Whether Parish Congregations be True Christian Churches, Treatise 2

Whether Parish Congregations be True Christian Churches · Treatise 2

p. 1A Short Anſwer to the Chief Objections in a Book ENTITULED: A Theological Dialogue, &c.

§ 1.THE chief matter of this Book is already anſwered by the Holy Ghoſt, 1 Cor. 1.10. 1 Cor. 3. Rom. 16.16, 17. Eph. 4.4. to the 17. Phil. 2.1, 2, 3. 1 Theſ. 5.12, 13. John 17.22, 23, 24. And 1 Cor. 12. And Acts 20.30.

The Spirit and Stile of it is anſwered in the third Chapter of James throughout.

I have nothing then to do but to anſwer the pretended argumentation of it: For the Author ſhall not draw me from my Defenſive part, to play the part of a plaintif againſt others, or to waſt my time in altercations, and ſpend many ſheets to tell the world that another man hath not skill to ſpeak ſence, and that he ſeduceth others by ambiguous words, and by confuſions.

Obj. 1. To prove us ſinful for being members of the Church of England, he ſaith Pag. 15. [Is he not by Communion in the Sacarment of Baptiſme made a member? Page 13. Is not Baptiſme (according to the Liturgy) a ſymbol of incorporation into the Church of England? Confirmation another? receiving the Lords Supper another ſymbol? &c.

Anſ. 1. Baptiſm as ſuch incorporateth no man into any particular Church, but only into the univerſal, as it did the Eunuch, Acts 8.

2. The ceremonies or circumſtantials of Baptiſm, only ſhew what men ſubmit to, rather than to be unbaptized, and not what particular Church they are of.

3. This objection would inſinuate that all that are Baptized in the publick manner in England, were thereby incorporated into an unlawful Church, which they muſt by being rebaptized, or by open renunciation diſclaim, And ſo that it is not Lawful to Communicate with any that were Baptized in the Pariſh Church, till they have repented it, or are p. 2Rebaptized, or Penitent openly. And if you muſt have all in England renounce their Baptiſm before you will take their Communion for lawful, the ſame reaſon will hold againſt your Communion with all the reſt of the Churches on Earth. And when you cut off your ſelf from all, ſaving a ſhred, are you a Member of the undivided Body of Chriſt?

4. If our Baptiſm in England doth incorporate into their Church (which you ſuppoſe is no Church, being a falſe Church), doth not Baptiſm into your Church incorporate Perſons into yours? And what then, if your Schiſm prove a Sin? What if Rebaptizing prove a Sin? What if the Covenant deſcri…ed by your Client, (to obey none but Chriſt, in matters belonging to Worſhip) prove a Sin? are they all guilty of all theſe, and ſuch others?

Obj. II. All that are liable to a Church Excommunication when they have offended, are declared Members of the Church. But all Communicants and Native Inhabitants are ſo. Therefore the Law hath excepted none. — How comes it to paſs, that the Church hath power of excommunicating any Perſon, but by vertue of Incorporation, which ſhe hath by the ſame Law? He that is not in the Church, how comes he to be caſt out? — Is he not by Communion in the Sacrament of baptiſm made a Member?

Anſ. 1. Doth their eſteeming you a Member, prove that you are ſo?

2. You know that they excommunicate Papiſts, and Atheiſts, who deride them for it and ſay, It's a ſtrange Church that will caſt us out, becauſe they cannot compel us to come in.

3. If this be a good▪argument, that all are of their Church that are excommunicate, then you are either ſafe from Excommunication; or of their Church, whether you will or not: If to make good your argument, you will aver that no Separatiſt, Independent, Presbyterian, Anabaptiſt, or Quaker, was ever▪excommunicate, or impriſoned as ſuch, you will change the Current of Intelligence, and comfort many that can believe you, and teach them how to eſcape a Priſon for the time to come. But if not, you make your ſelf and all theſe parties, incorporate Members of the Church of England, as well as me.

4. Do you think a Lay Civilian by Excommunicating, can prove or make a man a member of any Church againſt his will? Then mens Argument againſt Pariſh Churches, for want of conſent, is void. They may be made ſuch againſt their wills.

5. But tho few men d…ſl…ke the Lay-Excommunicators and Abſolvers more than I do (nor grudge more at the Biſhops and Deans who uſe them, and let them put their names to the Excommunications; eſpecially of the poor Church-Wardens for not ſwearing, &c.) yet let us not render them cauſeleſly ridiculou…. I imagine that they excommunicate not known Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, and ſuch like, out of their Church (who they know p. 3were never in it) but out of the Univerſal Church: If this be not their ſenſe, let them give it you themſelves, for I am not bound to be their Interpreter.

And yet to moderate our Cenſures of them, I'le tell you a wonder: Within this hour I received a Letter of credible Intelligence, of a Chancellor who hearing of a Conventicle not preſented by the Church-Wardens, and being told that they met to repeat the publick Sermon, ſaid, God forbid that they ſhould be hindered.

Obj. III. Page 8. A Church in a ſenſe is a Chriſtian Kingdom, that is, a Royal Nation under Chriſt their King. But there is no ſuch Goſpel-Church in your ſenſe; for there was neither Chriſtian Kingdom nor King in the Ap…ſtl…s days.

Anſ. The Inſtitution may be in the Goſpel before the exiſtence: Chriſtian Kings and Kingdoms are neither unlawful, nor needleſs, becauſe there were none then. The Prophets not only foretel that Nations ſhall come in to Chriſt and ſerve him, but that all Nations that do it not, ſhall periſh. And Chriſts Commiſſion to his Apoſtles was, To go and Diſciple all Nations (as much as in them lay) baptizing them. Nations as ſuch, were, firſt to be diſcipled, and then baptized, (Infants are part of Nations). And Matth. 23. Chriſt would have gathered Jeruſalems Children (all the Jewiſh Nation) into his Church, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings. And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church, (including Infants). And it is part of the Saints triumph, that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Chriſt. If you will read Mr. Beverlys Book, called The whole duty of Nations, it will give you full proof of this.

Where hath the Goſpel extenſively much proſpered where Princes and Rulers were not Chriſtians? The Turks give liberty of Religion. And yet the ſometime famous Greek Churches, (Corinth, Philippi, Coloſs, Epheſus, Laodicea, Philadelphia, and more than all the Weſt, are Apoſtatized, or withered to a few ignorant vicious ſcandalous Chriſtians.

Obj. IV. 8. If ſuch a confederation in lawful Circumſtantials, as well as Integrals, will make a Church, I know not why we may not have a Catholick Viſible Church organized, if this be a due acception of a Church.

Anſ. This is as much as to ſay, If the name Church may be uſed equivocally (as all words muſt) of ſeveral ſorts, then all thoſe ſorts may be the ſame. I deny it. If you diſlike the uſe of the name, you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it. But ſure the Name and the Thing are not all one, nor the Controverſies about them. 2. But we have a Catholick Viſible Church Organized, as I have oft proved againſt the Papiſts, viz. under one, Chriſt the Head, and his Miniſters as his ſubordinate Officers.

p. 4Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a mans finger, you touch the man: we have communion with an integrum perpartes; and with a Genus by the Species; and with both by individuals: Nay as every part of the Scripture, one verſe or ſentence of it makes up ſence; ſo every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived, is Liturgy; and worſhip thereafter is according to the Liturgy, tho it be but part of the w…rſhip.

Page 20. As for the falſeneſs in Integrals, it gives the denomination to the whole; for an Integral part is an eſſential part of the whole. Much more there is to the ſame purpoſe, making him guilty of all that uſeth a part.

Anſ. 1. You have the freedom of uſing words at your pleaſure, but not impoſing them on mankind; when neceſſity hath taught the World to diſtinguiſh eſſential and integral parts, you have no authority to confound their Language, by the quibble of calling Integrals eſſential cauſes of the whole: A totum per aggregationem ▪ as a heap of Sand, or a field of Graſs, is not conſtituted of a proper eſſentiating form, and ſo homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath. And if you make contiguity an eſſential cauſe, or how elſe you will, you have liberty of ſpeech: But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it cauſeth any more than Totality or Integrality, and the abſence of it is a privation of no more. And all mens Graces, Obedience, and Worſhip, are defective in point of Integrality and degree, and I hope you will not ſay that they need no favour, or pardon, or amendment.

2. All human actions have their faults: muſt we therefore do nothing, or converſe with no men? England is one Kingdom; If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers, may we therefore obey none that are faultleſs? The Laws are the Rule of National Juſtice; may a Judg, Juſtice, Officer or ſubject uſe none of them, becauſe ſome are faulty? Doth that make him guilty of all? Bonum eſt ex cauſis integris: The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty ſo far. But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part, and yet he that uſeth either, not be guilty of any of the bad part, for uſing the good. The Law and Liturgy are one thing, and the uſe is another: Its faults are no further his, than he owneth them; your Bread or Meat may be called bad, if part only be bad, and yet if you eat none but the good part, it will not hurt you.

