Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Title page – Dedication
THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformiſt, Truly ſtated, and briefly diſcuſſed. Dr. FALKNER, the Friendly Debate, &c. Examined and Anſwered. Together with a Diſcourſe about Separation, and ſome Animadverſions upon Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Book, ENTITULED, The Ʋnreaſonableneſs of Separation. Obſervations upon Dr. Templers Sermon Preached at a Viſitation in Cambridge. A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marſhal.
Sed hoc nimis doleo, quia multa quae in Divinis libris ſaluberrima praecepta ſunt, minus curantur, & tam multis preſumptionibus ſic plena ſunt omnia, ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas ſuas terram nudo pede tetigerit, quam qui mentem Vinolentia ſepelierit. Auguſt. Epiſt. 119.
Cum Apoſtolus teſtetur, myſterium hoc iniquitatis ſuo etiam tempore agi caepiſſe, hinc intelligimus, opiniones omnes, & Traditiones, a Sacris Scripturis diſſidentes quas Pontificis urgent, tanquam a Patribus acceptas, ad Apoſtaſiam hanc, quam praedixit Apoſtolus, eſſe referendas. Downham de Antichriſt. p. 151.
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry, over againſt the Stocks-Market, 1681.
THE Reader may pleaſe to take notice, that this Diſcourſe was drawn up long before (now) Doctor Falkner took his Degree, elſe I had given him his Title. And ſo ſomething of Schiſm was ſpoke to before the Epiſtle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written.
To the Reverend, and my much Honoured Brother, Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Pauls.
SIR,
I Hope it is no offence unto you, though you be a Dean, Unreaſ. Separat. p. 62.that I call you Brother, ſince you have taught the Preſs how to ſpeak ſoberly and amicably, calling us Diſſenting Brethren; this is better language than Sots, Rogues, Fools, Knaves, Rebels, Schiſmaticks, which we read and hear from others. As for Rebels, if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws, I believe the King will have but a few loyal ſubjects. He hath Laws againſt Drunkenneſs, Swearing, Whoring, Sabbath breaking, and theſe are agreeable to the Law of God, (beſides Laws about Hares, Partridges, Pheaſants, and againſt Papiſts, &c.) we ſee men can live in oppoſition to theſe Laws, yet theſe are not called Rebels. But if the Laws of men concern the Houſe and Worſhip of God, concerning which God himſelf hath given us his own Laws, to which all Princes and men are bound, and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable, (as we ſhall hear your ſelf ſpeak preſently) but that conformity we cannot ſee, and therefore dare not aſſent and conſent, &c. now we are called Rebels, Schiſmaticks, and what not? Aug. Epiſ. 119.Thus it was in pious Auguſtines time, and this he complains of.
Sir, ſpeaking of your Church, you tell us, p. 302. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule, viz. the Holy Scriptures, which we own as the baſis and foundation of our faith; and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worſhip are to be agreeable. 2ly. Our Church requires a conformity to thoſe Rules which are appointed by it agreeable to the Word of God.
Twice you tell us, agreeable to the Word of God; to which we agree alſo, this being the affirmative part of the ſecond Commandment, that all things in our worſhipping of him, be agreeable to his will and word.
Now, Sir, had you proved that all the things impoſed upon us had been agreeable to the word of God, you had put an end to this Controverſie. But though I honour and love you for the great ſervice you have done to the Church of Chriſt againſt the Papiſts, yet in proving the things Impoſed upon us to be conformable to the word of God, I humbly conceive you fall very ſhort, therefore are we ſtill Nonconformiſts. Several things are impoſed upon us, but in your whole Book I find not one Scripture you produce to ſhew the agreement of them with it. Till then, our Separation is reaſonable.
That Schiſm is a great ſin, I agree with you, and wiſh Chriſtians were more convinced of it than I ſee they are. But the Queſtions are,
1. What is ſchiſm? 2. Who is the cauſe of ſchiſm?
For the firſt: Sir, I preſume you will grant that the ſeparation againſt which you preached, and now printed, do ſuppoſe, there was a union with that body from which you tell us we are now ſeparated. For how can there be a ſeparation from that to which we were not united?
Now, Sir, I think by what you have ſaid, to remove the mighty ſtumbling-block (as you call it, pag. 359.) of the Croſs, there will be found many thouſands in England who were never admitted into your Church, and if not admitted into it, then not united to it as ſuch a Church; no members of your body: how then can you charge them with this ſin of ſeparation from it?
