churches as having no Biſhop, but to be only as Chappels, part of the loweſt governed Church (Dioceſan) and ſo give up the cauſe to the Browniſts called Separatiſts; yet truly ſuch Pariſhes are true political Churches, becauſe the ordainer being but the inveſting Miniſter, the office is not eſſentiated as he willeth or ſaith, but as God the Inſtituter willeth and ſaith. As the power of the Huſband over the Wife is not what pleaſe the Prieſt that marryeth them, but what pleaſeth God who giveth it by his Law; and as the Lord Mayor's power is not what pleaſe the Recorder, or he that giveth him his Oath or Inſignia, but what the Kings Charter giveth; and the Kings power is not what he will that Crowneth him and giveth him his Oath, but what he hath right to by the conſtitution of the Kingdom; ſo that the truth of the Pariſh Churches is ſoundly maintained by the Nonconformiſts, and overthrown by many of the Dioceſans: But if the Pariſh Miniſter himſelf conſent not to the eſſentials of his own office, his Miniſtry may be valid to others while he is in the place, but he is, himſelf, no true Paſtor.
3. All Pariſhes are no true governed Churches, whoſe Miniſters want any thing eſſential to a Paſtor, nor muſt be owned as ſuch if known.
4. But for the peoples ſake they are true Churches, ſecundum quid, or equivocally as a company of Chriſtians may be ſo called that have no Paſtor, and as ſuch may be ſo far communicated with.
5. I never ſpake againſt a Dioceſan or Arch-Biſhop, that hath Pariſh Churches, and true Paſtors or Biſhops under him, and taketh on him no more than the Apoſtles, did, excepting their work, properly Apoſtolical, viz. by the Word and not the Sword, to overſee and inſtruct inferior Paſtors.
6. When the Dioceſans put down all lower Churches and true Paſtors, I own not that doing, nor them in that form; but I ſeparate from them no further than they do from Chriſt.
7. When they are but as good Arch-Biſhops taking care of many Churches, whether their Dioceſs ſhall be called a Church as ſuch, is but lis de nomine. I find not that any Apoſtle as ſuch, was the conſtitutive Head of a Dioceſan or Provincial Church, or made any ſuch, above particular Churches: Nor do I find in the New Teſtament any political Church form, but the Univerſal headed by Chriſt, and particular ones governed by Paſtors. The General is the conſtitutive Head of his Army, and the Colonel of his Regiment, and the Captain of his Troop, as diſtinct ſubordinate Bodies; but the Major General, General of the Ordnance, Quartermaſter General, &c. may be only under▪Officers to the whole, and the nobleſt integral parts, but as ſuch no conſtitutive Head of any Body of Men whatever: So that General Paſtors prove no ſuperior proper Church. But becauſe it was lawful in prudence for the Apoſtles to have taken ſeveral Provinces, limited ſeverally to each, ſo may men now; and if any call ſuch Churches, I ſtrive not, ſo the matter be agreed on.
8. I ever owned a Chriſtian Kingdom, and the agreeing Aſſociation of as many Churches as can for mutual help and concord, and the King to be their Governor by the Sword: And if any will call a Kingdom a Church, or an Aſſociation that hath no conſtitutive Government, a Church; as if he called a Diet or Aſſembly of many Kings or Princes, a Kingdom or Republick, let him enjoy his Equivocation, ſo we underſtand each other.
9. According to theſe Principles I own my ſelf a Member of the univerſal Church, of the Church of England, and of the Pariſh or particular Church where for the time I am called to be; that is, as they are. But I think I may remove from Pariſh to Pariſh as I have cauſe, as a dweller or a lodger may; and I take not all the Pariſh to be the Church, and take Pariſh bounds to be no Divine Inſtitution, but a humane mutable point of order, convenient when by accident it croſſeth not the end, nor doth more harm than good.
10. I think if any Nobleman in London confine his ordinary communion to a juſt aſſembly in his happel, or any that have a Miniſter utterly unſuitable to their needs, do uſually hold communion in the next Pariſh Church for better, he is thereby neither Separatiſt nor Sinner.
11. According to all this, when I was ſilenced I ordinarily heard Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Tillotſon; and communicated in ſeveral places as I had beſt opportunity; and quickly going to Acton, I there conſtantly morning and evening joyned at Common prayer and Sermon, communicating in the Sacrament where I had beſt opportunity, (being loth for the Parſon and Curates ſ…ke, to tell you why it was not there,) once with Dr. Horton and often with Nonconformiſts. The Plague driving me to Hambden, I conſtantly there joyned in all the publick Worſhip and Sacrament: Returning to Acton, I did as before, and ſometime repeated Dean Rieve's Sermon, till he got me ſent to Gaol for teaching ſome willing ignorant people between the Church meetings in my houſe: Thence going to Totteridge, I many years conſtantly twice a day joyned in the publick worſhip, and took the Sacrament when adminiſtred as Mr. Parre will teſtifie. Thence removing to London, and licenſed by the King to preach, I forbare ſome time, and after choſe only the Market houſe at St. James's, openly declaring that we met not as ſeparating from the publick Churches, but for the need of multitudes that went to no Church for want of room. Since then I have many years joyned in all the publick worſhip, Word, Prayer, and Sacraments, with the Pariſh Church, when able, ſince that I alſo ſometime joyn with Nonconformiſts, and preach my ſelf Afternoons, and on Thurſdays in the Nonconformiſts Chappels, being not allowed to do it otherwiſe. In the Country in Summer, I have far off got into ſome Pariſh Churches for a day, and tryed neer London, but could not have conſent, though I have Biſhop Sheldon's Licenſe for that Dioceſs, I think not yet invalidated. This is the matter of fact.