2. But if it muſt be otherwiſe, no man may hear you, or joyn with your Churches: And do you think (as aforeſaid) that Mr. Faldo, and all his Church at Barnet, lived not in a ſinful communion very many years, that omitted at leaſt an integral part of publick worſhip, the ſinging of Gods praiſe? Chriſt with his Diſciples ſung a Hymn after the Sacrament. The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worſhip. James preſcribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth, ſuch as the Lords Day is appointed for, 1 Cor. 14.26. Every one had a Pſalm, and with them no one had a Pſalm, p. 5tho his Judgment was for it; the queſtion was, Whether he ſhould forſake them for refuſing it: I thought not, becauſe it was better that they had ſomething that was good, than nothing. But your argument would not only unchurch them, but make all ſinners that communicated with them: for omiſſions of great duties are faults, and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance: He that prayeth not at all, doth worſe than he that prayeth by a Book; and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all, doth worſe than he that readeth a Sermon; ſo that their total ſtated omiſſion and oppoſition to ſinging, by your falſe rule, denominated them no worſhippers of God, if the whole muſt be denominated from a part.

How many private Meetings in London, never ſing a Pſalm for fear of being diſcovered? Yea, how many ſeldom read a Chapter, but only preach and pray, and ſometime adminiſter the Sacrament? Muſt we needs ſay therefore that they omit all Worſhip?

VI. On ſuch occaſions I argued, That if we muſt not communicate with any Pariſh Church becauſe of the faults of the Liturgy, it will follow, that we muſt not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults; and that by this we muſt renounce Communion with all Chriſts Body on Earth: All the Armenians, Neſtorians, Eutychians, Copties, Abaſſines, Georgians, Greeks, Ruſſians, Papiſts, yea Lutherans, have a more faulty Liturgie, or manner of worſhip, than the Engliſh. Yea the Churches called Calviniſts have their Liturgies and faults: And I inſtanced in Switzerland, becauſe as God hath of late moſt preſerved their peace, ſo they are taken to be the honeſteſt ſort of Proteſtants, that in poverty ſerve God with ſoundeſt doctrine, and leaſt ſcandal of Life, but yet have no proper diſcipline but the Magiſtrates? Is it a ſin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches?

To this he plainly ſaith Page 11. It is: That is, all that confederate with them, as Churches, are guilty of their error, called Eraſtian: For ſubjection t… ſuch diſcipline is the condition of their Communion.

Anſ. Subjection is an equivocal word: If it were by profeſſion or ſubſcription of conſent it were indeed to be guilty of that error (tho not by a fau…t of the Part denominating the whole, to make their worſhip unlawful, or their Churches none) but if by ſubjection you mean but joyning in their Churches as Chriſtian and Proteſtant for doctrine and worſhip, notwithſtanding the defect which they cannot help, yea which they diſclaim, bare accuſation will not prove this a ſin; but by this we ſee how much of Chriſts Church you are for ſeparating from.

2. For my part I have oft publiſhed, That it is not the leaſt part of my charge againſt Popery, that they unchurch almoſt all the Chriſtian World ſave themſelves: But yet they are about a 4th or 3d part of profeſſed Chriſtians themſelves; and divers of them do not unchurch the Greeks; p. 6But to unchurch or forbid Communion with all that are as faulty, as the Helvetians and all other Proteſtant Churches that have Liturgies or partial faults, is that which I dare not be guilty of: I think that to ſay, That a thouſand parts to one of Chriſts Church, are none of his Churches, is next to depoſing him from his Kingdom: Much like as it would be to ſay, no part of London is the Kings but Amen Corner, nor any part of England but Barnet or Brentford.

3. And is it not one of our juſt accuſations of the Papiſts, That they ſay all the Proteſtant Churches are no true Churches, and the Miniſters no true Paſtors; and that Communion with them is unlawful? and ſhall we now juſtifie them and ſay as they (tho not on the ſame Reaſon, but for a far ſmaller difference)? Is this our running from Popery?

4. Yea, is it not the great thing that we accuſe the ſuperconformiſts for? That they make us to be no true Miniſters or Churches? and are we indeed of the ſame mind? One ſide ſaith, We are no true Miniſters for want of Bps. Ordination, &c. Another ſide ſaith, You are no true Miniſters for having Communion with the Biſhops and Churches, &c.

VII. I mentioned the Judgment and Practiſe of the old Nonconformiſts and Presbyterians, not as a rule, but as a comparative example. To this he ſaith, p. 11. You and they might as well own the Church of England in the form and constitution as it is eſtabliſhed as the Pariſh churches to be particular Goſpel churches, &c. — P. 12. To ſay you join with a quatenus, and own not the very conſtitution and ſtanding of the church, with which you join in the ſenſe the church aſſerts it, is the greateſt equivocation in practice that is: The old Nonconformiſts nor you are to be no preſidents to us in this caſe — So far as the old Nonconformiſts, and the old reforming conformiſts went forward with Reformation to bring the church out of the wilderneſs, we honour them; but when they turn back again, and entice the people ſo to do, we are afraid to tempt God in that manner — P. 14. Thoſe …ld Nonconformiſts that did ſo, are no preſidents to …; If they halted and were lame, muſt we be ſo? ſuch communicants are not acceptable to any Church, and I know what Church would never admit them, were it not to puniſh and expoſe them and their profeſſion, as ridiculous and inconſiſtent with its ſelf: And as for FRENCH and DUTCH, what are they to us, &c.—P. 16▪ He calls Mr. Fenns joining in the Liturgy with exception of ſome part [The ſul…en practice of a half-paced doting Nonc…nformiſt.

Anſ. Firſt to the Cauſe, and ſecondly to the Perſons.

1. To call any practice, Equivocation, or by any ill name▪ is no proof that it is ſo; nor is here a word of true proof given us: I ask the Conſiderate; Is it in the power of a Law-maker, to make all Worſhip and Duty to God unlawful by commanding to do it for an unlawful end, or upon falſe principles? What if a Law ſaid, All people ſhall worſhip God, not p. 7becauſe the Scripture commandeth it, but becauſe the State commands it? Would this make it unlawful to worſhip God? I would diſown the Principle, and go on.

What if the Law ſhould ſay, The Paſtoral Office is not of Divine Right, but humane, muſt the office therefore be renounced? And why can ſuch a Law any more bind me to judg of Church-conſtitutions by the Lawmakers words, rather than by Gods Word?

Suppoſe that the Anabaptiſts ſay, That rebaptizing is the true way of Church-gathering: Is it a ſin to communicate with them, if they will receive me when I profeſs the contrary.

I am againſt the Covenant which you defend, as making an Independent Church: Is it therefore a ſin to communicate with them, becauſe it is not as conſtituted by that Covenant?

What do Parties more differ in of late, than Forms, Orders, Modes and Circumſtances of Church Government; and if they be of many contrary minds, were it twenty, there can be but one of them in the right: And is it unlawful to join with all the reſt? Muſt we needs be ſure which of theſe is in the right?

Almoſt all the Churches that I hear of in the world, have their agreed profeſſions publiſhed; the Proteſtants are gathered in the Corpus confeſſionum; the Engliſh Church Principles and Orders are expreſſed in the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, Ordination, the 39 Articles, the Homilies, the Apology, &c. Muſt every one ſtay from their Churches, till he hath read and underſtood all theſe Books, and be ſure that there is no fault or error in them? What if it be poor men or women that cannot buy all theſe books? and what if they cannot read? whom ſhall they get to read them all? and how ſhall they have time to ſtudy them, or capacity to underſtand them, when we can hardly get them to learn a Catechiſm and anderſtand it?

You will ſay, That is their crime that make all theſe Confeſſions and Books: They will anſwer, but that's none of our fault: We made them not, and yet muſt we not communicate with any Church that maketh ſuch? The old Separatiſts, called Browniſts, publiſhed their confeſſion, and therein owned many Pariſh Churches in England, and Communion with them: I recited their words in my Reaſons, &c. But you are gone beyond them: The New▪ England churches printed their confeſſion, and all there agreed not to it: The Engliſh Independents publiſhed their Principles and Confeſſions: And the Presbyterians and they agreed in the Weſtminſter Synods confeſſion, catechiſm and Directory: Is every poor Man and Woman bound to ſtay from all their p. 8churches, (when for 14 years they had no other) till they underſtand all theſe, and know that they are faultleſs? Or if there be any fault in any one of all theſe books, is every one guilty of them that cometh to the churches?

The Anabaptiſts publiſhed their confeſſion: The Dutch have theirs: Many churches agreed with them in the Synod of Dort. The French have theirs; the Saxons, the Helvetians, Geneva, the Bohemians, the Proteſtants in general had the Auguſtane, and many more have theirs. Reader, See with whom theſe Writers will hold communion, who make it unlawful to join with any church that have any fault in their conſtitutions, or agreed Doctrines or Orders.