Thus then, Sir, you ſpeak of the Croſs in Baptiſm, p. 351. when the Miniſter uſes theſe words. We receive this child into the congregation of Chriſts flock, and ſign him with the ſign of the Croſs, &c. the Miniſter now ſpeaks in the name of the Church, We receive, &c. then follows as the ſolemn rite of admiſſion, and do ſign him with the ſign of the Croſs. All publick and ſolemn admiſſions into ſocieties, having ſome peculiar ceremony belonging to them. And ſo as Baptiſm, beſides its Sacramental efficacy, is a rite of admiſſion into Chriſts Catholick Church, ſo the ſign of the Croſs is into our Church of England, in which this Ceremony is uſed, without any preſcription to other Churches. Thus you have interpreted the Croſs.
Whether this will ſatisfie Mr. B. I leave it to him, it doth not me; the Impoſers of that Ceremony in their Canons, do not tell us that it is the Rite of admiſſion into your Church but by this ceremony the Infant is dedicated to the ſervice of him that died upon the Croſs. And that Book being of publick authority, muſt carry it.
I had thought that in our Baptiſm we had been Dedicated to the Father, Son, and Spirit. But it ſeems this is not enough, you annex to his words, Another ſign to dedicate us to the ſervice of Chriſt that died upon the Croſs. This, Sir, I hope you will prove to be agreeable to the word of God, as you told us, your Impoſitions are. I am very ignorant of the Text that proves it, and you have named none.
But this is not the thing I aim at; it is your interpretation I mind, and from it I gather, that you and all others who charge us with ſeparation from your Church, muſt prove, That we were received, and that by this rite of admiſſion (the Croſs) into your Church, which you call the Church of England. This is clear from your own Interpretation, and alſo from the page before 350, where you illuſtrate it from the Independent Churches; Thus,
Suppoſe, ſay you, an adult perſon to be baptized, and immediately after Baptiſm to be admitted a member of an Independent Church, and the ceremony of this admiſſion to be, holding up of the hand, in token of his owning the Church-Covenant, &c.
Now, Sir, let me ſuppoſe (as you do ſuppoſe) that the Paſtors of the Independent Churches ſhould baptize ſeveral perſons, but never admit them into their Churches, by this ceremony of holding up the hand; let them baptize many thouſands, and theſe thouſands chuſe other Paſtors who are rightly qualified, and ordained by Prayer, Faſting, and Impoſition of hands of the Elderſhip: The Independents cannot charge theſe Churches with ſchiſm, and ſeparation from their Churches, for they never admitted them by that ceremony and rite of Admiſſion, of holding up the hand into their Churches.
Now, Sir, apply it; for about twenty years there was publick Baptiſm adminiſtred, but not by your Liturgy, much leſs with the Croſs. How many thouſands do you think in the ſpace of ſo many years may be baptized, none of theſe were ever admitted into your Church by thoſe words, VVe receive this child, &c. and ſign him with the ſign of the croſs. But of many ſuch do our Congregations conſiſt, who were never your members; why then do you call them ſeparatiſts from you?
Beſides, Sir, your Liturgy admits of private Baptiſm, and then no ſuch admiſſion by the Croſs, and abundance have been thus baptized without it, to my knowledg.
For my own particular, I cannot tell whither I was ſo admitted, my Parents never told me ſo; and for my godly Father I am ſure he hated humane inventions in the Worſhip of God. I was born, they told me, in winter time, extream for cold, the houſe half a mile from Church, and I being their only Son at that time, it's a queſtion whether they would carry me forth in ſuch an extream cold ſeaſon ſo far. As for the Church-Regiſter, that (nor any other that ever I ſaw) ſpecifies nothing of my being admitted into your Church by the Croſs; but only of my being baptized; but that ſay you, (and truly) is into the Catholick Church. No Regiſters then recording, who were ſo admitted, it will be hard matter for theſe who are ancient to prove their admiſſion into your Church, and if we were not, I know not how we can now be admitted. For this Rite of Admiſſion is uſed only at Baptiſm, unleſs we will yield to be Rebaptized and ſo to be admitted by the Croſs, this you will not admit no more than we.