Now Reader, Qu. 1. Doth the tenth part of thoſe counted of this Pariſh Church, hear and communicate ſo oft as I do.
Q. 2. If not, what makes them and not me to be of that Church?
Q. 3. What is the conſtancy that this Dr. maketh neceſſary to a member?
Q. 4. What are the parts of their worſhip which he ſaith I joyn not in? Hath he named any?
Q. 5. Is this only occaſional joyning?
Sect. 3. I do maintain that 1. When, conſideratis conſiderandis, we may chooſe the pureſt Churches and moſt edifying Miniſtry, it is a duty ſo to do. And one of his anſwers (the Rector, &c.) hath in the Epiſtle cited his own words, not out of the retracted Irenicon, but his late Book againſt Popery, expreſly threatning us with damnation if we do not. To which I find no excuſe made by him, yea the Papiſt adverſary grants the ſame.
2. I do maintain againſt thoſe that ſeparate from all Churches which they dare not be ſtated members of, that its lawful to communicate occaſionally, where we may not do it ſtatedly: But is this to deny all ſave occaſional communion with all their Churches?
3. I often ſay that there is ſo great difference of Pariſh Miniſters, and of Perſons caſes and opportunities, and Relations, (as Wives, Children, Servants, under Parents, &c. of divers commands, &c.) that to be conſtant Communicants in their Pariſh Church, is to ſome a duty, to ſome a ſin, and ſo is occaſional communion.
Sect. 4. As to the ſecond ſort, that hold all communion with them unlawful. 1. I leave them to plead their own cauſe, and I meddle only with my own part. 2. But I muſt ſay that if they miſtake, thoſe that wilfully give them the occaſion are unfit reprovers of them: And if men for worldly ends or by error, will corrupt and defile a Church to the utmoſt that is conſiſtent with lawful Communion (or neer it) they may make the queſtion whether their Communion be lawful, too hard for underſtandings. Every one cannot tell whether one in a ſwoon be alive or dead, and ſome may bury him too haſtily.
Stretch not my ſimilitude beyond my meaning: If a Gentleman of the game ſhould by wilful ſin, get the Lues Vener…, and the caſe be diſputed whether his wife may ſeparate from him, or if he beat her once a week; if ſhe will not daily eat that which makes her grievous ſick, and he doth it to exerciſe his Authority, another may better plead againſt her departure than he: If it be a fault in her ſo to ſave her ſelf, what is it in him to deſtroy or abuſe her?
If we be forbidden to take poyſon, and one will cauſeleſly command us to take a doubtful thing, as Nightſhade, Hemlock, A…ripigmentum, &c. and then condemn us as diſobedient for refuſing, he is the unfitteſt perſon to condemn us. If it be lawful to avoid a houſe that hath the Plague, a man is excuſable that miſtakes the ſpotted Fever for it.
Were your Congregations but full of perſons that had the ſcabs of the ſmall Pox not dryed away, and one went to a ſounder Congregation for fear of infection, not at all condemning you, he might be born with. If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign, when abundance of Papiſt Prieſts ſtaid in the Churches for their Benefices, a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformiſts, I could not blame him; though he had not been ſure that they were not changed.
And I ſtill ſay that if ſuch erre by too much care to avoid ſin and ſave their ſouls, 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occaſion. 2. And in ſuch as you to ſay, that therefore they muſt be ſo far forſaken, as that none may preach to them. If I may preach to no erring people, 1. I muſt preach to none. 2. Or be no Phyſician to any that are ſick.
And I muſt ſay, that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church, and give them the Sacrament; I cannot ſay that no other had ſuch, unleſs I had heard them all ſpeak for themſelves: yea I ſee ſuch notorious need in many places, that I dare not blame them.
Sect. 5. And now Reader, Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly ſtated the caſe between him and me; and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a falſe-ſtated caſe.
Theſe are the queſtions which, as my accuſer, (in his Book) he ſhould have handled, had truth been his deſign. 1. Whether for one that holdeth ſo much Communion with their Churches as I have done, and here deſcribe, it be ſinful ſeparation to Preach in and Communicate with the Aſſemblies of Nonconformiſts, or mixt ones, as I have done? 2. Whether to deny this to be ſinful Separation (or Separation as commonly taken for Schiſm) be diſingenious▪ and worſe than theirs that openly renounce their Communion.
Sect. 6. Three things he ſaith, p. 94. we cannot deny, 1. That there is no reaſon of Separation becauſe of th… Doctrine of their Church.
