Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 3 · Section 9
SECT. IX. The other Pleas pretended for Separation.
VVE come now with the Dr. to the next Plea used for Separation; to wit, that the Dissenters are still unsatisfied in their Consciences about the Churches terms of Communion, and the Church excommunicateth them; and therefore they cannot join. He is pleased to join these two, tho' very distinct, yet he prosecuteth them severally. For the latter, which he speaketh first of, the Dissenters Plea, that he is pleased to take off is, the Excommunication ipso facto by the Canon 6. that we all lye under. Before I consider his answer to this, I must tell him of two things that have more weight to justify our Separation than that Canonical Excommunication. 1. That many thousands of us are otherwise Excommunicated for our non-compliance with the Ceremonies; even by the personal application, and publishing of the sentence against us; yea, multitudes may not go to Church if they would, being under the Writ de capiendo Excommunicato, and daily watched for to be apprehended; this putteth on us a forcible necessity of Non-communion, and conscience of Worshipping God, and waiting on the means of Grace, engageth us to meet privately to enjoy these ordinances that we cannot have publickly. The second thing is, even they who are not under the sentence of Excommunication, yet are materially Excommunicated by your Church if they will not comply with your Ceremonies; for we can have none of the Sacraments without them; and your Canon excludeth us out of the Church unless we Bow at the Name of Jesus. So that we cannot, if we never so fain would, enjoy God's Ordinances among you, without partaking your Ceremonies. Wherefore all the blame that can be cast on us, is not using the Ceremonies. From which we have sufficiently cleared our selves in the eyes of unby-assed Men; all that followeth on this is not to be charged on us, but on the rigour of your Church, which forceth us from among them.
Sect. 2. The Dr. answereth to the Plea from the Canonical Excommunion, Sect. 33. page 367. that, that Excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of the things imposed, but against those who obstinately affirm it; and he blameth Mr. B. as misciting the words of the Canon. Wherefore I shall set down the whole Canon, it is the Can. 6. of the Convocation, 1603. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, by Law Established, are wicked, anti-christian, or superstitious; or such as being commanded by lawful Authority, men who are zealously, and godly affected, may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or as occasion requireth subscribe to them, let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto, and not restored untill he repent, and publickly revoke these his wicked Errours. The Dr. hath a subtile distinction here between, but affirm, which term Mr. B. had used, and affirm: One would think that affirm, and no more added to it, signifieth no more than but affirm: But the Dr. saith, that affirm, signifieth these circumstances, which according to the common sense of mankind, do deserve Excommunication, viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately. What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism, I know not; I am sure his citation out of Augustine, that a man is born with till he find an accuser, or obstinately defend his opinion, saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm. Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either. If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable, being asked, why he doth not Conform; shall say, he cannot do it with a good conscience, he falleth under the plain letter of this Law, and goeth against the express words of it; and this is the least that a modest man can say, unless he will say, I will not do it, and that will be called obstinacy; and so bring him under the Law, in the Dr's. own sense. But if the man (as a modest man may) give reasons for his Non-conformity, when men require him to Conform, every word he saith, will bring him under this Excommunication.
Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea, is pag. 368, 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists, that such an excommunication is but a commination, and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past, applying it to him; and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves, by withdrawing from the Church. I shall not contend about this, though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth, were rather ipso Jure, than ipso Facto; and that excommunication ipso Facto, bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed. But to let that pass, this excommunication declareth what we are to expect; and the frequent, yea, general execution of it, putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church, and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time. It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate, the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society, that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported; sure such excommunication, and the fact, (which we neither deny, nor are ashamed of) are enough to loose our tie that we had to the Church.
Sect. 4. He answereth a question; Can these be called Schismaticks who are first excommunicated by the Church? He saith, they may in two cases. 1. When there is just cause for the sentence. Reply, I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence, and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismaticks; but to call men Schismaticks for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out, seemeth to be such a figure, as when men are called Fugitives, who are justly banished; but I will not contend about words: If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just, let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth, make nothing for that; none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion, imposing mens devises in the Worship of God, and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them. His second case, in which excommunicates are Schismaticks, is, if they set up New Churches, which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned. Reply, He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust, else this case were coincident with the former: And in that case I distinguish his assertion. The unjust excommunication is either for an alledged personal fault, or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false. Again, it is either past against one or few, or it is against a great multitude, a considerable part of a Church or Nation. If it be for an alledged personal fault (where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned) I do not say that such may set up new Churches. It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared; they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine, Worship, or Discipline; but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline. But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle, falsly called errour; and it also reacheth a great part of the Church, Ministers and People: I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves, let men call it setting up of new Churches, or what they will. For, 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation, or near so many, should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God, for the Caprice of some ambitious Churchmen, who excommunicate them, because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case, the Orthodox had been Schismaticks, when they were excommunicated by the Arians, and set up New Churches. 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances, because of their love to the purity of them. What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases, but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes; not for any thing of their Faith, for he bids them keep the true Faith, without Separate meetings.
Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth, in the end of page 371. and forward, to consider another Plea, made for separation; to wit, scruple of Conscience, which, I think, none do make the sole ground of separation; but they have a ground for their scruple: If that ground be good, it will warrant the scruple, and the separation too; if not, it can do neither. And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea, distinct from what I have already defended. I suppose the Author that mention it intend no more than I say; only they may rationally maintain, that a scruple not sufficiently warranted, in a person otherwise sober and sound, about a matter indifferent, or not intollerably evil, tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame, yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person. The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant, nor a Casuist; but of somewhat else that I shall not name. For when it had been pleaded, that these scruples are great, of long standing, not to be removed without very over-powering impressions on mens minds: He answereth, by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries, that a little impartiality and consideration would do it, but that we read, judge, and hear only on one side; think it a temptation to examin, cry out, we are satisfied already, are not willing to be informed, nor glad of light; fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples, &c. If we be such men, why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us; it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such, and the People too; to cry out, away with such fellows from the Earth, it is not fit they should live. He asketh, where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples? If I should speak in his dialect, I should answer in the arguments by us produced, which he and all his party are not able to answer, nor have ever answered; but I had rather-dispute than scold: He saith, we may see light if we will: We say, we would see it if we could, and think we could see it, if it were to be seen. He telleth us how easy this dispute is. We assent, and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth. He chargeth us with willful mistake; a mistake we deny, and make the contrary of it appear; but if it be a mistake, that it is willful, we also deny; and though we cannot in this, satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us, &c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts, who will one day judge us, and our rash judgers.
Sect. 6. He contesteth, page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook; there is no need of insisting on such debates: Brethren should study to understand one another, and construe every thing to the best. But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words, he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse, pag. 72, 73, 74. which he hath but lightly, or hardly at all touched. He proceedeth, pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists, who objecteth, that these who cannot conquer their scruples, as to Communion with our Church, must either return to the state of Paganism, or set up new Churches, by joyning with the ejected Ministers. The Dr's. Answer is, that this is new Doctrine; the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church, altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at. Reply, I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans, that did both scruple and act as we do; but I deny not that some did join with the Church, but then their scruples and ours do differ: They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient, yet might be used; we think them unlawful, and not to be used: There was also another difference, they met with some indulgence, and were suffered to Worship God with the Church, and forbear the things that they scrupled; We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these, and therefore, whatever they did, we are under this unpleasing choice, either to sin against God and our Consciences, or to set up Separate Meetings, or to return to the state of Paganism; i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God.
Sect. 7. It is objected, that we scruple joining in the Sacraments, and living under some of the Ministers. He answereth, that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation; neither do I insist on it, as I have before declared; save, where they Preach false Doctrine, or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances, so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin: And this scruple hath been often heard of. It is too vulgar a way of reasoning, it is a hard case if People must fly into separation, because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be. Pray, who ever said so? But the Dr. would fain know whether, as often as men do scruple joining with others, their separation be lawful. This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge, that scrupling can never make Separation lawful; it is good ground for these scruples that must do that. Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations, might have been spared, as wholly impertinent; O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth. After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England, he asketh, what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable, as the present Separation? Ans. There is in it, that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated, that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising, or other unlawful terms of Communion, and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these. He telleth us, page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation, because men cannot conquer their scruples. It is true, neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account; but withal he might have added, that few setled Churches except that of Rome, and that of England, do tempt, or rather force men to scruple, and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion, which they know many count unlawful. What he saith ibid. for Papists, Anabaptists, and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating, doth no way come up to our case. Neither are their scruples built on good grounds, nor are the things that they scruple, known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things. He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation, by shewing what scruples are to be allowed, and what not. Hath this never been done by Non-conformists? Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion; and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences: If these were attended to, a stop might soon be put to Separation; but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand, and the Church will impose without cause on the other, there is no putting a stop to Separations, till the Lord cure our Distempers. Rigour and Persecution, if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party, is one way to put a stop to Separation, but it is none of Gods way; and as it never had his approbation, so it seldom hath had success.