We read of the Apoſtles admitting of many believers, God added to the Church, Act. 2. ult. but never that they uſed this rite of admiſſion, the ſign of the Croſs; only this is our happineſs, we are more wife, more holy, greater lovers of Chriſt, than ever the Apoſtles were, (though we profeſs we are built upon the foundation of Apoſtles and Prophets, Epheſ. 2.20.) that their examples are too low for us.
Beſides, Sir, is it not meet that when children come to years of diſcretion they ſhould then be called before the Church to declare whether they own their Baptiſmal Covenant, and alſo their admiſſion into the Church they are reputed members of, as you ſay, the Independents require their Children to own the Church-Covenant? let them now be members of the Church by their own conſent. Truly, Sir, if it come to that, ſince we read what your Canons ſay of the Croſs, and how it is abuſed in Popery, and how ſtrange this is to the Apoſtolical admiſſion, we ſhould not like it.
But are not children members of the ſame Churches with their Parents? though we think ſo, yet this is nothing to the practiſe of your Church. For as in your adminiſtration of Baptiſm, the Parental Covenant, (Abraham and his ſeed) which is the ground of the Adminiſtration, is wholly omitted; ſo the Parent he muſt ſtand by as if he were a Heathen; the buſineſs is only with the God fathers, and Godmothers, an invention of Higinus Biſhop of Rome, about 144 years after Chriſt, who firſt added theſe to Baptiſm; a perſon of no great worth, of whom it is ſaid, Nihil praclari, de gubernatione, & factis ejus commemorari poteſt. So much cauſe have I to beg pardon for my defects in the education of my own Children, that I would not be Sponſor for the child of the beſt friend I have in England. But however this is not it, but the ſign of the Croſs, with ſuch words, that makes the admiſſion into your Church.
2. Q. But if there be a Separation, or Schiſm, the queſtion is, who is the cauſe of it?
A. Schiſm muſt needs be theirs, whoſe the cauſe of it is, ſaith Biſhop Land, in which you juſtifie him, Ration. Account, p. 324, 325.
I humbly conceive, that whoever impoſes other terms of Communion than Chriſt hath impoſed, he or they are the cauſe of the ſchiſm. We do not, ſay you, neceſſarily ſeparate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them, ſuppoſing thoſe errors and corruptions be not impoſed on us as conditions of communion, Ibid. p. 332.
I pray do not think that we ſuppoſe you impoſe ſuch groſs things upon us, as Rome impoſed on you: No, Sir, we bleſs God for that great advance which was made by our firſt Reformers. But whereas you ſay you retain only ſuch innocent Ceremonies which were in uſe before the Papal power grew to that height:
I pray, firſt, are you ſure that All the Churches did uſe them? 2. Did they uſe all that are impoſed on us? I know they uſed others; but did they uſe to tye up their Miniſters to ſuch ſyllables in prayer, or elſe muſt not pray? Did they kneel at the Lords Supper? we know the contrary, &c. 3. Did they impoſe theſe as conditions of Communion? But grant there were ſuch Ceremonies, and other things as now impoſed upon us, I will ſay of them, Downh. de Antichriſto, p. 151what Biſhop Downham ſaith of the opinions and traditions differing from the holy Scriptures, which the Pontificians ſay were received of the Fathers, they are to be referred to that Apoſtaſie the Apoſtle foretold, 2 Theſ. 2.3. when he ſaid the myſtery of iniquity already worketh, v. 7.
And I pray, Sir, ſince the examples and practiſes of thoſe Churches, are made ſo much uſe of againſt us, let me give you my thoughts in a ſimilitude of your own.
In your Epiſtle to your Rational Account, &c. dedicated to the King, you tell his Majeſty, that the Church of England in the late confuſions ſuffered an Eclipſe, but ſince his Majeſties Reſtauration ſhe hath recovered her luſter, &c.