Let us riſe upward, till we come to the Apoſtles days: None of all theſe churches named, dare profeſs all their agreements and confeſſion to be without fault, that ever I heard of, except the Engliſh, who bind Miniſters to aſſent and conſent to all things commanded and preſcribed in three Books and excommunicate thoſe that ſay their Books or Ceremonies and Government hath any thing contrary to the Word of God; but no Lay-man is bound to believe them; Wickliffe, and John H…s, the Waldenſes, and the Bohemians Confeſſions, are not faultleſs: Of the Papiſt, and the S…cinians, we will make no queſtion; the forenamed churches of Greeks, Ruſſians, Armenians, Abaſſines, Neſtorians, Jacobites, &c. are, alas, paſt queſtion faulty: the general councils upward from that of Trent, Baſil, Conſtance, &c. to the ſix firſt, yea, the four firſt, which ſome equal to the four Goſpels, are far from▪ being faultleſs in the Judgment of theſe Objectors, and of my ſelf: the Arrian and other heretical councils are paſt queſtion; even that of Nice, the firſt and beſt, I ſuppoſe he and I think did not well in ſetling church-power as they did, and forbidding all kneeling on the Lords days, in Adoration, and other the like: The Donatiſts and the Novatians, called the Puritans of thoſe times, had faulty agreements; were it but for Bps. and Arch-Bps. …e will think them ſo: this Writer can name no one church on the face of the Earth Orthodox or heretical (tho Aerius called Presbyters equal with Bps.) that was not for Biſhops over Presbyters from the year 100 after Chriſt, t…ll the Reformation, that ever I could read of: Yea, conſider whether they were not in the Apoſtles days, when Jerome, who moſt depreſſeth this degree, ſaith, That there were ſuch at Alexandria choſen by the Presbyters from the days of Mark: and Mark died long before John the Apoſtle: But Epiſcopacy is not all: Not only Epiphanius but all Church Hiſtory that ſpeaketh of ſuch matters, agreeth, that (beſides the croud of latter Ceremonies) p. 9there were certain ceremonies called the cuſtomes of the Univerſal Church, which all the known Churches agreed in, (even thoſe that differ'd about Eaſter-day, and other ſuch) that is, 1. Cloathing the Baptized in white Garments. 2. Giving them milk and hony to taſt. 3. Anointing them with Oyl. 4. Not kneeling in adoration on any Lords day, or any other day between Eaſter and Whitſunday. There is no notice when theſe began, ſo ancient were they, nor of any one Church or Chriſtian that refuſed them; but they were commonly called the Traditions Apoſtolical, or cuſtomes of the Univerſal Church.

Now I agree with this Author, that theſe things were indeed a deviation from the Apoſtles practice, and ought not to have been thus uſed: But the queſtion is, whether every Chriſtian was guilty of the fault that had communion with any of theſe churches? and whether had he then lived, he ſhould have ſeparated from all the Churches on earth?

By this you ſee, that this opinion muſt needs make men ſeekers, who ſay, that the church was in the wilderneſs, and loſt all true Miniſtry, (and, ſay they, particular churches, and Scripture) after the firſt (or at moſt the ſecond) century: and ſo that for fourteen hundred years Chriſt had no viſible Kingdom on earth: And conſequently, that we have no wiſer anſwer to the Papiſt [where was your church before Luther] than to ſay that it was Inviſible; that is, that we cannot prove that there was any ſuch thing on Earth; and conſequently, that we cannot prove that Chriſt had any Kingdom on earth, and was its King; that is, whether there was any Chriſt in actual church-adminiſtration? And doth ſeparating from the whole viſible church-communion agree with the prophecies and precepts of union? Was this church like a grain of Muſtard ſeed in its growth? Was all the wonderful works of redemption wrought for no viſible ſociety after one or two hundred years, in which a few perſecuted ones were viſible? Is not this the next ſtep (and a temptation) to utter infidelity? If Chriſt have now no viſible church on earth, but the people called Browniſts or Separatiſts, doth it anſwer the Scripture deſcription of him and his church? And is it not expoſing chriſtianity to the ſcorn of infidels, ſo to ſay ? Would not almoſt all rather turn Papiſts, than believe this? And be rather of their church, than of none.

2. But let us next ſpeak of the perſons. I may ſpeak my thoughts without impoſing on you. I think that the Major vote is no rule to the Minor, nor always is in the right. If a hundred men that underſtand p. 11not Greek or Hebrew, Tranſlate a Text one way, and a good Linguiſt another way, I will more ſuſpect their judgment than his. And ſo in the like caſe. But if I hear a few odd perſons condemn the judgment of the generality that are far better acquainted with matters of the ſame nature, [as if School-boys that are but in their Accidence, ſhould oppoſe all the upper Forms in expounding Horace, or Heſiod, or Homer], which, think you, ſhould I moſt ſuſpect? — I ſay again to you, compare the writings of Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, Chami…r, Blondel, Dailee, and a bundance ſuch; and alſo Greenhams, Perkins, Dr. J…n R…ignolds, Cartwrights▪ Dods, Hilderſhams, Hieroms Ameſius's, Payne…, R…l…e…ks, and many ſuch, yea with ſuch conformiſts as Jewels, Bp. Downames, John Downames, Davenants, Bp. Halls, Arch-Bp. Uſhers, Bp. Rob. Abbots, Dr Field…, Dr. Challoners, Dr. Airys, &c. I ſay, compare theſe with the Theological writings, of Mr. Penry, Mr. Can, and all other called ſeparat…ſts or Browniſts in their times, and tell me whether theſe later did manifeſt more Holy Wiſdom in Heavenly things, more skill in all other points of Divinity, than the former: If their writings (giving Mr. Ainſworth his due honour in Hebrew and Piety) were as far below the other, as the lower forms of School-boys are beneath the higheſt, which ſhould we moſt ſuſpect to have had the greater or the leſſer light, ſpecially when the lower condemn and cut off themſelves from communion with all Chriſts known Churches on earth for thirteen hundread years. When Mr. Smith (and lately a very good man here) thought none fit to Baptize him again, but Baptized himſelf; was not that ſingularity a juſt cauſe of ſuſpicion? Yet I make not the old Nonconformiſts your rule.

VIII. I argued alſo, from the common frailties of us all, that it will be unlawful to communicate with any Church on earth, even with thoſe of the objectors mind, if we are guilty of the ſins in Doctrine, worſhip and diſcipline, of all Churches that we communicate with. I will aggravate none, nor render that odious which God accepteth: My work is to confute thoſe that do ſo. But I ſay, that 1. we have all many errors; And men uſe to put their errors into their prayers and preaching 2. Do not men uſe to deliberate more, and ſtudy what to write, than what to preach? And have men reaſon to be confident that our preaching will be more ſounder than our writing? This Author exclaims againſt me, as Popiſh, Arminian, for Juſtification by works, for merit, &c. May it not be expected that I preach as bad as I write? And is it not then a ſin to be my hearer? Can I think p. 10that he will not preach as ill as he writeth in this book? And are all ſinners therefore for hearing him? I promiſe him that if I know of any Pariſh Miniſter that will uſually preach with as much error, reflexion and gall as he here writeth, I will be none of that mans hearers, or uſual Communicants.

But to this he ſaith, P. 19. We diſtinguiſh between the rule of worſhip, and the adminiſtration and performance: — 1. It is not ſins of ordinary infirmity. 2. Nor ſins not foreknown, ſo as to prevent joining with them, but them that worſhip God by a falſe rule, &c.

Anſ. 1. This is the great ſtrength of all his Book, That we ſin by a falſe rule, but they ſin only againſt a true rule; but I think nothing is ſin indeed, but that which is againſt a true rule, even Gods word; making and uſing a falſe rule, is therefore ſin, becauſe it is againſt the true rule. Moſt hypocrites are ſuppoſed to own a true rule while they are falſe to it, and ſin againſt it. To ſin againſt knowledge, and an acknowledged rule, is an aggravation of the ſin, and ſuch ſhall be beaten with many ſtripes: Paul opens it to the Jews, Rom. 2. at large, therefore this will not excuſe our communion with ſuch.

2. This Reaſon croſſeth the buſineſs of the opponent; for whereas the greateſt reaſon againſt Communion with Pariſh Churches is the badneſs of the Communicants, and Miniſters lives; theſe are not the obeying of the Law or Canons, but diſobeying them: The Law, called the Rule, bids no man ſwear raſhly, lye, be drunk, unclean, ſlander, rail, &c. Nay it commandeth the Miniſter to deny the Sacrament to ſuch: Ignorance, unbelief, hypocriſie, are not commanded, but forbidden by that Rule: Miniſters break the rule, i… they preach error, or hereſie, or againſt Love and Peace, and promote not Godlineſs, and mens ſalvation, with all holy diligence, by Doctrine and Life; ſo that no ſins againſt this is cauſe of ſeparation, if it be only uſing a falſe rule that is, juſt cauſe.