Anſw. 1. We diſtinguiſh of Separation: There is no reaſon to ſeparate from you as no Church, or further than we do; there is reaſon to deny our conſent, 1. To your foreſaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted ſalvation, not excepting thoſe of Atheiſts and Infidels. 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impoſitions, viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform ſome corruptions in Church-Government, yea or to repent of his ſin and oppoſe Popery, Prophaneneſs, and Schiſm; there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it. Theſe and ſuch other Doctrines we ſeparate from, ſo far as to reject them.
Sect. 7. His ſecond ſuppoſed Conceſſion is, [That there is no other reaſon of Separation becauſe of the terms of our Communion, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation.
Anſw. 1. There are in my judgment no common reaſons for going further from you than we do, nor to juſtifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation. But there are many and great reaſons to juſtifie our meaſure of diſſent and miniſtration; and to ſay that [we grant there are no more reaſons now than were then,] is too bold an untruth. There is more reaſon, 1. From the quality of the things impoſed. 2. From the deſigns and drift of the Impoſition. 3. From the effects. 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we muſt communicate with. 5. From the things which give us a fuller cauſe for our Preaching and Aſſemblies. viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it. 2. The Plague. 3. The burning of the Churches. 4. The Kings Licenſe and Clemency. 5. The number and quality of them that ſeek our helps. Of theſe briefly in order.
1. As to the things impoſed now which were not then.
1. The Veſtry Act was not then made, by which ſo conſiderable a part of your Pariſh Churches as the Veſtries, are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church, from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant: So that all Reformation of Church Government as ſo ſworn, was thus renounced by them who in a ſort repreſent the Pariſh Church.
2. The Act of Uniformity had not then impoſed the ſame declarative Renunciation of all ſuch obligation on all the Miniſters and Schoolmaſters in England, as it now doth.
3. The Corporation Act was not then in being, which conſtituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations, of ſuch only as declare, [that there is no obligation from the ſaid Oath at all,] not excepting ſo much as the ſworn duties of oppoſing Popery, Prophaneneſs, and Schiſm, to repent of ſin and amend our lives. And if ſwearing and vowing againſt Schiſm, no whit bind men (if the Oath were but unlawfully impoſed, why ſhould the Dr. make ſo great a matter of it, and think that his reaſonings ſhould make men afraid of Gods ſervice, if he will but call it Schiſm.
4. None of theſe Acts then required men to profeſs and ſubſcribe, that there is from that Vow or Oath no ſuch Obligation on any other perſon; and ſo to become Vouchers for the Souls and Conſciences of many hundred thouſands whom we never ſaw; even thoſe Parliament men that were not forced to it, but impoſed it on others, when we know not in what ſenſe they took it.
5. The Re-ordination of Miniſters ordained by Presbyteries was not then required, and made a neceſſary condition of their Miniſtration and Church Relation, (even by them that confeſs Re-ordination unlawful, and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the firſt.)
6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made, which requireth all Miniſters publickly to declare their Aſſent and Conſent to all things contained in, and preſcribed by the Liturgy, Book of Ordination, (though part of this was in a Canon.)
7. The falſe Rule for finding Eaſter-day was not then to be aſſented and conſented to, as a condition of the Miniſtry.
8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith, [of the undoubted certainty by Gods word, that baptized dying Infants are ſaved,] (without any exception of the children of Atheiſts, &c.) For the old words at Confirmation (as many Drs. of the Church have ſhewed) only meant that nothing elſe was neceſſary on the Churches part, that is, not Confirmation.
9. The word [Paſtor] as applyed to Pariſh Miniſters diſtinct from Curates, was not then blotted out of moſt places in the Liturgy; nor the twentieth of Acts, as applied to Presbyters, left out, (Take heed to your ſelves and the Flock, &c.) in plain deſign to alter the Office and Pariſh Churches.
10. The Oxford Oath was not then impoſed, to baniſh Miniſters above five miles from all Cities, and Corporations, and Places, where they had of late years preached; ſo that their old Flock or Friends (yea, Wives and Children that could not follow them) might not ſo much as ſee or hear ſuch Miniſters in their Families, or familiar converſe that would have come to the publick Churches: And all Nonconformiſt Miniſters that took not the Oath, were thereby forbidden to come to the Pariſh Churches in all Cities, Corporations, or Places aforeſaid, though their example might have drawn many (as mine did where I was.)
11. Miniſters and Corporations and Veſtries, were not then bound to ſwear or ſubſcribe, that it is unlawful on any pretence whatſoever to reſiſt any commiſſioned by the King; when the Keeper of his Seal may ſign Commiſſions to ſeize on the Kings Forts, Garriſons, Navies, and Treaſuries, to deliver up the Kingdoms to Foreigners, to deſtroy Parliaments, Cities, and Laws: I am ſure Hooker, Bilſon, or Arch-Biſhop Abbot, ſubſcribed not this, nor were ſuch Conformiſts. Are all theſe no difference of caſe?
Sect. 8. There is 2. a great difference in the drift and tendency of the Impoſitions. They were at firſt to quiet a Popiſh Nation, while the true Doctrine took poſſeſſion and rooting, and to avoid the cavils of thoſe Papiſts that charged the Reformers with forſaking all the Church: But what they have been uſed for theſe laſt forty or fifty years, I leave the Reader to judge.
