The Nature and Use of Things Indifferent, Argument 3
III. ARGVMENT.
It is a ſinne not to recompenſe a good turne receiued.
Ergo, The refractarie Miniſters are to be regarded and ſpoken for.
ANSVVERE.
I.
IT is true: Anſwere.good deeds muſt be rewarded, ſpecially the Miniſters faithfull labours. The Apoſtle ſaith (1. Cor. 9.11.) If we hauehave ſowen vntounto you ſpirituall things, is it a great thing &c.
II.
But in that the refractarie Miniſters hauehave looked backe, and withdrawne their hands from the plough (Luk. 9.62.) making a manifeſt Schiſme, and diſturbing the peace of the Church, this deſerueth no recompenſe.
Here the Defender beſtirreth himſelfe, Reply.and produceth all his forces, Whether the refractarie Miniſters be Schiſmatiquesto prooue that the refractarie Miniſters are not Schiſmatiques. I ſay firſt of all (ſaith he) that this accuſation of vsus to be Schiſmatiques, is a moſt beggerly begging of the Queſtion, moſt vniuſt, vntrue and vncharitable, neuer yet proued, neither able to be proued; vntill they proue the matters in controuerſie, to be meerely indifferent to ſuch vſes, as whereto they are imploide and vrged by them, yea good and laudable ceremonies, matters of decencie and order in the Church: yea that wee alſo refuſe to conforme our ſelues vntounto them, more of ſtomacke, than of conſcience.
Two things the Defender ſaith muſt be performed by vsus, The Defenders firſt Reaſon, that the Miniſters are not Schiſmatiques, ouerthrowne.before the refractarie Miniſters will acknowledge themſelues to be Schiſmatiques; 1. That we proue the matters in controuerſie to be indifferent. 2. That we euince them, to refuſe conformitie rather of ſtomacke, then of conſcience. Touching the first, we hauehave already in diuers Bookes and Treatiſes purpoſely written to that end, more then ſufficiently proued the things in controuerſie, to be meerely indifferent, both in their owne nature, and to ſuch vſes as the Church allotteth and appointeth them. And for the Second, I know not well what the Defender meaneth thereby. What? ſhall a thiefe be a thiefe, notwithſtanding that to ſteale be not againſt his conſcience? ſhal an heretique be an heretique, albeit he thinketh he holdeth nothing but truth? and muſt not a Schiſmatique be a Schiſmatique, vnleſſe he be conuinced to ſinne againſt his owne conſcience? Note, the Defenders abſurditie.What Schiſmatique will euer confeſſe, that he is ſuch euen againſt his conſcience? By this meanes no man ſhall euer be conuinced to be a Schiſmatique. But we know, that obſtinate contumacie againſt the Church in things lawfull, is a ſchiſme, whatſoeuer a mans conſcience be. Conſciences are of two ſorts. 1. Too large. 2. Too ſtrict.Conſciences are of diuers and ſundrie ſorts; there is one Conſcience that is too large and prophane; and another Conſcience too ſtrict and ſuperstitious; a Popiſh Conſcience; and a Preciſe Conſcience, I meane in the extreame. So then the firſt part of this Argument being abundantly proued by vsus; and the ſecond being atheologicall and ridiculous, what remaineth but that the Defender labour the refractarie Miniſters, to acknowledge their ouerſight, and to yeeld to conformitie.
The Defenders ſecond Reaſon, Reply.to proue that the refractarie Miniſters are not Schiſmatiques, is this. There is nothing heere obiected against vsus, wherwith our ancients and betters hauehave not been charged in former times. Eliah was charged with troubling Iſrael. Michaiah might hauehave been charged with ſingularitie and Schiſme, for diſſenting from the 400. Prophets. Ieremie was accuſed by the Priests and Prophets, to hauehave ſpoken against the State of the Citie. Amos was charged with conſpiracie against the King. The enemies of Daniel framed the like accuſation against him to Darius. Our Sauiour himſelfe was blasphemed by the name of a ſeducer and deceiuer. Paul was accuſed, that he taught against the Law and the Temple. Such alſo hauehave been the accuſation of all Martyrs by the common Aduerſaries the Paptsts. And ſuch are the Prelats accuſations against vsus.