Sect. 8. The Learned Author, Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject; to wit, the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism. I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation, and therefore might wave this whole debate: But I think it is an abuse, and therefore shall say a little on this Subject. Here we have not any institution to guide us, there being nothing in Scripture, that I know of, about Spo…sion for the party Baptized: And therefore, as on the one hand, what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary, should not be withstood; so on the other, what is beyond that, should not be practised, and far less imposed. All the question is about the use of Sponsers in the Baptism of Infants, for the adult are to undertake for themselves. Some make the use of God-fathers, to be witnesses of the Childs-Baptism. That is very needless, for the whole Church are witnesses of that. The true use of them is to represent the Child as a party covenanting with God, in this Solemn Sealing of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Infant; and consequential to this, to undertake the instruction and education of the Child in the Christian Religion; and endeavouring to engage him to a personal owning of the Covenant. The original of other Sponsors beside the Parents was, in the Primitive Church, many young ones, either born of Heathen-Parents, or Orphans of Christian-Parents, falling into the Tuition of Heathen-Relations, in reference to their worldly concerns, were in hazard by that means to be bred in Heathenism: Wherefore it was judged needful that some faithful, and intelligent Christian should undertake for their Religious Education. This usage which reason had first brought in, ostentation did afterward enlarge, by multiplying God-fathers and God-mothers; and after that, Superstition did perver… it, by excluding the Parents, and putting strangers in their room; till at last in Popery, it was quite depraved, by making a spiritual kindred to result from this action. Wherefore, we do not deny the use of Sponsors, but think the Parents the most proper Sponsors; both on account of their opportunity, obligation and natural inclination, to do the office of a Sponsor for the Child, which may rationally be thought to be more in them than in a stranger; and we think it a gross abuse to admit of other Sponsors, except in the want of Parents, or their Inhability. I think also, considering things as they are, not barely in the notions that men have of things that they will defend; this practice is fallen into such abuse, that even that should make it be laid aside; for it is manifest and most common, that God-fathers and God-mothers are chosen most unqualified for, and most unconcerned in that which they make a solemn promise to God to perform, which is a horrid mocking of Him and his Ordinances: Are not Boys and Girls chosen, or Debauched and Ignorant Persons; or Strangers, that may be, shall never see the Child again, nor mind it, except it be to send it a new Coat?
Sect. 9. The Dr. telleth us of Mr. Cartwright; yea, and all Protestant Churches approving of this. But will he say, that they are for Excluding the Parents? which is the very thing that we controvert; For as the Dr. confesseth, Can. 29. Ordaineth, That Parents need not be Present, and that they shall not be admitted to Answer: that is, they must not undertake for the instruction and education of their own Child. But saith he, The Parents are to provide such as are Fit. I desire to know what Warrant is for this, even from sound reason? Who can be so Fit, by his opportunity and care, as the Parent? And if he be wholly unfit, as to understanding, and respect to true Religion, we are not against his having a Deputy, in that Case; that it is done with the Parents consent, is better so than otherwise; but that the Parent can transfer his right to another, is without all reason, unless the Person to whom such a Translation is made, do really take the education of the Child; which though by a private compact between the Parent and Sponsor, might be done; yet, what shadow of reason can be for a Canon compelling every Parent to do it? It is (saith he) but like an occasion of absence; to wit, of the Parent, in which case all allow of a Sponsor. Ans. It is no way like it, for the one hath necessity to warrant it; the other hath nothing but mens will, or superstitious conceit. Is it alike for, the State to make a Law that neighbours should feed and cloath the Orphans of poor Parents; and to make a Law that they shall feed and cloath the Children of their rich Neighbours, who are alive? The case is just so here. It is an injury to a man, to have his Child taken from him without a cause, and given to another to be educated; so it is to be obliged, yea, forced to transfer upon another all that right he hath to represent his own child, and to engage for his education. He saith, it is not the Churches intention to supersede the obligation of the Parent, but to superinduce a further obligation upon other Persons. Had the Parent been permitted to undertake for the Child jointly with the Sponsors, there had been some colour for this assertion; but that being expresly denied by the Canon, it is evident that the Church doth what she can to make the Parent think that no obligation at all lyeth on him. I meddle not with his debate against Mr. B. about Mr. B's Argument against Sponsors, from the Childs having right to Baptism, only from the Parents; many learned men differ from Mr. B. in that, and I shall not digress to dispute it.