1. By the Complaints of all the Parliaments, ſince then, ſave one.
2. By the Hiſtory of Arch-Biſhop Laud's Tryal.
3. By Dr. Heylin's Hiſtory of his Life.
4. By the writings of Divines, ſuch as Mr. Thorndike, Dr. Parker, Dr. Pierce, Arch-Biſhop Bromhall, and many more ſuch; and by the Papiſts hiſtorical collection out of ſuch.
See Dr. Heylin's deſcription of the Reconciling Plot, Anno 1639.
Arch Biſhop Bromhal ſaith, Vindicat. p. 19. &c. [Whereas Mr. Baxter doth accuſe Grotius as a Papiſt, I think he doth him wrong, nay I am confident he doth him wrong.—And I have read all that he alledgeth to prove it, but without any conviction or alteration in my judgment.—I will endeavour to give ſome further light what was the Religion of Grotius: He was in affection a friend, and in deſire a true Son of the Church aThe new Church ſince Biſhop Laud's change.of England: And on his Deathbed recommended that Church, as it was legally eſtabliſhed to his Wife, and ſuch other of his Family as were then about him, obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it.
The ſaid Biſhop (though no Papiſt) ſaith, pag. 81. bNote that the Biſhops Book as againſt me, runs upon a mere fiction, p. 76. that I traduce him as a Factor for Popery, when I had not a word to that purpoſe; yea expreſly excepted him by name, though I argued againſt his too neer approach.[I know no members of the Greek Church, who give them (the Papiſts) either more or leſs than I do: (Compare this with the Council at Florence, and the Patriarch Jeremiah's Writings, and the preſent ſence of the Greek Church, and we may know his mind:) But my ground is not the authority of the Greek Church, but the authority of the Primitive Fathers, and General Councils, which are the repreſentative Body of the Univerſal Church. cNo ſuch thing, but of the Churches within the Empire then.P. 82. [To wave their laſt four hundred years determinations, is implicitly to renounce all the neceſſary cauſes of this great Schiſm. dwas there no neceſſary cauſe till after, An. 1200?And to reſt ſatisfied with their old Patriarchal power and dignity, and Primacy of Order, (which is another part of my Propoſition) is to quit the modern Papacy, name and thing.eSo then theſe Proteſtant Biſhops give the Pope Patriarchal Power, and Primacy of Order, and as much as the Greeks: But 1. They had by Councils of old no Patriarchal Power over other Kingdoms out of the Empire. 2. Obedience to the Pope as a Patriarch, is againſt the Oath of Supremacy, and on the matter little differeth our caſe from obe…ing him as Pope.
Pag. 84, 85. [That Chriſtians may joyn together in the ſame publick devotions and ſervice of Chriſt,—1. If the Biſhop of Rome were reduced from the Univerſality of Soveraign Juriſdiction, jure divino, to his principium unitatis, and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers, which was the ſence of the Councils of Conſtance and Baſil, and is deſired by many Roman Catholicks, as well as we. 2. If the Creed were reduced to what they were in the time of the four firſt General Councils, with only neceſſary explications, and thoſe made by the Authority of a General Council. 3. And ſome things whence offences have been given or taken, be put out of the Divine Offices—Whether Chriſtians ought not to live in holy Communion, and come to the ſame publick worſhip of God, free from all ſchiſmatical ſeparations.fSo that this Arch-Biſhop alſo was ſet on the pious deſign of joyning with the Papiſts on theſe terms, and may not we have leave to worſhip God on better terms?
Pag. 93. 1. That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Antioch, and after at Rome, is a truth.—2. That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apoſtles, is the unanimous voice of the Primitive Church.—3. Some Fathers and Schoolmen who were no ſworn Vaſſals to the Roman Biſhop, do affirm that this Primacy of Order is fixed to the Chair of St. Peter.
P. 97. Though the Biſhop of Rome had ſuch a Primacy of Order by Divine Right or Humane, it would not prejudice us at all, nor is worth the contending about. But, 1. It is not by Divine Right in foro exteriore. 2. Nor elſewhere (interiore) but executive according to the Canons.gThat is, 1. The Pope is not to govern us arbitrarily, but by Canons, (Which what they are is hardly known.) 2. And all will be Schiſmaticks, that ſo obey him not.