I anſwere. Reioynder. The Defenders 2. Reaſon ouerthrowne.As for Michaiah, becauſe the falſe Prophets did not accuſe him of ſingularitie and ſchiſme, the Defender becomes their Aduocate, and doth as much for them: by what right, let himſelfe looke to it. But who will not deteſt the impudencie of the Defender, in that he dareth equall the refractarie Miniſters caſe, with the condition of the Prophets and Apoſtles, of the bleſſed Martyrs, yea of CHRIST himſelfe? But, not to particularize, I anſwere, in generall. The difference betweene the examples alleadged and their caſe, is very great, & eaſie to be diſcerned. 1. Thoſe holy men did nothing contrarie to their vocation; theſe do. 2. They taught nothing but the truth of God, neceſſarie to be receiued; theſe teach their owne fancies. 3. They neuer oppugned the lawfull auctoritie of the Magiſtrate in Eccleſiaſticall cauſes, and Things indifferent; theſe do. 4. They were vniuſtly accuſed by the falſe Church for doing their office and dutie; theſe are iuſtly taxed by the true Church (as themſelues cannot deny) for hatefull ſchiſme and faction. 5. The Error is, foreign.
His third Reaſon, Reply.is: Do we varie from the ſincere doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay, rather many of them doe much more ſwarue from the ſame; touching generall grace, and the death of Christ for eueryevery particular perſon; against particular election and reprobation; for Images in Churches for deuotion; touching the manner of Christs preſence in the Eucharist; that the Pope is not the Antichrist, whereby they hinder the zeale of Christian Princes from executing that against him in generall, and against his members in particular, which the Word partly foretelleth, and partly commandeth to he done; concerning the neceſſitie of Baptiſme; touching auricular confeſſion; for ignorance in the people. Who can lay any ſuch points to vsus, or to any of vsus?
I anſwere, Reioynder.1. The Defenders report of our doctrine, is vtterly vntrne: The Defender ſlandereth our Church for falſe Doctrine.for we dereſt and abhorre euen all and eueryevery of the particular points, he ſaith we teach. Wherefore let him either iuſtifie theſe things to be true, out of the Confeſſion of the faith of our Church (which he ought to do, if he challenge vsus for Doctrine) or by any writer of ours of credit in the Church: or let him feare without repentance and ſatisfaction for it by confeſſing his ignorance, and malice in thus ſlandering the Church of God, the iuſt condemnation of Lyers and falſe witneſſes, whoſe portion is with hypocrites. 2. His Argument is this, The Defenders 3. Reaſon ouerthrowne.The refractarie Ministers do not varie from the ſincere doctrine of the Scriptures. Ergo, They are not Schiſmatiques. To let the Antecedent paſſe; for I hauehave not obſerued, that any of them erre in any fundamentall or materiall point of doctrine (which we thanke God for, praying farther for their preſeruation vntounto the end, in the vnity of faith with vsus) albeit I know that many amongſt them hauehave their particular fancies in ſome ſmaler points: I deny the Conſequence; for a man may be a Schiſmatique, and yet hold the entire and ſound profeſſion of the ſauing truth of God, as ſhall be manifeſt preſently. The Eiror is, foreign. The Defender ſeemes not to vnderſtand what Schiſme is. His returning of the Schiſme vponupon vsus, is ridiculous, and not worthy the anſwering: for Schiſme is a contumacie or ſeparation of the paits from the whole, not of the whole from the parts.
The fourth Reaſon is, Reply.HaueHave wee made any departure from the Church? We are depriued of our Miniſterie, and ſo thruſt out of our liuings perforce againſt our willes, as any man leaueth that which is vielently taken away: but though wee be thus put from our Ministerie and liuings by our Prelats, yet doe we not for ſake the communion of the Church.
The argument is briefly thus: Reioynder.The Defenders 4. Reaſon ouerthrowne. Schiſmatiques of two ſorts. 1. Separatists. 2. Factious men.The refractarie Ministers hauehave not for ſaken the Communion of the Church of England. Ergo, They are not Schiſmatiques. I anſwere, Schiſmatiques are of two ſorts; 1. Such as ſeparate themſelues from the Church; and that either from the whole Catholique, or from any particular Church. 2. Such as raiſe contentions and ſtirre vp factions in the Church, and are contumacious and diſobedient towards their Gouernours: Of which ſort are the refractarie Miniſters. Touching that the Defender ſaith, they leaue their charge, as a man leaueth that which is violently taken away from him: that doth not extenuate their fault any whit, ſeeing they by their obſtinate ſuperſtition, diſable themſelues from doing that good in their places, which they ought to doe; and ſo diſturbe the peace of the Church, that for preſeruation of vnitie, the Magiſtrate is compelled to thruſt them out of their places.