Sir, we obſerve when the Sun riſeth, it doth not ſuddenly go into an Eclipſe, but gradually, ſo that common people do not mind it until the light of it be ſenſibly obſcured; ſo, nor doth it come out of its Eclipſe ſuddenly at once, but gradually; but it will not ceaſe its motion till it appears in its glory. It is the ſame with the Goſpel-Church, it did not preſently, ſuddenly fall into that dark Eclipſe, which it ſuffered under the Antichriſtian Papal power, but it got into it by degrees, the Churches not diſcerning it; the myſtery of iniquity wrought, it is no fancy of mine, but the Apoſtles expreſs words. The ſubtil ſerpent, he wrought among the Churches under fair pretences; in the ſecond Century ſome addition made to Worſhip and Government of the Church; in the third Century more; in the fourth Century more; ſo increaſed the Eclipſe, ſtill under fair reaſons, till the Serpent had got the man of ſin into his Throne, and the Prediction fulfilled. So hath the Churches coming out of the Eclipſe been but gradual, in Doctrine, Government, Worſhip, by our worthy Reformers; but as the evil ſpirit deceived then, by Gods permiſſion, to bring about the Propheſie; ſo the Spirit of Chriſt in the hearts of our firſt Reformers wrought powerfully, and ſo doth the ſame Spirit ſtill work, and will work, till the Church be quite out of her Eclipſe, and comes to be ſatisfied with the Soveraignty and Wiſdom of Chriſt declared in the ſimplicity of the Goſpel; let men call it ſchiſm, fanaticiſm, or what they pleaſe.
But, Sir, you tell us of Mr. Ball, Mr. Hilderſham, Mr. Giffard, &c. worthy men, (I grant they were ſo, and honour them much) and Nonconformiſts, who condemned Separation from your Church, and no more was impoſed than in their time, and this takes up a great part of your Book.
Sir, while ſome excellent men at home conformed, but groaned under the burden, (as I remember Mr. John Rogers of Dedham, an eminent Saint, though he did conform, I never ſaw him wear a Surplice, nor heard him uſe but a few prayers, and thoſe I think he ſaid Memoriter, not read them; but this he would do in his Preaching, draw his finger about his throat and ſay, Let them take me and hang me up, ſo they will but remove theſe ſtumbling-blocks out of the Church.) How many thouſands of choice Chriſtians, plucked up their ſtakes here, forſook their dear friends and native Country, ſhut up themſelves in Ships (to whom a priſon for the time had been more elegible) went remote into a howling Wilderneſs, there underwent great hardſhips, water was their common drink, and glad if they might have had but that which they had given at their doors here (many of them); and all this ſuffering was to avoid your Impoſitions, and that they might dwell in the Houſe of God, and enjoy all things therein according to his own appointment. But what cared your Church for this; let Gods people groan at home, ſuffer abroad, they ſhall do it rather than your Church will part with a few trifles, as your own Mr. Carre calls the ceremonies. Sir, is this the ſpirit of the true Spouſe of Chriſt? But as I ſaid, the ſame Spirit will work which acted thoſe holy men, till the Church be totally out of her Eclipſe, what ever thoſe worthy men you mention have ſaid.
But to ſpeak more cloſe, I deny that the ſtate of your Church now, is the ſame it was then, when theſe worthy men condemned Separation from it. For,
1. There are many thouſands now in England, who were never admitted into your Church, were never members of it; then they could not condemn theſe as Separatiſts from it. This I have proved before from your Interpretation of the ſign of the Croſs. It was not ſo in their time.
2 The Liturgy and the Homilies were then brought in out of neceſſity, becauſe of the want of gifts; now it is impoſed in ſcorn and oppoſition of gifts. By what ſome of your Arch-deacons have ſpoken in your Courts, and others, we can conclude no other, than it was compoſed to bring over the Papiſts to your Church, and for ſeveral years the Papiſts did frequent your Divine Service; but now it was impoſed with ſuch words (as in my next) that it was made an engine to turn Proteſtants out of your Church. A Member of that Parliament that made the Act for Ʋniformity, viſiting his Siſter, a Lady (who told it me) related to her what they were about; ſhe diſliked their Act, and told him, I ſee then you are laying a ſnare in the gate. Ay, ſaid he, if we can find any way to catch the Rogues, we will have them.
3. Then they were not required to aſſent and conſent, &c. but now it is impoſed with theſe terms; and I am confident that divers who have ſubſcribed with theſe terms, do but lye.
4. 'Tis true we have the ſame 39 Articles, that was before; and thoſe Articles were aſſented to, and aſſent required in that Church. Rational Account. p. 54, 55.But now you have told the world that Biſhop Bramhall gives the ſenſe of the Church of England thus: viz. She does not define any of theſe Queſtions as neceſſary to be believed, &c. Neither do we look upon them as Eſſentials of ſaving faith, &c. Neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. And this is the opinion of the Grandees in this your Church; this would have been abhor'd before.