3. But what is the falſe Rule? The word Rule maketh all this excuſe and accuſation of his a meer equivocation: In general, a rule is any thing to which we purpoſely conform our actions, that they may be right: Of this there are divers ſorts.

1. The Primary Rule is the abſolute Law of God, to which all mens actions ſhould be conformed.

2. Subord…nate humane Rules: Theſe are of divers ſorts. 1. The obliging commands of Authority. 1. Of Magiſtrates. 2. Paſtors. 3. Parents and Maſters of Families. 4. School-Maſters and Tutors p. 12of Youth, &c. 2. Contracts or Agreements of men for concord.

1. Gods Law is never a falſe rule, but an erring Expoſitor may make the words the matter of a falſe rule by putting on them a falſe ſenſe.

2. Juſt ſubordinate rules are not falſe, juſtly uſed. 1. Magiſtrates rule either by common Laws, or temporary and particular Mandates, both being obligatory to duty, and indeed but ſeveral ſorts of Laws, while they uſe but that authority which God gave them. Laws or Mandates are juſt rules.

2. Paſtors can make duty by ruling-authority for none but the Flocks committed to them: They may command what God authorizeth them to command; whether it be by word or writing, is all one: And whether you will call it a Law or not, the name altereth not the caſe: Tho indeed in the general notion, all is true law, which authoritatively by command maketh a ſubjects duty. Its a true rule when the Ruler goeth not beyond his authority▪ Heb. 13.7, 17, 24. 1 Theſ. 5.12, 17, &c.

3. The ſame muſt be ſaid of Parents, Maſters, Tutors, &c.

4. Agreements or contracts are rules made for Concord by the ſelf-governing power that all men have over themſelves: and they are juſt rules when juſtly uſed.

5. Beſides all theſe, moſt make a mans own reaſon, judgment or conſcience, the immediate ſubordinate rule of his actions. Indeed it is more fitly called the diſcerner of his rule and duty, as the eye is to the body: For it maketh not duty, but diſcerneth it made: But if any will call the Underſtanding a Rule to the Will, inſtead of a Guide, we may bear with the impropriety. All this is clear truth.

Now the queſtion is, how any of theſe ſubordinate rules are juſt or falſe?

1. Two things God hath not only allowed, but commanded them all to do about Religion. 1. To command ſubjects as Gods officers to obey Gods Laws, and in juſt caſes to puniſh the breakers of them, in matters within their juriſdiction. And to do this by Laws, Mandates, Judgment and Execution. 2. To make ſubordinate Mandates or Laws for determining ſuch Circumſtances as God hath commanded them to determine, by the General Law of Governing or Ruling, and of doing all to unity concord, edification, peace, order, and decency. Theſe things Chriſtian-Magiſtrates may do Nationally. Paſtors to their Flocks, Maſters to their Families and Scholars; and p. 13equals (Paſtors and People) may make fit agreements where they are free:

And theſe rules may be called falſe or true, in ſeveral degrees.

1. It's groſs falſood and uſurpation, to ſet up an office forbidden of God, and falſe in its very nature.

2. It's next in degree falſe, for men of an office of Gods inſtitution, to command things utterly out of their calling and juriſdiction, in which they have no power from God mediately or immediately. Conſcience binds none to formal obedience (propter authoritatem imperantis) to either of theſe; tho material obedience, and non-reſiſtance, may be duties.

The lower degree, is when the office is of God, and the matter is in their power, and not only belonging ad alienum forum; But they miſdetermine it in the manner, not uſurping anothers office, but doing their own amiſs: Tho herein conſcience is not bound to obedience; gratia materiae ſub ratione indebiti modi; yet if the matter be not forbidden of God, obedience may be a duty herein, ſub ratione medii, neceſſary to ſeveral ends; that is, to concord, to honour the governor, to avoid off…nce, and to avoid greater hurt to the Church, others, or our ſelves.

But if the thing commanded be forbidden of God, no man muſt do it. But divers things commanded unlawfully in the manner, may become duties by that command, becauſe they be made thereby needful means of Unity, Peace, Honour to Rulers, &c. as aforeſaid, which elſe would have been ſin (as to meet at an inconvenient time or place, to uſe a Tranſlation, metre, &c. leſs fit.)

Now all theſe being ſubordinate rules, they bind only ſubordinately by virtue of Gods ſupreme rule, who made them rulers (and he is no ruler that can give no rule); even as corporation By Laws bind only by vertue of the Soveraigns higher Law.

And tho this Author would be the Ruler of Language ſo far, as to ſay that all ſinful Worſhip is not falſe Worſhip, they that uſe words, as greater Maſters have long ſtated the ſence, do know, that the falſeneſs is the diſconformity to Gods ſupream Rule, and that may be in all the degrees forementioned: And Rules or Worſhip are both falſe ſo far as they are diſconform to the Law of God.

And now wherein is our Rule, falſe and theirs true? 1. We own no Rule of direct immediate obedience to God, nor of any univerſal or unchangeable duty to God, but what his Law (of Nature, or ſupernatural) p. 14doth make us. We hold that no man hath power to alter Gods word, to command any thing againſt it, nor any thing which God hath appropriated to himſelf, as to make new conditions of ſalvation, new Sacraments, new Laws, as Gods, or new duties for themſelves, neceſſary to Salvation; no, nor any thing but what Gods own General Law doth command or allow them to determine, being left by him undetermined, to their Power and Rule.

We hold that if any Ruler go contrary to, and beyond thoſe Rules of God, it is their ſin, and not ours, and we openly diſown it: And ſo do our Rulers in general themſelves moſt expreſly in the Books of Articles, Ordination, Homilies, Apology, &c. Binding all Miniſters to the Scripture for the Rule of their Preaching and Living, only infallible, ſufficient in all things neceſſary to Salvation; and that if Councils, or any men err or diſagree with Scripture, they are not to be followed.

We openly renounce all falſe Rules, and Canons; but if for ſuch ſin againſt their own profeſſion of Scripture-ſufficiency, we muſt renounce Communion with all that are guilty, we ſcarce know the Church on Earth which we muſt not renounce. And the opponents in Particular.

2. For let us try now whether you have no Rule which you call Falſe, as well as falſe or ſinful practice. But I will firſt take in his fuller explication, left I miſtake him.

IX. Page 37. I roundly aſſert againſt you, That tho every Church of Chriſt hath the liberty aad priviledge to act prudentially, or make prudential determinations concerning the preſent uſe of indifferent things pro hic & nunc, yet to make any ſtanding or binding determination and Laws for themſelves or other, is altogether unlawful, as highly derogatory to the Kingly office of Chriſt, and robbing themſelves or others of their granted priviledge, and ſo a forfeiture of their Charter: And ſo all your by-ſtanding laws and ſubordinate Laws for worſhip which you talk of, are unwarrantable additions to the word of God.

Anſ. 1. This indeed is round aſſreting; but your word is no proof, and here is no better.

Contraily, 1. Thoſe whom Chriſt maketh Rulers of his Church, and commandeth to do all things, not particularly determined by him, as ſhall conduce to peace, concord, order, decency, and edification, may Rule accordingly by ſuch determinations.

p. 15But ſome ſuch there are whom Chriſt maketh Rulers of his Church &c. ergo, &c.

Maj. Prob. Matth. 24. Who then is a faithful and wiſe Servant, whom the Lord hath made ruler over his houſhold to give them meat in due ſeaſon, &c.

1 Theſ. 5.12. Know them who are among you, and are over you in the Lord, &c.

1 Cor. 4.12. Let a man ſo account of us, as of the Miniſters of Chriſt, and Stewards of the myſteries of God, &c.

Heb. 13.7, 17.24. Remember them who have the Rule over you, &c. Obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves, for they watch for your ſouls, as they that muſt give account, &c. Salute all that have the rule over you, &c.

1 Tim. 5.17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour:

1 Cor. 14.26. Let all things be done to edifying. 4. Let all things be done decently and in order. 33. God is not the author of confuſion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the Saints.

By all this, it is evident that Church Rulers there muſt be; and ſuch ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles in the ordinary parts of their office as Chriſt will be with to the end of the World, Matth. 28.20. And alſo in what their Rule conſiſteth.

Now to the queſtion of Impoſing: (I premiſe, that tho this uſurper of a Magiſtry in Language will have Impoſing taken ſtill in an ill ſenſe; I leave that to him, it is enough for me to tell him that I take it according to the prime ſignification [to put a thing on others] without reſpect to well or ill doing it.)

1. I know not whether by every Church, he intend a meer voting body of People and Paſtors by conſent, or the Paſtors alone as the Rulers of a voluntary People.

2. I know not whether he take [prudential determinations] as diſtinct from Governing Obligations, or not.

3. I know not whether by [preſent uſe] he mean it only for one preſent meeting, or for more, and for how many and how long: And [by ſtanding] how long he meaneth.