Sect. 10. The Dr. pag. 386. saith, he findeth nothing particularly objected against Kneeling at the Communion, that deserveth consideration, which he hath not answered in another place; to wit, Conferences First Part, which Book I have not seen; wherefore I shall in a few words lay down our Ground of Scrupling that Practice, and so leave it. We do not scruple Kneeling at Prayer, which is joyned with receiving of that Sacrament; nor do we deny that all possible reverence should be used in going about that Holy Ordinance; but we think the expression of that Reverence should be of Gods appointing in his Word, or grounded on Nature, or civil Custom, and not instituted by mans Will. 1. Then we scruple it, because it is an uncommanded Act of Worship; that it is Worship, I think will not be denyed; Kneeling in Prayer cannot be denyed to be an Act of external Worship, no more than this: That it is uncommanded, we must believe, till they shew us a Command for it. They alledge, that Kneeling, being unquestionable a fit gesture to express Humility and Adoration; it cannot be unfit, but needful in this Case where both are required. To this I reply, Humility is not fitly expressed by Kneeling, though Adoration be, and therefore we think Kneeling in the Act of Receiving to be no fit gesture, because Adoreing, however needful it be in the complex Action of Communicating; to wit, before and after Receiving the Elements; it is not the Souls work in that Act, Believing or Covenanting with God, is the proper Exercise of the Soul in that Act, which is a solemn sealing of the Covenant, and this Covenanting is very unfitly expressed by Kneeling. He that is about solemn Prayer or Adoration (which might be well expressed by Kneeling) in the Act of receiving that Sacrament, doth little know, or consider, the nature and use of it; whence I form our Argument thus; that Religious Gesture which is neither Commanded by God, nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature, and dictated by it; nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship; but is only imposed by the Will of man, is unlawful to be used in that Worship; but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such; Ergo, &c. The major is clear, for that must in that case be Will-worship; the minor is proved by what is said, and the conclusion followeth, …i…syllogistica.
Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is; this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolick and purest Primitive Church; Christ with his Disciples Sate or leaned; they used the table gesture, then made decent by civil custom, and yet they used as much humility in receiving, and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do, or can. In after Ages this Practice was not used, it is well known that in Tertullians time, and till the beginning of the Fifth Century, they did not use to Kneel on any Lords Day between Easter and Pentecost, so much as at Prayer; and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it; how then did they make the Communion Kneeling? A third ground is; this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature, with a Religious respect to the Creature; but this is unlawful, &c. The first proposition is clear, for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them, that we Kneel; and it will not be denyed that we there adore God Religiously. The second proposition I prove, because Protestants do generaly condemn Praying before an Image (as on other accounts, so on this) because it is an adoring of God before a Creature, with a Religious respect to it; let our Brethren shew us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images, that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements. We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship, as they do the other; they deny that they give any Worship to the Image, as we do with reference to the Elements. A fourth Ground is; this Practice, (as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent,) hath been grosly abused to Idolatry, the Papists in the same external way worshiping the Hoste. And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christs Bodily presence in the Sacrament, and the Papists profess, that if they did not believe that, they would not so Kneel; and is it fit that we should so symbolize with them? which by this Practice we do to that degree, that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs, by the spectators of both. These grounds I have but hinted, being spoken to more largely by others.
Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies, she may impose some use of Images, &c. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages. All this discourse might have been waved, for neither Mr. A. nor any of us, did ever make that a ground of Separation; tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground. If they will remove the present Ceremonies, we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them; nor out of fear of what may come.
Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth, and then refuteth is, Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England, and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome; and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface (he should have said, Epistle Dedicatory) to Mischief of Impositions; but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other, ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is, ad hominem, against the Dr's. ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church; whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church; Ration: account. p. 293. And def. against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth. Separation from that Church: Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head. And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary, that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject, and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joyning with the Church of England, but Worshiping God in Meeting apart from it.
Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book, to set it off foreign, three Letters of three French Divines, Printed first in French, and then in English, ad pompam; for it is little ad pugnam. But he might know, what ever difference we give to learned and good men, their authority, without Scripture proof (which we yet desiderate) will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice; let the Dr. call it obstinacy, or by what name he pleaseth. The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden, to the Bp. of London; the authority of which Letter (not of the learned Author of it) we have good cause to neglect; because it is apparent to any that read it, that it is written by a stranger to us, upon gross mis-information of our principles: For he saith, page 404. that he could not have perswaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England: And I join with him so far; that I know not, nor hear of one Non-conformist of that opinion; but thus it seems we are, by our Brethren, represented abroad; and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us. He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies, page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline, ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England, yea in the Christian World, that are predestinated to eternal happiness, and that hold truths necessary to Salvation, as they ought to be held, so he page 408. he also, page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London, where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher, as very ridiculous; and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists, sheweth him to be either a very great stranger to them, or somewhat that is worse. Let any now judge, whether such a Testimony be to be received against us.
Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle, speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it, to be an ingenious and sober Person, but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party: He lamenteth our Divisions, so do we; he is for complyance with the Ceremonies, being setled, but is far enough from approving of them. The former part of this, I impute to his being less concern'd to consider these things, than we are. He stateth our Separation mainly upon Episcopacy, which we do not; and he, no doubt, doth it upon Misinformation: But it is observable, that this good man, whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side, doth as much blame the Church as us, whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies, that occasion Separation; which he insisteth much on, as the way to peace. A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with, is, That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters, a little after His Majesties Restauration, nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians; the contrary of which, and their great Condescendency for Peace, is known to all England, and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity, is the Book called, A Petition for Peace, containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed, while the Prelatical Party would not part with, yea, nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony, or mode of their Service.
Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent, Monsieur Claude, who walketh by the same Spirit, and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague, Monsieur de l' Angle: He speaketh of Episcopacy as tollerable; that one may, with a good Conscience, live under it: This is not our Question; but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him, by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause. He telleth us, they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops; so do we: He doth highly commend Love and Concord: And we think it cannot be overvalued▪ where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages, both by Episcopacy, and Parity; and of disadvantages by both, when managed by bad men. Nothing of which do we contradict. He complains of Extreams on both sides, we do the same: We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate, as they should be: After a proof of Independency, he comes to speak of Presbyterians, with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding, and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth. He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order, and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry; this we refuse not. He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart, but stateth it on this ground, page 445. as if we did Separate because the publick assembles are held under Episcopal Government; and that we think our presence there were an approving of it, which is wide from our case; but no doubt is according to his information, for which we …hank our Episcopal Brethren, and commend their ingenuity. To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies; but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them: which is far from our thoughts: These Principles he doth most solidly refute. He saith, page 447. that he cannot believe that any of …us (Presbyterians) look on their Episcopal Discipline, or Ceremonies as blots and capital errours that hinder a man from Salvation. And doth in this truly judge, for we have always disowned such sentiments, we judge them sinful evils, which we dare not own; but have much charity to some who own them. He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation, and when the dispute is about Ceremonies, that are a stumbling-block, and nothing in comparison of communion, they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ, better than themselves. O that this advice were followed, how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude, or his Colleague touched our controversy. Alas! good Men, they are abused by mis-representations. Their Letters give just ground to think, that if they were made Umpires between the two parties, Prelatical and Presbyterian, and heard the true state of our debate, and true matters of fact: they would be of the same mind with us. And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for. Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters. What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side, or at least to say nothing against them, may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary, Monsieur l' Arrogie; who having writ a Book, wherein he sheweth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome (which all know to be Presbyterian) with that of the Primitive Church; And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle, touching the Letters of Ignatius, and the Apostolical Constitutions, against Mr. Pearson and Beverige, and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him, at the request of some that favoured …piscopacy, he did not finish his answer. These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause; of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants, Ministers and others, who do not Conform to the Church of England; the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great Gosple Duty of charity. At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles, was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies, nor English Liturgy. Since I wrote this, I have met with another instance of Episcopal inge…uity, for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches. It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart, dated Nov. 2d. 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley, wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three po…itions; whereof the third is a gross calumny, and excellently disproved by Bochart, and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him; the position is, Reges posse vi & armis a subditis cogi in ordinem▪ & si se praebeant immorigeros, de soliis deturbare, in carcerem c…njici, si…i in jus & carnificem deniqne capite plecti; and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st. The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter, as it is Printed after his Phaleg, and Canaan; from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford, 1681.
FINIS.
End of the text · Gilbert Rule, Defense of Non-Conformity (1689)