5. As thoſe 39 Articles were believed by that Clergy, ſo they did defend them, and Preached them; but this Clergy can both print and preach againſt them, I mean the great and ſound Doctrines in them, (I do not ſay all of them.) I put the queſtion to one of your Clergy, and asked him in earneſt what he thought of this Clergy as to the Doctrine of the Church of England contained in theſe Articles? he anſwered me, Divide them into three parts, he thought two of the three were fallen from it.
6. In that Church there were abundance of godly plain-hearted Miniſters, whoſe Religion was not confined to a Pulpit, but walked among their people as became Miniſters, ſeeking the good of their ſouls. I deny not but God hath ſome ſuch now; but for the generality of them, I ſay nothing my ſelf, only I can tell you what others have ſaid. A learned and pious Divine, ſo far a friend to Conformity, that I doubt not but he hath ſubſcribed; he told me, Though your Church would give him a Living, he would not take it, becauſe he would not have ſuch an occaſion to bring him among your Clergy. And diſcourſing with another of your Clergy, (whom for learning, wit and piety, I do honour) about Mr. A's Book, and his Dialect, which you call uncomely writing, ſaid he, Truly we have ſuch a frothy, vain Clergy, gone off from that ſolidity and gravity that become Divine things, that if Books come not out in this dreſs, they will but ſcorn them; but in that Book, beſides wit, there is good matter. Pridentem dicere verum, &c. This was his ſenſe of Mr. A's Book.
But. Sir, if ſuch as theſe be thruſt upon us, muſt we own them for our Miniſters? What, Sir, will you deny the peoples power of Election, which the Papists grant the people had till Charles the Great, or till Lewis his Son, about 830 years? See, I pray, Pamelius his Annotations upon theſe words of Cyprian, Epiſt. 68. Quando ipſa (plebs) maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos ſacerdotes, vel indignos recuſandi. How could a man write plainer for the peoples power of Election? But our Proteſtants tell us, that only from the time of Frederick the ſecond, who died Ann. 1250, or there about, were the people excluded from the power of chuſing Paſtors, and it was the deed of Gregory the ninth, as Krantzius reporteth.
7. That Church did believe and prove the Pope, &c. to be the Antichriſt, Rome-christian to be the Whore, Apoc. 17. thus the Biſhops, and our Profeſſors of Divinity, &c. but I can meet but with very few of this Church of that opinion. Dr. Hammond the Oracle of this new Edition of the Clergy, cannot find him in the 2 Theſ. 2. nor in Apoc. 17. the Pope is an honeſt man with him. Biſhop Bramhall tells us, Our conteſt is not with the Church of Rome, but the Court of Rome. I find that you have declared: 1. That the Church of Rome is a true Church. 2. That they retain the fundamentals of Religion. 3. That ſalſation is to be had in the Church of Rome. Lay all together, here is a fair Bridg laid to go over to Rome. To ſay, that God hath his people under the Juriſdiction of Rome, is one thing, Apoc. 18.4. but to ſay the Church of Rome is a true Church, is another thing; a Wife and a Whore differ.
8. In that Church Re-ordination to the ſame office was never heard of, but exploded, as it is in all Churches elſe; but in this Church it is impoſed.
9. There was no Oath taken, nor Covenant made with the great God, to reform the Houſe of God, in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, according to the word of God; this ought to be, though the Covenant had not been made; had the things impoſed been according to the Word of God, this Covenant had bound us to them; that Covenant will not be beaten out of the hearts of them, who know God, and fear an Oath, what ever other perſons make of it; the leaſt then men can do, is to abſtain from thoſe things which were once caſt out, as being unconformable to the word of God; and ſhall thoſe people have no Ordinances for fear of a ſeparation?
10. In that Church, Quakers were not known; but under this Church they ſwarm, that raze the foundation, and deſtroy all Goſpel-ordinances. And many people being offenced with your impoſition, and diſguſted with your Clergy, lay in great danger of being carried away with them; and I doubt not abundance had gone, but that by our Preaching and adminiſtring all Ordinances, they have been kept cloſe to Goſpel truths, Goſpel-ordinances, and Goſpel-miniſtry. The Quakers and Papiſts are not ſo hated by your Clergy, as we are.
From all which I conclude the Cauſe is not the ſame; and had Mr. Ball, Mr. Hilderſham, &c. been living in our days, they would, I doubt not, have done as we do.
But then we are charged with bringing in of Popery, and this takes up ſeveral leafs of your Preface.