I grant to him that no man may make univerſal or unchangeable Laws, but temporal and mutable, and only for his own ſubjects. But I maintain,

1. That Paſtors may by word or writing make binding commands p. 16or determinations to their Flocks of the foreſaid modes and circumſtances of Religion and Worſhip. For 1. They are ſuch as are neceſſary in genere, and the determination to this or that ſort disjunctively neceſſary: Somebody muſt determine them (and that for more than the preſent meeting, even ſtatedly): And it belongs to the Rulers office to do it: None elſe is fit or hath any other power, than by contract.

I have oft enough inſtanced in particulars. It is not meet that every meeting the People be put to Vote where to meet next: And there is no certainty that they will agree; but ſome be for one place, and ſome for another: An ordinary capacious place is neceſſary: It is the Rulers office to appoint it. It's no ſin againſt Chriſt for him to require them to come to the ſame place, from year to year, while it is fit.

2. The ſame I ſay for a commanding determination of the Lecturedays, or times of meeting, which the Paſtor may preſcribe ſtatedly by his office, without the Peoples votes.

Or if all ſuch things were impoſed by a Major Vote on the Minor, their Vote would be a Governing Rule to the Minor part.

3. While Praying with the Hatt on, is by the cuſtom of the country a ſign of unreverence, the Paſtors (or Elders that Rule well) may command the Flocks by their authority, ordinarily, and not at the preſent only, to be uncovered at Prayer and Sacrament in the aſſembly, without wronging Chriſts Power, unleſs obeying it be wronging it.

The ſame I ſay of uſual kneeling at Prayer.

5. If the Congregation be called to confeſs their Faith, or renew their Covenant with God, the Rulers may command all that conſent, to ſignifie it by ſuch a ſign, as ſtanding, or lifting up the hand, or ſubſcribing, &c. And they are bound to obey them.

6. I have oft enough inſtanced in Tranſlations, Metres, Tunes, Utenſils, Ornaments, and many ſuch like.

Obj. The Paſtors make no Laws. Anſ. Dally not with names: Any thing is a Law which ruling authority maketh duty: If Writing it, maketh a Law, they may write it: But a verbal-Mandate is one ſpecies of a Law: And impoſeth and determineth, and obligeth to obedience; and it is ſin to diſobey, becauſe God commandeth them to obey, Heb. 13.17. And even by the 5th Commandment.

p. 17It doth as truly limit, and oblige when Paſtors command, as when Magiſtrates do it, tho they force not by the Sword.

Obj. But theſe are but natural circumſtances, and belong no more to worſhip, than to any other things.

Anſ. It's a ſad thought to me to think how many ſeem ſatisfied with ſuch an anſwer as this. All ſubſtances have their accidents, quality, time, place, &c. But yet the accident of one ſubſtance is not the accident of another; The quantity and quality of a man is not the quantity and quality of a Toad, &c. When theſe accidents are adjoyned to worſhip, they be not accidents of other things. Is Speaking no part nor accident of worſhip, becauſe ſpeaking is uſed in common things?

Kneeling is uſed in other caſes: But kneeling in prayer to expreſs reverence, is not common to other things.

Putting off the hat ſheweth Reverence to a Prince: But to be uncovered at Prayer or Sacrament is the Accident at leaſt of that Worſhip, and not of other things: Metre and Tunes belong to Ballads: But the Metre and Tune of Pſalms doth not, but is appropriate to thoſe Pſalms.

Time and Place belong to all natural actions: But the Time and Place ſeparated to Gods Worſhip is an accident only of that.

It is not the natural ſpecification of an act or circumſtance, or the generical nature that we ſpeak of; but the individual accident or circumſtance as appropriate to a religious work.

Is love to God no worſhip, becauſe love is a natural act? Is praying no act of Religion, becauſe we may pray to men? Is eating and drinking no part of the Sacrament, becauſe we uſe them as natural acts for our daily ſuſtenance? Is waſhing no part of Baptiſm, becauſe we waſh at other times: Thinking is a natural act, but holy thinking is more: Were Davids ſorts of Muſick no part or accident of Worſhip, becauſe Muſick is natural or artificial?

It magnifieth theſe acts to be applied to worſhip, and it is a commendation of Worſhip-Ordinances that they are ſuited to nature, and advance and ſanctifie it.

Now at laſt I come cloſer to my queſtion: Have you no Church Rulers among you? No Elders that rule well? Is it unlawful to communicate with you, if thoſe Elders by Mandates which are obligatory to the flock do preſcribe Days, and Hours, Temples, or publick places p. 18for ordinary Worſhip, and if they command you to uſe the new Tranſlation rather than the Geneva, publickly, or preſcribe the ſame Metre and Tunes, rather than your Congregation ſhall ſing, ſome one Pſalm, and ſome another: Or if they command them to be uncovered at Sacrament and Prayer, or to kneel at prayer? &c. If you take this power from the Paſtors, and will ſeparate from them for ſuch obliging Laws or Mandates, you do that very thing which you fiercely talk againſt; you deſtroy or reſiſt Chriſts Kingly Government by his Officers

Oh what is Man! What are the beſt of Men! What doth the Church and World ſuffer by them! The ſame men that cry up Chriſts Kingdom, call it rebellion againſt him to obey his Officers: As if we muſt depoſe or diſobey the King, unleſs we diſobey all his Judges, Juſtices and Officers.

All the obligatory deciſions that the Apoſtles made about their Love Feaſts, anointing the ſick, the Kiſs of Love, long Hair, covering or uncovering, order of prophecying, and of collections, &c. were not ſtanding Laws to us; nor done by uncommunicable power; but were temporary Laws, and local, and ſuch as their Succeſſors, when fit, may make.

If you have no ſuch Rulers in your Churches, you ſhould queſton whether your Churches have the true order of Paſtors, as well as you queſtion the Pariſh Miniſters: Do they not want ruling power, as well as theirs; ſpecially if you deny the very power, and they be but hindred in the exerciſe.

Obj. But ſome may be forced to ſay, Our Pastors do nothing, but by the peoples conſent.

Anſ. They are their Paſtors by conſent, and rule them as voluntary, and not by force: But their rule and precepts are never leſs obligatory on Conſcience by vertue of Gods command to obey them: Muſt they preſcribe none of the things forementioned, till all have voted it, or conſented? They muſt command them to conſent, and they ſin if they diſobey, tho they can force none to obey.

Object. But ſome may be driven to ſay, We allow ſuch preſcribing power to Paſtors, but not to Magiſtrates.

Anſ. 1. What Power the Kings of Judah uſed in Worſhip, David, Solomon, Aſa, Jehoſaphet, Hezekiah, Joſiah, I need not tell.

2. Chriſt came not to put down Kings, but to ſanctifie their office: p. 19All power is given him: By him Kings reign: The Kingdoms of the world are his by right: Rulers are his Miniſters for our good: They muſt puniſh evil doers, and promote well doing: He commands us to honour and obey them; They are keepers of both Tables: They may drive Miniſters to their duty, and puniſh them for mal-adminiſtration: Tho they may uſurp nothing proper to the paſtoral office, nor forbid them any ſuch thing, yet ſuch circumſtances as belong to the nation, or to many Churches, and not to this or that in peculiar, the Magiſtrates may determine: It is of great uſe, that all the approved Churches in a Nation, ſignifie their conſent in the ſame Confeſſion of Faith▪ the ſame anniverſary days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving (as is done about the Powder Plot) and the ſame Tranſlation of the Scripture, if not alſo the ſame Pſalm Books; God ſtrictly commandeth Concord, and to ſerve him with one mind and mouth, and to avoid confuſion, and diviſion, and diſcord: What reaſon can any man give why Chriſts Officers appointed to rule by the ſword, may not thus diſcharge their truſt? Shall we ſin if the Law impoſe a Tranſlation, Pſalm Book, or reverent geſture, unleſs we ſeparate? Is commanded obedience become a ſin? And yet not if a Paſtor or a ruling Majority of people injoin it, or unleſs we leave all to confuſion?

X. Here therefore I utterly renounce the opinion that ſhall hold that ſuch things being lawful when uncommanded, become unlawful when commanded by ſuch as in Miniſtry, Magiſtracy, or Families, or Schools, are Rulers: Yea, if the Ruler miſdo his work, the ſin is his; I muſt not ſeparate from every Kingdom, Church, or Family that is ill governed: Nor am I diſcharged from obedience in lawful things by the addition of ſome unlawful commands that deſtroy not acceptable Worſhip, and turn not our food to Poyſon: I tell thoſe Miniſters that publickly charge this on Nonconformiſts, that they muſt not charge any Doctrine of Seekers or Anabaptiſts, or ſuch ſeparatiſts, to be the Nonconformiſts Doctrine: I know not one meer Nonconformiſt of that mind: What we of this Age thought of Ep…ſcopacy, Liturgy, and Magiſtracy, all that would come in and own that cauſe openly with us, have told the world in our publiſhed Propoſals of 1660 and 1661: To which we refer them that would know their minds.