Whereas I ſaid that Proteſtants that conſent not to the Popes Patriarchal Power over us in the Weſt, will fall under the reproach of Schiſm; he ſaith, p. 104. &c. [Muſt a man quit his juſt right becauſe ſome diſlike it? Their diſlike is but ſcandal taken, but the quitting of that which is right for their ſatisfaction, ſhould be ſcandal given. h1. Thus for union with Rome, all Proteſtants must paſs for ſelf made Schiſmaticks, that cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch: And doth this tend indeed to Concord? It would open Proteſtants eyes, did I but tell you all that is in the Canons, which the Pope as our Patriarch muſt rule us by, as theſe Doctors do deſire.If they be forced to fall under the reproach of Schiſmaticks, it is by their own wilful humors, or erroneous Conſcience, other force there is none. 2. Whether is the worſe and more dangerous condition, to fall under the reproach of Schiſm, or to fall into Schiſm it ſelf? Whoſoever ſhall oppoſe the juſt power of a lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding, is a material Schiſmatick at leaſt.—P. 107. It's unſound arguing to deny a man his juſt right for fear leſt he may abuſe it, as a Patriarchal Power was the Biſhop of Rome's juſt right. They who made the Biſhop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers, not excluding the Apoſtles and Chriſtian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils: what Laws they made in this caſe we are bound to obey for Conſcience ſake, till lawfully repealed by vertue of the Law of Chriſt.i1. If this Doctrine be true, no wonder that Mr. Thorndike thought we could not juſtifie our Reformation, till we alter the Oath of Supremacy; then we are bound in conſcience to a Foreign Juriſdiction. 2. I have fully proved many great errors and ſins to be decreed by many of the Councils, by which the Pope, as Patriarch, muſt rule us all. 3. Is it any eaſier to do evil In obedience to a Patriarch than a Pope? 4. In my laſt Book againſt W. Johnſon, alias Tenet, I have fully confuted all that he ſaith of the univerſality of Councils, and the Patriarchs power over the Abaſſines, and others without the Empire, and ſhewed they were then all but in one Empire, as the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury is in England.
Much more he hath to this purpoſe, and p. 112. for uniting the Church Catholick on humane terms, and p. 117. againſt the peoples liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture; and after at large that concord muſt be on humane terms, p. 122. [Grotius judgment was, and mine is moderate,] but had not this man been ſo owned by many now, I had not cited ſo much of his. And for Grotius, I have over and over cited his own words, and ſhall not now repeat them: And was this the drift of Conformity of old?
3. Sect. 9. Another difference is in the effects; for with us, things not univerſally or abſolutely determined by God, are to be uſed or refuſed as they do more good or hurt. 1. Then open Preaching and gathering Aſſemblies by Nonconformiſts, would have greatly offended the Prince; but our King at Breda, and in his three firſt Declarations, and by his Licenſes, and connivence, ſhewed ſuch wiſdom and clemency, as intimated leſs diſpleaſure at our liberty. 2. It would have deprived moſt of the Nonconformiſts of their hopes of publick liberty in the Pariſh Churches, which moſt of them enjoyed; but we had neither poſſeſſion nor expectation of ſuch a thing. 3. It would have hindred and hazarded the progreſs of the Reformation, but our preaching hath done more to ſtop the progreſs of the Syncretiſm, or of Popery: Others know this whatever you frivolouſly ſay againſt it. 4. Few of the moſt ignorant that needed them would then have left the Pariſh Churches, to hear Nonconformiſts in private; but now many will come to us that cannot get in to the Pariſh Churches: Other different effects may be named.
Sect. 10. 4. And though I accuſe you not, you that unjuſtly ſaid before that I made you ſeem a company of perjured Villains, ſeems to think your ſelf that the fore alledged cauſes make many of the people think little better of ſome; and a Church thought to conſiſt of ſuch Paſtors and Veſtries, &c. (eſſential parts) differ from thoſe that do not. 2. And the multitude of Atheiſts and filthy livers, and the thouſands of Noncommunicants who are ſtill taken for real members of your Churches, have now ſtood out againſt ſo long means and patience, that the reaſons of longer waiting for Reformation, much differs from theirs in the beginning. 3. The Canon at firſt did not ipſo facto, excommunicate all that do but profeſs themſelves Nonconformiſts, as ſince it did. 4. The Biſhops and their Canoneers had not then caſt out 2000, nor neer ſo many Preachers as now, and ſo did not ſo much tempt the people to flee from them as perſecutors, thorns, thiſtles, or wolves. 5. When one Biſhop caſt any out, ſome other uſually would endure them, but now it was not ſo. 6. The people ſaw daily, that you bore with thoſe as no Schiſmaticks, that never communicated nor uſed to hear you, even the greater half of many Pariſhes, and took them for Church members as is ſaid; and therefore they had reaſon to hope that they that communicated ſomewhere with Proteſtants, eſpecially that communicated alſo with your own Churches, were as good Members, and by good Paſtors, would be as well endured.
Sect. 11. 5. Laſtly, The forenamed cauſes of our preaching much differ. 1. We ſaw the Kingdom (though under uſurpers) engaged by Vow, Practice, and about ſixteen years poſſeſſion and cuſtom, to another way; and who could expect that a Law ſhould preſently change them all, and aſſure them of abſolution. 2. They that conformed were the more averſe, to ſee about ſix thouſand Miniſters that had gone the other way, ſo ſuddenly change; as to declare aſſent and conſent to a Book which they never ſaw. 3. The caſe of the Plague, the burning of the Churches, the Kings Licenſes, &c. I named before, which verily made a great difference. 4. And the numbers that call to us for help makes a great difference, when then they that needed them moſt, did not deſire it. Theſe are ſome differences.
Sect. 12. p. 95. He ſaith, There is no reaſon of ſeparation becauſe of the doctrine of our Church.] Anſw. But now you have corrupted it, in the Article of Infants undoubted ſalvation before deſcribed, (and before by the doctrines about Prelacy, Godfathers power and duty, Impoſitions, &c. implyed in your practical Canons) there is great cauſe of Nonconformity.