Heylin (one of yours) tells us indeed, I perſwade my ſelf, Geograp. in Quarto Edit. pag 470.had the Reformed party abroad continued an allowable correſpondence in ſome circumſtances with the Romiſh Church, as the Church of England doth now, it had been far greater, and leſs ſtomacked; and this was the cenſure of Monſieur de Rhoſny, when he obſerved the Majeſty and decency of our Church-ſervice in our Cathedrals.
On the other ſide, Harding, Briſtow, and Carrier, ſeducing Jeſuits, aſſured themſelves that they might yet convert England to the Catholick Church, whoſe Service and Ceremonies ſhe yet retained. Nor do I ſee any ſuch alteration made in this Edition, but if Pope Pius the 4th. and Gregory the 13th. offered to confirm the former, and the Council of Trent, affirmed they might do it, then the Pope may do this, for ought I know.
But how do we bring in Popery? Pref. p 7.you tell us out of Biſhop Sanderſon, the firſt way is, by pulling down Epiſcopacy, &c.
But, Sir, Biſhops are reſtored, and you tell the King the Church of England is out of her Eclipſe; that ſhe ſhines in a firmament above her Adverſaries: I pray, Sir, what is the matter that now Popery is coming in as a flood upon us? cannot theſe Biſhops, the Engliſh Banks, keep it out? I ſay nothing how ſtrongly they act in Parliament againſt it, the Kingdom talk enough of it.
I pray, Sir, tell us what have you Conformiſts done more againſt Popery than the Diſſenters have done?
1. Have you prayed earneſtly againſt it? ſo have we.
2. Have you Preached againſt it? ſo have we.
3. Have you Printed againſt it (as you have done excellently, and we thank you for it) ſo have ours. The firſt Book I ſaw was Fiat Lux. I ſaw a ſecond Impreſſion, and wondered I heard of no anſwer from your Church; Dr. Owen was the man that anſwered it, Ann. 1662. ſo long ours have appeared.
4. Have your Clergy kept their monthly Faſts four or five years, foreſeeing what now is coming upon us (if God prevent it not)? ſo have ſeveral of our Miniſters, with the hazard of our Eſtates and Perſons by Informers, from whom you were free.
5. Did you the laſt year (at leaſt for the chief part of the year), beſide your family-prayers, ſet a part ſometime between fix and ſeven in the morning one day in the week, to pray purpoſely that God would deliver this Nation from theſe bloody Papiſts, and their curſed Idolatry, and Doctrines? &c. ſo have we in ſeveral Counties, and layed the ſame charge on our people.
6. Do you think you ſhall be put to defend our Legal right to the Proteſtant Religion by what I am loth to mention, the ſword)? ſince the Lollards-Tower, the Biſhops Cole-houſe, &c. are out of date, they are too thirſty, and muſt have larger draughts. I believe there will be no diſtinction then between a true Proteſtant Conformiſt, and us, therefore we muſt join with you.
Why then do you charge us with bringing in of Popery? I deſire your Church would not put us upon temptation; we wrong them not in their Tythes but charge our people to pay them exactly; and do not grudg us the little that we have to bring us in bread. I thank God I am not very lazy in my place, but if you will give me twelve pound per Annum for my ſtipend, you ſhall have it, and thank you too. But I bleſs God I may work for ſo good a Maſter.
A little more as to our Communion with your Church: Sir, ſome of us have lived in Gods Houſe, where we ſaw the Government hath been carried on by Officers of his own appointment, according to his own Rule, and what a majeſty have we beheld in it! Admonitions, firſt privately, then publickly by the Elders, continuing in this courſe of admoniſhing, to try if they could bring to repentance, ſometimes longer, ſometimes ſhorter, as the ſin hath been, and they in prudence ſaw reaſons. (I have known them waſte half a year in this courſe) When nothing would do, but they muſt come to Excommunication, how wiſely did they govern the Brethren to bring them to declare their conſent *2 Cor. 10.6.obedientially to their Elders, (for they deny the Government to be Democratical; nor will I own the Fraternity to be the firſt ſubject of the Keys. In the beginning it was not ſo, as our Lord ſaid in another caſe, Mat. 19.8. and to the beginning we muſt go) and your *Primit. Government of Church. p. 147.Thorndike ſpeaks excellently to this, why the Congregation ought to be concern'd in this. Now when all were agreed, how dreadful was the ſentence! what pale faces! how many tears did it cauſe in the Congregation! a ſolemn ſight to behold the Church putting the perſon out of the Congregation, Terrible as an army of banners, Cant. 6.1…. I have often thought of the Text ſince. After this, how excellently did the Church walk towards an Excommunicate perſon, to bring to Repentance? And what rare effects have I known of this Ordinance, without any Writs de Excommunicato capiendo; alas theſe could never effect what I have known, to the humbling of ſuch a perſon. And now, Sir, do you think that we who have ſeen theſe things, can join with your Church, where this Ordinance ſo majeſtical, ſo terrible, is ſo horribly profaned? I pray, Sir, pardon me though I ſtand off from it. But I pray, Sir, why do your Biſhops excommunicate thoſe who were never of your Church? why do they not Excommunicate the French, or Dutch? True, they live under your Laws, but your Law is, they muſt be admitted by the Croſs, and being Infants, could not help it.