XI. But when I oft alledged the example of Chriſt and the Apoſtles, this Objector and Anſwerer ſaith, p. 19. We make not Chriſt and his Apoſtles Hypocrites; for we have proved, that Chriſt never joined with falſe worſhip, ſo much as with his preſence at the place of it, unleſs with this intent, to bear witn…ſs againſt it; nor did he ever adviſe his diſciples ſo to p. 20d…: As for Moſes Chair, it was then Chriſts own Inſtitution, and he had th…n no other Church or Inſtitution on earth.

Anſ. It was cautelouſly done to paſs by the inſtances of the Apoſtles that neither ſeparated, nor commanded one man to ſeparate from all the faulty Churches, Rev. 2.3. Notwithſtanding the Woman Jezab…s Doctrine, and that of the Nicolaitans, which God hated, and the evil practices; nor from the Church of Corinth, where were carnal Schiſms, Defraudings, Lawſuits before Heathens, inceſt unlamented, Sacrament diſorders, even to exceſs of drink, diſorder in Church Worſhip, &c. Nor from any other faulty Churches.

Meth…n…s th…y that are ſo ſtrict againſt any additions in Modes of Worſhip, ſhould not ſo much add or alter Scripture, or accuſe it of de…ctiveneſs, as to ſuppoſe the Apoſtles to have culpably communicated with ſuch Churches, as Co…inth, Coloſs, Epheſus, Sardis, Laodicea, Smy…na, &c. yea and with the Jews, who by falſifying the Rules, called it unlawful to eat with the Gentiles, or to eat what Moſes Law fo…bad, and not to keep their days: Pauls accompliſhing of his Vow in the T…mple, and becoming a Jew to the Jews, was fully contrary to the opponents D…ctrine.

And as to Chriſts practice; we ſaid before you, that he conformed not to any evil, nor ſhould you But did he not ſend the Lepers to a falſe ill-called corrupt ſort of Prieſts, to do by, and with them, what the Law required? Did he not ord…narily joyn in the Synagogues in their worſh…p? Could he have leave conſtantly to teach there, if he had there uſed to cry down their ordinary worſhip? Had the Ceremonious Phariſees no ill forms nor ceremonies in their Worſhip? Again, I ſay, Their long Prayers which were the Cloak of their oppreſſion, were either …xt…mporate, or forms of Liturgy. If extemporate, then the worſt of Hypocrites may conſtantly uſe long extemporate Prayers, and it had been no injury to the Spirit in them, to have perſwaded them to uſe Chriſts form inſtead of them.

If they were Liturgies▪ then Chriſt did not ſeparate from ſuch; no nor reprove them at all, when he reproveth the hypocritical abuſe of them: Yea, ſeemeth to commend them, while he nameth them, as a Cloak to cover evil, which nothing is fit for, that is not good.

Obj. He had no oth…r Church? Anſ 1. Then moſt in England m…y go to the Pariſh Churches, where they have no other Church to go to. 2. But Chriſt had twelve Apoſtles, and 70, or 72 other Teachers, and many more Diſciples; Were theſe no Church, nor matter for a Church?

p. 21XII. Obj. Page 4. God hath not left it in our power to communicate with any ſociety, when they make that the condition of my Communion, which I am convinced of to be ſin to me, that I queſtion whether it be lawful or no, &c.

Anſ. How oft have I anſwered this, without any reply? 1. If they make your conſent to any ſin, the condition of your Communion, you muſt avoid it: But if they put no ſin on you, to be preſent when they ſin, is a condition to all Church Communion, and to your own praying, who ſin in all your ſelf; you before excepted ſins of ordinary infirmity, as not warranting ſeparation: And when did you ever prove that the compoſing and impoſing of the Liturgy, (much more the Obedient uſe of the Lords-day part) is not a ſin of infirmity, as much as ſlandering it and the Churches, and writing ſuch Books as yours? Accuſing is not proving.

2. If your taking it for ſin be true, you muſt forbear it: If you miſtake it for ſin, which is duty, (per ſe or per accidens) you ſin againſt God, and truth, by your miſtake, and by your Omiſſion. God bindeth you to alter your Judgment; and ſo he doth, if you take an indifferent thing for ſin, tho here it is ſafeſt to forbear. An erring Conſcience is no Lawmaker (leſs then a Magiſtrate), but a miſconceiver, and doth, ligare non obligare.

XIII. Obj. But none of the things are indeed Worſhip, which you ſay men may command?

Anſ. That man ſhall be none of my guide, that makes queſtions of bare names to ſeem to the people, as if they were about the matter named. [They are ſuch accidents of the Worſhip, which God himſelf commandeth, as are done in the outward expreſſion of reverence and honour to God, and the more decent and edifying performance of his own Inſtitutions.] This is the deſcription of them, (Kneeling, being uncovered, ſwearing with outward ſigns, ſinging in Tunes, Metre, &c.). Agree to the thing, and call theſe Worſhip or no Worſhip, as you pleaſe. You ſay, Falſe Worſhip is no Worſhip; If ſo, it is no bad Worſhip; but all faulty Worſhip is not null.

XIV. As for his general talk of me, how much I have promoted Popery, and being for Juſtification by works, and merit, &c. I give him leave to eaſe his Stomach without an Anſwer, and all thoſe to be deceived by him that will take his word, and not read mine; eſpecially, my Treatiſe of imputed Righteouſneſs.

Page 9. He ſaith, When the Scripture ſpeaks of juſtification by faith: Doth any ſound Divine or Chriſtians underſtand it of the act of believing, but that its the obj…ct of faith that juſtifieth?

p. 22Anſ. See how ſtrictly theſe men ſtick to Scripture, that will have it the ſole Law of Circumſtances, and yet can deny it, as Expoſitors, at their pleaſure; when Paul over and over ſo often ſaith, That we are juſtified by faith, and faith is imputed for righteouſneſs; and Chriſt ſaith, Thy faith hath ſaved thee. It is not faith that they mean, but Chriſt. It is faith in Chriſt. There is no faith, but the act or habit of believing, Rom. 3.21. The righteouſneſs of God, which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, on all that believe. 25. Through faith in his blood. 26. The juſtifier of him which believeth in Jeſus: Many ways ſuch will be odiouſly perverted, if you put Chriſt inſtead of Faith; we are juſtified by no meritorious cauſe, but Chriſts righteouſneſs: but that righteouſneſs juſtifieth not Infidels, nor any but qualified Receivers; and Faith is that qualification. Is not this true? And is it not enough? If you would preach or write cenſurious diſputes, whether it be the Phyſitian, or the Medicine, or the Patients taking it, that cureth him; or the Meat, or the Giver, or the eating it, that feedeth men, take your courſe: I had rather anſwer that, and moſt of your Books w…th groans and tears, than with diſputing.

XV. As for his threatning to open my faults as faſt as I diſcover them. I may ſave him the labour, and lament them my ſelf. Two I will confeſs now, beſides all heretofore.

1. I fear I did ſometime by connivence, and by too oft preaching againſt the faults of the Biſhops about 1640, encourage ſome that were ſet upon accuſing and ſeparating, over much. Tho I ever diſliked and oppoſed that Spirit, and fore…w what Diviſions and Sins attended.

2. Tho, when I took the League and Cov…nant, it was not impoſed, but offered to Volunteers, (and I never gave i… but to one, and kept the Countrie from taking it); yet ſeeing now, what I ſaw not then, I repent that I took it. (Tho being taken, I dare not ſay that it bindeth not as a ſecondary Self-Obligation to that which God bound me to before.)

My reaſons are; 1. Becauſe, as after impoſed, no knowing man can believe that the thouſands of ignorant people that took it, who never underſtood the controverſies of Prelacy, could take it in Truth, Judgment, and Righteouſneſs, and ſo muſt ſin.

2. Becauſe it cut the Nation in two parts, on pretence of Union, and engaged us againſt ſuch excellent Perſons, as Ʋſher, Davenant, and againſt the greateſt half of the Land, when we ſhould have united on the terms of the B…ptiſmal Covenant.

3. Becauſe, being before by God and our Allegiance ſufficiently …lliged to the King, by a further Vow of mens own making againſt p. 23his will, they entangled the conſciences of the people about the meaning and the obligation of it; ſome thinking it bound them not to him; and other, that it bound them to fight for him, and yet to oppoſe the Prelacy that he was for. And now the Law for Corporations binds men to declare that there is no ob…igation at all from that O…th (either for the King, or againſt any ſin).

XVI. There are alſo more than one of my Opponents, who tell me, That becauſe I live in proſperity my ſelf, and ſuffer not, therefore I am inſenſible of the caſe of ſuffer…rs, and add affliction to the afflicted, and have not due compaſſion on them.

Anſ. If this be true, it is a great ſin. But 1. why do the ſame men accuſe me for perſwading men to avoid ſufferings, as they think, by ill means? It is indeed to ſave men from ſuffering by miſtake for that which was their duty, to the injury of others, and to reſerve their patience for better uſes, being like enough to have need of it all.