P. 96. Repeateth that great miſtake, that [there are no alterations, in our own judgment, which make the terms of Communion harder than before.] Anſw. What hope then of being underſtood? how far is this from truth? The terms are ſar harder to Miniſters? and to the people they are eaſier in ſome things (as amending ſome tranſlations, &c.) but it is not to them a ſmall matter to make ſuch a change of their Paſtors, as in too many Pariſhes is made. The Biſhop promiſed them at Kiderminſter, when he forbad me to preach, that they ſhould be no loſers by the change: They ſaid (and I had great reaſon to believe them) that the Succeſſor knew ſo little of the ſence of the Creed, and preach'd ſo rarely (four times a year) I am loth to tell you how, that they durſt not be guilty of encouraging him in undertaking the charge of Souls, nor durſt take him for their Paſtor: And the great increaſe of buildings in London, ſhuts thouſands now out of ſuch Pariſh Churches, who could have got in heretofore; and ſome more differences are before implyed. p. 97. As other Churches own your Churches, ſo do we, though not your impoſed ſins.
Sect. 13. p. I was in hope to have met with ſome anſwer to my importunate Queſtion, [What would you have the many ſcore thouſands do, that cannot come within your Churches to hear?] But no importunity will prevail for ſo ſmall a matter with inexorable men. But he ſaith, 1. that [this is but a pretence.] 2. And that [no man denyeth that more places are deſirable, &c.] Anſ. 1. It is me that he is now accuſing! why doth he barely ſay and not prove, that it's but a pretence? I never ſet up a Meeting place, but in St. Martins Pariſh, where are ſaid to be forty thouſand more than can come within the Church: And when they would not ſuffer me to uſe it, I gladly left it to the uſe of the Pariſh Miniſter. I preach now twice a week elſewhere, but both the places are in Neighbourhoods, where many thouſands cannot hear in the Pariſh Churches. What if other men have other ſufficient reaſons (as the utter incapacity of ſome Miniſters, or the like) doth it follow that my own caſe and proſeſſed reaſon is a meer pretence? why then did I uſe no publick preaching, while I lived in ſuch Villages where the people might go to Church? and why did I conſtantly twice a day lead them thither, though ſome diſliked it? 2. The queſtion is not whether more Churches are deſirable? But where they are not, whether many thouſands muſt live like Atheiſts, without all publick teaching or Divine Worſhip, for fear of being called Schiſmaticks. Is not this plainly to chuſe damnation? If the Goſpel be needleſs, why do we wiſh the Heathens had it? Why ſubſcribe you againſt mens hopes of being ſaved in all their ſeveral Religions? If Church worſhip be needleſs, why is a Clergy to be ſo honoured, and maintained at ſo dear a rate? Aud why do you make ſuch a ſtir with Separatiſts to bring them to your Churches? Can men, not blinded by intereſt, chuſe but wonder, that ſo many thouſands in a Pariſh ſhould be taken for Church Members, and live quietly, that come not to any Church, or never communicate with any, and yet that godly perſons who hear and communicate with their old tryed Paſtors (yea with ſuch as communicate with you) ſhould be preach'd and written againſt as Schiſmaticks, and judged to that which ſome endure. Did this Dr. think that to drop in the caſe of other men, when he was at a loſs, would make good his charge againſt me, and ſuch as I: Mr. Tombes and Mr. Williams preached other doctrine; do I do ſo, and have you proved it?
But ſeeing he will needs bring the caſe to Kiderminſter, whether I would ſuffer Mr. Tombes to gather a Congregation, I muſt not balk it; but adviſe him hereafter to keep himſelf at a greater diſtance, and not to put his own followers, who are willing enough to believe him, upon utter impoſſibilities: He ſped better with them when he laid the ſcene an hundred years backward, or as far off as New England; let him know then all theſe things in confutation of his hiſtorical ſuppoſition. 1. That Kiderminſter Pariſh hath but about three thouſand or four thouſand ſouls, and the Church ſo fit (with five Galleries) that all may hear: But his Pariſh is ſaid to have twenty thouſand ſouls, of which not four thouſand can hear. 2. A conſiderable part of Kiderminſter Pariſh, called Ridnal, being at Bewdly Bridge end, and two miles from Kiderminſter, (and ſome Villages more) uſually were Mr. Tombes his hearers at Bewdley, and I never blamed them. 3. After him, they were Hearers and Communicants to his Succeſſor Mr. Oaſland, and he took the Paſtoral care of them (that deſired any;) and I was ſo far from blaming him, that I greatly thanked him, and we were far from diſagreeing. 4. Though Mr. Tombes and I differed in the doctrine of Infant Baptiſm, I gave him leave (yea and the Quakers too) in the publick Church many hours together, to ſay all that they could for their opinions in the hearing of my Auditors, and none of them ever won one of them that I heard of, (yet the Dr. ſuppoſeth ſome great danger of their peoples ſeduction, if they hear ſuch as I that never were accuſed of falſe Doctrine. 5. But he hath choſen an inſtance yet neerer our preſent caſe: Another part of Kiderminſter Pariſh is neer three miles off, at a Village called Mitton; where at the Chappel I found a Curate called Mr. Turner, infamous for drunkenneſs, fighting, living on unlawful marriage, and for groſs ignorance: (I tryed him, and perceived not that he underſtood much of the Creed,) I ſent them a worthy Preacher once a day firſt, and twice after, and declared my utter diſſent to Mr. Turner's Miniſtry; yet becauſe ſome of the Church of England would have him, and he would, againſt my will, read the Common Prayer to them once a day, I hindred them not from their choice, but they went on. 6. And the ſequeſtred Vicar in the Town (Mr. Dance) was generally taken to be as ignorant as he, ſo that when once a quarter he went into the Pulpit, his own Wife, though of the Church of England, would for ſhame go out of Church: Yet did I never forbid him to preach, and he oft read the Common Prayer at Sir Ralph Clares, and I ſuppoſe gave them the Sacrament. 7. I had opportunity then to have hindred all this if I would have uſed Magiſtrates: They were both by Proclamation to remove two miles off, but neither of them once removed ſo much as out of their houſes, nor did I deſire it; but we are by law driven five miles off. 8. Mr. Dance had forty pounds a year allowed him, and Mr. Turner never had a groat of his ancient Salary diminiſhed, when another was put in, but the other paid otherwiſe; but we ask you nothing for aſſiſting you. 9. I had never one hundred pounds to my ſelf, and therefore could maintain no more help; (two Aſſiſtants I had) but have you no more to maintain Aſſiſtants? Now judge how well your hiſtorical Inſtances ſerve your turn.