As to your Diſcourſe about particular Congregations, and Dioceſan Churches, it is not my purpoſe to meddle with it; only I deſire you to tell me why a Paſtor of a ſingle Congregation may not be as fit to govern that Congregation, as your ſingle Biſhop to govern a thouſand Congregations, as it is with your Church? where did the Apoſtles ordain, but one ſingle Paſtor to a Church? we have eight Churches recorded in the Epiſtles, and the Acts, but we read in them all ſeveral Elders to carry on Church-work. As for Timothy and Titus, being Biſhops in our controverted ſenſe, enough hath been ſaid about them. Strange that we ſhould have twelve Apoſtles beſide Paul and Barnabas, many Elders and ſeveral Evangeliſts, and but two Biſhops (who were Evangeliſts too) recorded in holy Writ to be the pattern for the ſucceeding Biſhops; when, where, and how, thoſe two were made Biſhops, we cannot find.
And for the large Dioceſſes, ſo large, that 'tis impoſſible for a Biſhop to perform the Duties the Lord requires of a Paſtor to one quarter of the Dioceſs: Pag. 203The Petitioners for Reformation in King James's reign, tell his Majeſty, That in Auguſtine's time there were in one Province under Carthage, of the Catholick and Donatiſt, Biſhops above nine hundred. Of the Catholicks part there were preſent 286, and abſent 120 by reaſon of ſickneſs and old age, Epiſcopal Churches void 60, in all 466. Of the Donatiſts there were preſent 279, abſent 120, Churches void 60, in all 459. Theſe come near the matter, make him but Epiſcopus praeſes, and as to Officers and Churches I may come to agree with you, leaving my brethren to their judgments.
Several other things I took notice of in your Book that may eaſily be anſwered; as the perplexing ſcruples you mention, pag. 384, 385. (If we muſt baptize only by the Parents right) that men muſt run into. No, none at all.
But, Sir, did you not forget your ſelf very much, p. 393. when you tell us the differences between the Popiſh Ceremonies, and your Ceremonies? viz. That yours are appointed only for decency and order? Sir, do not your Preface to your Ceremonies tell us another ſtory, viz. of a ſignificacy in them to put us in mind of our duty? 2. Of an aptneſs in them to ſtir up our dull minds to our duty? Here is ſome efficacy in them to help to the performance of duty, ſtirring up dull minds; theſe do not much differ from the efficacy you ſay the Papiſts give to theirs for the purging away ſome ſorts of ſins. I think both alike.
As for your French Letters; who told le Moyne what he writes pag. 404. That we believe that a man cannot be ſaved in the Church of England? I never heard ſuch a word from any Diſſenter, nor ever had I ſuch a thought. Certainly none of our Biſhops would write ſuch a line to him. So that this muſt be the figment of a French mans brain, which we abhor; for the ſtory he writes, p. 409. of a Nonconformiſt that he heard preach; I could tell him a ſtory of one of our late Biſhops ten times worſe, but the Preſs ſhall not know it; but you ſhall.
Sir, I have given you a few of my thoughts, reading over your Book, while my Papers were in the Preſs, (which have lain by me ſeveral years) and muſt tell you I am not yet ſatisfied with the title of your Book, viz. the Ʋnreaſonableneſs of Separation, &c. To your Prayer in the end of your Preface, I heartily ſay, Amen, Amen.
SIR, I am your Servant to love and honour You, G. F.