2. I thank God I am ſo far from being inſenſible of the ſufferings of the church of Chriſt throughout the world, that I may ſay with Paul, Rom. 9.1. I have continual ſorrow in my heart for the wars, blood, c…uelties exerciſed on them, and much more for their own ſin. And ſure all the wrath that is agai…ſt me for labouring to ſave this Land from diviſion, ſelf-deſtroying and ſuffering, 1661. and ſince, might have been avoided, had I been ſo ſelf-ſaving as the accuſers feign me.

3. I thank God my ſuff…rings have been far leſs than I expected or deſerved of God, and not worthy to be called ſufferings in compariſon of thouſands in foreign Lands. And I humbly thank the King that they have been no greater; but if they had, all had been now almoſt at an end. I am not willing to name them, leſt it ſeem to ſavour of impatience, but remembring Pauls example to ſuch accuſers (to the Corinthians) I will briefly ſay, 1. From 1639. to 1660. I ſuffered more aſſaults and oppoſiti…n than ſome of them, by divers penalties for divers duties againſt iniquity.

2. I think I was the firſt ſilenced ſince the biſhops return. And the hot diſpleaſure againſt me for my pac…ficatory labour 1660. and 1661. is not unknown.

3. Enquire whether there be more virulent and voluminous accuſations printed againſt me, or any one of them.

4 I have had no P…ſtoral maintenance theſe 23 years, and no Church to maintain me, nor any ſtipendary Lecture; and for about 15. years I received no gift of money from any, but one man, which I could not without incivility refuſe.

p. 245. When I went twice a day to their Church at Acton, I was ſent to the common Gaol (accuſed for a Sermon for meekneſs and obedience, and ſubmiſſion to Government) and when I built a Chappel, it coſt me about 20 l. to get a Miniſter out of the priſon (that had formerly been impriſoned for the Kings ſervice) for preaching but one Sermon there, when I was twenty miles off.

6. All that I had, was diſtrained on, and taken from me, all my books, and the very bed I lay on, for preaching after (though, bona fide, they had been on juſt conſiderations given, or made over to another, and were not mine, but the preſent uſe of them only reſerved to me) and this by many warrants, as convict by the oaths of I know not whom, nor when, nor could ever know my accuſer or witneſs, nor was ever ſummoned to ſpeak for my ſelf, much leſs to examine the witneſſes.

7. I have been put in city and countrey to remove my habitation about twelve times, and my perſon twenty, in the midſt of my pains, to my great coſt and trouble.

8. How many thouſand pounds my conſcience hath coſt me in the loſs of a biſhoprick (by the Lord Chancellor offered) ſince 1661. beſides all other loſſes and charges, I leave you to compute, and ask you which of you hath loſt more? tho I acknowledg with thankfulneſs to God that I never wanted food or raiment.

9. And while I am now writing for Parochial churches and communion, and know no Law of the land that I break, I am hated; and while I keep my bed in pain, or my couch, there are new aſſaults which I think not fit to publiſh.

10. And all this is but as a flea-biting in compariſon of the ſufferings which I carry about me by continual pain or langour through age and many uncurable diſeaſes: And under the expectations of death, how ſmall a matter is it to me, whether I dye in a Gaol for my duty to God, or in my hired houſe, out of which I have very few times gone theſe two years, but it hath been a priſon to me. What difference but conceit and conſent? If our Rulers think it for the intereſt of any cauſe or party that I dye in priſon, I ſhall acknowledg Gods will in the effect of theirs, and it ſhall not be in their power to make me ſuffer for any thing but my duty to God (beſides faults long ago pardoned, and common humane infirmities). And it is not mens calling duty by the name of the moſt odious ſins, that depriveth Martyrs of their reward with God. The falſe imputation of ſin by men, was not the leaſt part of the ſufferings of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Martyrs in all ages.

p. 25XVII. And becauſe others as well as I, have need of ſuch admonition, I will tell my Brethren, that our chief work is (the ſame with J…bs) to fruſtrate the Tempter, and ſee that in all this we ſin not, nor charge God fooliſhly: And he that only triumpheth in ſuffering in conſcience of his innocency, and doth not know that ſuffering hath its proper temptations, and ſtudyeth not wiſely how to eſcape them, will ſuffer more by himſelf than by all his enemies.

I will therefore tell you what are the temptations here which I fear and watch againſt.

1. Leſt the injuries of men ſhould deſtroy my due charity to them: Tho its true that the ſetled Study and labour of ſome, for factious or carnal ends, be to deſtroy Chriſtian Love, and ſerious Godlineſs, and the Souls, Bodies, and eſtates of the moſt innocent who they think ſtand in their way, (and falſehood, hatred and deſtruction are the Devils work and image) and no man muſt extenuate ſuch crimes, John 8.41, 42. Yet Diaboliſme is not to be imputed to all that men ſuffer by; much leſs to our Govornours, whom we muſt honour: Paul himſelf perſecuted in ignorance; and Chriſt ſaid, they know not what they do? Much leſs muſt we blame others, if truly the cauſe be only in our ſelves.

2. Much more muſt we watch againſt deſires of revenge, or call for fire from Heaven, or imitate any that injure us, by requiring evil with evil, but ſee that we forgive as we would be forgiven. If they be impenitent, and God forgive them not, their ſuffering will be heavy enough.

3. We muſt watch againſt blinding paſſions, that it carry us not into contrary extremes, that we may be far enough from ſin; and ſo leſt we fall into ſin on the other ſide. Too few can keep to the line of truth; moſt reel like drunkards from ſide to ſide.

4. We are much in danger of biaſſed ſtudy; never ſtudying impartially what may be ſaid againſt us, and for our oppoſers, but only all that may be ſaid for us againſt them.

5. Men that have a good cauſe are too apt to betray and ſpoil it by an ill manner of defending it, by mixt errors, ill arguments or paſſions, to the hardening of the adverſaries and afflictors.

6. We muſt take heed that we fear not ſuffering wrong, more than doing wrong. He that doth the wro…g is a far greater ſufferer or loſer, than he that is wronged. Our ſtudy muſt be, that we neither think, wiſh, ſpeak, or do any wrong to our adverſaries and afflictors.

7. We muſt watch leſt the great wickedneſs of any adverſaries ſhould be ſo much in our eye, as to tempt us to make light of our p. 26own ſin, becauſe it is not ſo great as theirs.

8. And we muſt watch leſt the conſcience of our good cauſe or innocency to man, ſhould make us foget our many ſins againſt God, for which he may permit men by injury to afflict us.

9. We muſt watch leſt we judge of the Cauſe by the Perſon, and ſhould take truth to be falſhood, and good to be evil, becauſe bad men or adverſaries own it; or leſt we take falſhood to be truth, and evil to be good, becauſe good men hold it; and leſt in Love or Pity we juſtifie the ſ…n of any ſufferers.

10 But we muſt ſpecially take heed leſt fleſhly intereſt and love of r…ches, liberty or life, ſhould bias and blind our judgments, to take any thing to be Lawful which we think is neceſſary to our quietneſs and ſafety, and to uſe ſinful means to avoid danger and ſufferings.

Theſe are my Studies, and I think them neceſſary to all.

And the rather when (it grieveth my heart to ſee, ſo) many carryed by ſuffering ſo far from unity, charity, and moderation, that they even joyn with thoſe whom they ſharplieſt accuſe, (tho by other reaſons) to do their very work, and to deſtroy that which they think they are promoting. For inſtance,

1. They blame the Papiſts and ſuch conformiſts for ſaying that the Miniſters of the Reformed Churches are no true Miniſters: And they ſay the ſame.

2. They blame them for ſaying their Churches are no true Churches. And they ſay the ſame.

3. They blame them for recuſancy, and ſaying it is unlawful to communicate with them; and they ſay the ſame.

4. They blame them that ſilence Miniſters, and forbid and hinder them from worſhipping God. And they themſelves diſſwade all the land from all publick Church-worſhip, where none but with thoſe that uſe the Liturgy can be had.

5. They juſtly blame Love-killing reproachful Sermons. And they write Love-killing reproachful Books.

6. They juſtly blame falſe accuſers of particular perſons, and they …lſely accuſe almoſt all the Churches on Earth, as no true Churches.

7. They are juſtly for mutual forbearance, and againſt cruelty; and they unjuſtly aggravate the faults of almoſt all Church-worſhippers on earth, as ſo odious that it muſt be ſeparated from; and in a ſort excommunicate them

8. They fear Popery is ready to take poſſeſſion of the Land and Church, and they exhort all Proteſtants to forſake all the publick p. 27churches, which are the Gariſon of the Proteſtant cauſe, that ſo the gates may be ſet open, and the Adverſaries may find the houſes ready ſwept and garniſhed, or the Gariſon emptied for their coming.

9. They are againſt the ejecting of the Miniſters 1662. and yet crying down a Comprehenſion, they would not have them reſtored, unleſs it were on terms that will take in them alſo (and who knoweth whom?)