And beſides the number of Souls, very many Pariſhes are ſo wide, that diſtance forbiddeth many to come to the publick Pariſh Churches: Some Villages are five miles, ſome four, and many three miles off; and how can Families, eſpecially Women, Children, and the aged, and eſpecially in winter, go ſo far twice (or once) a day: And muſt all theſe forbear to hear, or to worſhip God, for fear of being counted Schiſmaticks?
Becauſe the Dr. appealeth to my ſelf, I ſeriouſly profeſs that when I had a Paſtoral Charge, (which was but in one place) I would have been very thankful to any one that diſſered no more than the Dr. and I do, that would have gathered a Congregation of ſuch, as for number or diſtance could not have come into the Pariſh Church; and the caſe of diſtance did occaſion the honeſt ſeparation aforeſaid, though the caſe of numbers did not: Yea when hundreds deſired Communion according to the Common Prayer, I never offered to hinder any of them from taking it where and how they would.
Sect. 14. P. 99. He ſaith [This is Mr. Baxter's own Caſe—when he is pinched with the Point of Separation, thus he declares, that his hearers are the ſame with ours; at leaſt ten or twenty for one.—If this be true, then what ſuch mighty help is this to our great Pariſhes, what colour or pretence is there from the largeneſs of them, that he ſhould preach to the very ſame men that come to our Church.—Then how come they to be lawful when few or none of thoſe many thouſands ever come.—to ſpeak ſoftly this pretence is not becoming Mr. Baxters Sincerity.
Anſ. what hope of Juſtice from ſuch Judges? Or what hope of profiting ſuch Readers by Diſpute, as cannot anſwer ſuch as this themſelves. When I began to preach at St. James's the neighbours aſſured me, that many of the hearers had been at no Church of four years; but they were Members of the Pariſh-Church, and that ſome of them got into the Church, but rarely: and ſome liked it not ſo well as to be forward ſeekers. When I was driven thence, I preached a while where Mr. Wadſworth was in Southwark: There were ſome people that had adhered to their old ejected worthy Paſtor, and ſome that I knew not. Since then I preach once on the Lords day in another mans Pulpit, as near St. James's as I could, and the ſame perſons that heard me there do (many of them) come hither, and ſome others: of all whom I know very few, but by report. On Thurſdays I preach a Lecture in another mans Pulpit to perſons of whom I know not many: but report ſaith, that ſome of them joyn not ordinarily with the Pariſh Miniſters, and ſome do, and moſt judge it lawful, and ſometime, but ſeldom practiſe it: And thoſe are of two ſorts: ſome that prefer the Nonconformiſts Miniſtry, and ſome that finding the Pariſh Churches crowded, and many preſent are out of hearing, do ſeldom go thither, though they are of the Pariſh Churches, and diſſent not from their Miniſtry or Worſhip: ſome ſay [we have no Seats and cannot ſtand:] ſome ſay [we cannot hear the Miniſter:] ſome ſay, Thouſands ſtay away that can get no room, and will go no whither elſe, and when we can go elſewhere, we will not crowd in firſt to keep them out, that ſo much need Others muſt be out if we be in. Theſe are your own Church-Members: they hear you ſometimes, but ſeldom. Others that hear you conſtantly on the Lords days, will think that a Sermon on the week days may be needful to them whatever you think or ſay againſt it. And is it inconſiſtent with Sincerity here to plead the peoples neceſſity. It's well that our Sincerity is not to ſtand or fall to your judgment. Did I ſay that my hearers are conſtant hearers in your Churches? Can you perſwade the World, while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Pariſh cannot hear you (much leſs many greater Pariſhes) that if ſome of them do but ſometimes crowd in, perhaps once in many months or weeks, by coming with the firſt, and do but dwell in the Pariſh and own you, that they have no need to hear or worſhip God publickly all the reſt of the year, and to pretend ſuch need becometh not Sincerity.