10. Yea, the very top of Popery is to appropriate all power of church-government and worſhip to the Clergy, and to make Magiſtrates therein but the Clergies Executioners, ſaying they are only for civil government, for the body, but the Pope and Clergy only for Religious government of the church, and for the ſouls. And ſome called by dividing names among us, ſay, That Chriſt only and his Miniſters have power in ſuch matter…, and that Princes ſin if they command but a Tranſlation, a reverent geſture, a church-ornament, and ſuch circumſtances; and that it's a ſin to obey them.

When I ſee that exaſperation by afflicters hath caſt ſome ſufferers into ſuch ſelf-contradicting ways, I will ſet on my heart and judgment a double watch in ſufferings and abuſe.

And now Reader I again ſay, That tho I was dragg'd to this ſort of work as againſt my will, I thank God (and my ſober ſort of Opponents) for calling me to it, that before I dye I might explain my Writings, and not by writing only againſt one extreme, leave them behind me as ſnares to tempt men to the other extreme.

And I here leave my teſtimony again againſt all malignity that would charge theſe errors on the innocent for a cloak of hatred, and cruelty, and oppreſſion, that I know not one meer Nonconformiſt that holdeth any of theſe errors; and I verily believe that the Independents that I am acquainted with, are true ſervants of Chriſt; and many called Anabaptiſts, ſober, godly Chriſtians; and that ſome called Separatiſts retain Chriſtian charity, and meerly for fear of ſinning, flye too far from others.

And as for all the reſt, it is not mens calling them all Diſſenters, nor their ſuffering together, that can make the innocent reſponſible for the faulty, who perhaps do more againſt their miſtakes, than ever ſuch Accuſers did (to cure them).

And I muſt tell the Abaddons, that the oppoſition that hath been raiſed againſt them among thoſe that I was acquainted with before 1641, and 1642, was cauſed chiefly by the badneſs of thoſe that made it their trade to preach againſt ſtrict and ſerious obedience to God, as Puritaniſm, and Hypocriſie, and made it the Ladder of their aſpiring Ambition p. 28to make ſuch odious, and to hunt with jealous ſeverity thoſe that uſed for mutual help in the ways of Salvation, to pray together (eſpecially if they faſted) or conſulted how to obey Gods Law: Juſtacting over the part of the Bps that Martin ſeparated from, deſcribed by Sulpitius Severus, rendering all ſuſpected of Priſcillianiſm that were more than others in reading the Scripture, Faſting and Praying) and clapping on the back with encouragement the Drunkards and prophane ignorant rabble, who in every Town were the haters of the godly Conformiſts and Nonconformiſts; and making theſe the inſtruments of their malice, and praiſing them, and the multitude of ignorant, reading Prieſts, as more worthy Subjects, than men fearing God. Ri. Hooker in his Preface deſcribeth theſe; and he that readeth his Europae Speculum, may know that it was no better Conformiſts that his moſt beloved Pup…l, Sir Edwin Sandys was againſt, while he was one of the zealous Parliamentarians.

It's true that many were very hot againſt Biſhop Laud and the Arminians, and againſt Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Pockington, for proving Sunday no Sabbath, and calling the Table an Altar, and the Miniſters, Prieſts, and the Sacrament a Sacrifice.

Blame not men that had read of their principles and practice, how Rome is a Leech that muſt live on blood, and cannot ſtand without it, if they were afraid of coming thither again, or drawing too near it. Upon my knowledg, the debauchery and malignity of many that hunted them, and would not let them ſtay at home in peace, and the terror of two hundred thouſand murdered in Ireland, was it that drove moſt that ever I knew into the Parliaments Army: And fear doth often drive men to ſeek for ſelf-defence to that which ſeemeth next at hand. Had thoſe whom they feared been ſuch as their functions obliged them to be, men of Holineſs, Love and Peace, they would have been leſs prejudiced againſt the reſt; they bore eaſily with Dr. Chappel, Mr. May…en, and ſome other godly charitable men that were reputed Arminians.

I here adjoin it to my confeſſions: 1. That I thought worſe of that called Arminianiſm than I ſhould have done: (and have proved in my Catholick Theology, (not yet writ againſt by any that I know of) that the difference is not in any great and intolerable error on either ſide). 2. That the practice of them that prophaned the Lords day, and the malignity of their abettors, made me too much offended at the books that called the Lords day no Sabbath, and the Miniſters, Prieſts, and the Table, an Altar, and the Sacrament, a Sacrifice: For p. 29I now know that theſe allegorical Names were uſual with the beſt of the ancient Churches without contradiction: And that the Lords Day is indeed never called the Sabbath in the New Teſtament; and that the word Sabbath in the Bible ſignifieth a day of ceremonial Reſt, which was a Jewiſh Ceremony; and that all ſuch are by Paul ſaid to be put down, and that the Lords Day is a day of holy Aſſemblies and rejoicing in ſpiritual, Evangelical Worſhip.

Ignorance and prejudice in theſe controverſies prevailed, not from argument, but from the experience of the quality of too many that oppoſed them: They thought it a moſt improbable thing, that God ſhould illuminate vicious, worldly haters of Godlineſs, and deſert thoſe that moſt deſired to pleaſe him.

And of late times, what abundance have been driven from the publick Churches, by thoſe that rail at them when they come there, and would get the Birds into their Net by throwing ſtones and bawling at them; and would get the fiſh to take the bait, by beating the Waters.

The Biſhop of Worceſters ſilencing me, and preaching as he did, and the impriſonment of many of the people after, affected my old hearers with ſo much diſtaſt of that ſort of men, that all the Writings and perſwaſions I could uſe, would not reconcile them, nor ſcarce keep them from falling out with me for my perſwaſions: And now they have a Worthy, Pious, preaching Biſhop, a Man of Love and Peace, and a good Miniſter, they all crowd the Church, and are like to fall in love with ſuch Biſhops.

And I muſt teſtifie, that with the generality of the Nonconforming Laity, I never found, but it was good preaching and good living that won their Love: And they will honour and follow ſuch men, whether Biſhops, Conformiſts, or Nonconformiſts.

XV. Since the writing of this, I underſtand that ſome timerous perſons have been afraid to communicate in publick, or joyn with the Liturgy, by hearing that ſome that have done it, have been ſo troubled in Conſcience, that they have fallen into deſpair, and a doleful ſtate of trouble.

To this I anſwer, 1. You ſhall never prove that I have perſwaded any Miniſter, to give Chriſts body and blood as a Drench to the unwilling, or to make the Sacrament of Love, the Inſtrument of Malice or Cruelty, or a ſnare to ſtrangle Souls. It muſt be that Offence muſt come, but wo to them by whom it cometh. The old Church made men p. 30beg for Church-Communion; if any withdraw from it, and excommunicate themſelves, they did not ſend them to Goal for their Converſion, to force them to ſay, that they repent, and to force them to Communion.

2. But I muſt ſay, that theſe Miniſters or people that have ſo ill taught theſe troubled Souls (by Doctrine or Example) as to tempt them to take their Duty (or a lawful thing) for ſo deadly a ſin, are far from being guiltleſs of their Trouble, Diſtraction or Deſtruction. If any ſhould make them believe that it were ſuch a dangerous thing to pray by a Book, to ſing Davids Pſalms, to Communicatie with Presbyterians, not to be rebaptized, not to keep the Saturday Sabbath, &c. And then, when he hath affrighted one to make away himſelf in melancholy deſpair, ſhould uſe this inſtance as an argument to affright away others alſo from their duty; I ſhould think that he were too blame: This were not by good words and fair ſpeeches, but by bad words and deeds, to deceive the hearts of the ſimple, in cauſing diviſions and offences.

3. I believe I have had with me in my time many ſcores that have had ſuch melancholly terrors, without any ſuch cauſe; and muſt the matter of their trouble therefore be proved faulty? I have known thoſe that for many years could have no peace of mind, while they continued Orthodox and Religious; and at laſt hearing Irreligious Sadduces, turned …ilthy, and ranters, and were never under trouble more (that could be perceived) but boaſted of their peace. Who knoweth not that Melancholly maketh many of the moſt ſound and blameleſs perſons, like Spira, a weary of their lives, thorough deſparation.

4. I can tell theſe Objectors of eminent ancient godly men, that long forbore publick Communion, and at laſt uſed it, and have had more comfort and edification, than ever they had before; and the more for breaking through all the ſharp Cenſures of their former company, in obedience to their Conſciences herein: And when they have ſeen a ſcandalous perſon with them at the Sacrament, have gone with Humility, Love, and Tears, and told him of his ſin and danger, and had ſuch ſucceſs as hath comforted them more than avoiding that Communion ever did: yea, I know thoſe that being threatned by violent Paſtors, that uſe Diſſenters with rigor, have humbly and ſubmiſſively ſo pleaded with them from Scripture and experience, againſt that Spirit and Way, as hath overcome them, and melted them into a more tender and peaceable mind and courſe.