2. And as to thoſe that meet in leſſer Pariſhes, you thought not meet to take notice of my anſwer, aſſigning many Reaſons, which I will not repeat, any further than to tell you. 1. That many Churches there are unbuilt. 2. Many come from the greater Pariſhes to them: and ſome have other Reaſons.
Sect. 15. P. 102. He ſaith [Mr. Baxter hath a whole Chapter (Plea p. 141.) of Reaſons againſt the Communion of Laymen with our Church.] Anſw. You are unhappy in Hiſtory, though it be your ſtrength. There's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches, but only the Matter of Fact named, which is ſuppoſed to the Controverſie; But it being cunningly worded by you, it may be by [Reaſons againſt Communion with our Churches,] you meant but as I did (Reaſons for Nonconformity in thoſe particular Acts:) But do you not your ſelf all-along ſuppoſe and plead, that though we conform not, yet we ſhould hold Communion with you. Why call you then the Reaſons of Nonconformity, Reaſons againſt Communion.
Sect. 16. P. 103. He adds [in the ſame Books he ſaith, it is Schiſmatical in a Church to deny Baptiſm without the tranſient Sign of the Croſs, or for want of God-fathers, &c. or to deny Communion to ſuch who ſcruple kneeling. Now if the Church be Schiſmatical, then thoſe who ſeperate in theſe things are not.
Anſw. 1. Say you ſo! Then we are not only quit, but further quit than we can own our ſelves. I undertake to prove that it may be Schiſm to ſeparate from a Church that is guilty of ſome Schiſmatical Acts and Impoſitions. And it needs no proof, but the plain Hiſtory, and their Accuſations of one another; that there are few, if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of ſomewhat that is Schiſmatical, in Eaſt, VVeſt, North or South, in Africk, Aſia, Europe or America; Greeks, Muſcovites, Jacobites, Abaſſines, Neſtorians, Armenians, Georgians, Mengrelians, Circaſſians, Papiſts, Lutherans, Calviniſts, Prelaticalls, Presbyterians, Independants, Anabaptiſts, &c. And muſt we ſeparate from them all.
2. Verily Sir, denying Perſons, Chriſtendom and Church-Communion are great things. And if a Croſs and a geſture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day, be now matters ſo weighty; as for them to deny Chriſtendome and Communion, for ſhame call them Indifferent no more: one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbiſhop La…d you had been of another mind, if words are any notifying Signs of your mind. 3. Other Paſtors may be uſed, in ſuch inſtances without ſeparating from you, Sir theſe are not impoſſibilities to peaceable men. In both the places where I formerly preached, a publick Miniſter and a private lovingly joyn as aſſiſtants, one doing that part which the other cannot. And they all live in peace.
Sect. 17. I am next aſſaulted Pag. 110. I ſay [The Benefit of Chriſtian Love and Concord may make it beſt, for certain ſeaſons, to joyn even in defective Modes of Worſhip, as Chriſt did, &c. though the leaſt defective muſt be choſen when no ſuch Reaſons ſway the other way.] Reader, is not this true? Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Pariſh Churches, and from almoſt all, or require us cauſeleſly to chooſe ſins of omiſſion. Would you not take him for a ſeparatiſt that is againſt this. But he ſaith [And hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church as they are Members of it, doth bring them to this occaſional Communion with it; but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Unity by which theſe Catholick Gentlemen think themſelves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church, then of the Arm… nian or Abiſſine Churches: Only it happens that our Church is ſo much nearer.
Anſw. 1. This is not true: For 1. we take this Church to be far leſs corrupt than the Armenian or Abiſſine. 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magiſtrates, Laws and Protection, &c. 2. Is nearneſs ſuch a trifle with you. How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny. Tell us, why we ſhould be of your Pariſh Church rather than of one an hundred miles off, but for nearneſs and Cohabitation; why elſe of old had each City its own Church? 3. Is Catholick Unity become a Romantick Fancy. Is this the ſame man that wrote the Defence of Archbiſhop Laud, we are not aſhamed of the title of Catholick. 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you, is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other? 5. When prove you that I am only for occaſional Communion when I have ſo long practiſed conſtant Communion with you? Theſe are reaſons ſuitable to your cauſe.
Sect. 18. He adds [Ask him what Church he is a Member of: If he anſwer, he could have occaſional Communion with all tolerable Churches, but was a fixed Member of none, would they (if he were at Jeruſalem) take ſuch a man for a Chriſtian? What? a Chriſtian and a Member of no Church. And I much doubt whether they would admit ſuch an one to occaſional Communion, &c. Anſw. 1. Wonderful! Who would have thought that this man had been ſo much for the Principles of Separation (more than the Independants) In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys is formally in the whole Church, and given to Peter as their Repreſentative (which is not true, for it was given only to Paſtors as ſuch and not to the Laity.) And now he would make that man no Chriſtian that is no fixed Member of ſome particular Church. Let us examine whether this be true.