The fifth Reaſon, Reply.is: HaueHave wee loitered in the worke of the Miniſtery? hauehave we heaped benefice vpō benefice? hauehave we eaten and drunke, and beaten our fellow-ſeruants? hauehave we ſought our owne, and not that which is Ieſus Chriſts? hauehave wee made our bellies our God? hauehave we minded earthly things? Whereas the word Schiſme in the Greeke language ſignifieth a renting; and the word Sedition in the Latine, ſignifieth ſeorſim ire, to goe aſide, or a going aſide; we hauehave proued that in theſe ſignifications, we cannot be charged with Schiſme.
I anſwere. Reioynder.The Defen. ders 5. Reaſon ouerthrowne.This Reaſon is parallel vntounto the next going before. I marueile the Defender braggeth of the refractaries diligence in their Miniſterie, ſeeing they wilfully abandon their calling. If at any time they hauehave been diligent, I would God they had not looked backe, but continued their diligence ſtill. As for pluralitie of benefices; what difference is there, between heaping one benefice vponupon another, and one benefit vponupon another? their gifts and beneuolences are not vnknowne. Is not reuiling and ſlandering their fellow-ſeruants, to beate them? Doe they not wilfully refuſe their charge, becauſe they may not be tolerated in their ſuperſtition and faction? Doe they not refraine to labour in Gods ſeruice, to ſerue their owne appetites and affections? and yet, Ignorance of the Defender.loe, they minde no earthly things! And for the Defenders philoſophie, touching Schiſme and Sedition, tis no marueile (the reſt of his booke being ſutable vntounto this) he is ignorant, that Sedition is that in the Common-wealth, which Schiſme is in the Church; for he conſounds both.
The ſixt and laſt Reaſon, is: Reply.All Schiſmatiques are abomination to the Lord. The Ministers pleaded for are not abomination to the Lord, but in grace and fauour with him. Ergo, The Miniſters pleaded for, are no Schiſmatiques. The Propoſition is Salomons. The Aſſumption is the Anſwerers.
I anſwere, 1. The Propoſition is true, with this reſtraint, Reioynder.The Defenders 6. Reaſon ouerthrowne.to wit, as they be Schiſmatiques: otherwiſe (queſtionleſſe) diuers elect and holy Children of God, by reaſon of the infirmitie of their nature, may fall, aſwell into the ſinne of Schiſme, as vntounto any other ſinne, except that againſt the holy Ghoſt. 2. The Aſſumption may be vnderſtood two waies; 1. The Ministers are not abomination to the Lord, to wit, as they be Miniſters of the Goſpell, or holy men, which is the ſenſe that I granted it in; and ſo it is true: but then the middle tearme is not ſpoken ad idem with the Propoſition, for there are foure tearmes (as the Schoole ſpeakes) in the Syllogiſme, contrarie to the law of true reaſoning, and ſo concludeth nothing. 2. It may be vnderſtood thus, The Ministers are not abomination to the Lord, to wit, as they be ſchiſmaticall and factious, which is the ſenſe of the Propoſition, neuer granted by me; and ſo the Aſſumption is vtterly falſe: for the Miniſters, as they are ſchiſmaticall, ſinne; and ſo are an abomination to the Lord. The Error, is foreign.
Hauing refuted the Defenders Reaſons, That the refractarie Miniſters are properlie Schiſmatiqueswhereby he laboured to cleere the refractarie Miniſters from the iuſt imputation of Schiſme, I thinke it not impertinent (ſeeing the Defender hath referred this point to bee here diſcuſſed) to ſpeake ſomething of SCHISME, and to make it plaine and euident vntounto all men, that the refractarie Miniſters are indeed and properly SCHISMATIQVES; which wee will (God willing) irrefutably euince out of the true definition and nature of Schiſme: and the rather, to ſtop their mouthes, that hereafter, when wee ſhall tearme them (as they are indeed) Schiſmatiques, they may not except, that wee begge the Queſtion.
ΣΧΙΣΜΑ Schiſme, Of SCHISME.is properly a renting, diuiding, or cutting in ſunder of a ſolide bodie, ſuch as is the cleauing of wood, which diuideth and ſeparateth the vnited parts of the ſame.
This word is metaphorically retained in the Church, and vſed by Diuines, to ſignifie ſuch as raiſe contentions and diſquietnes in the Church, or ſeparate themſelues from the ſame, or inſtitute or frequent priuate conuenticles and aſſemblies.
Schiſme therefore is a wilfull breaking of the vnity of the Church, Schiſme defined.either by ſeparation from the ſame, or by rayſing contention within it, or by refuſing to ſubmit and yeeld obedience to the lawfull Paſtors and Guides thereof.
Thus the Corinthians were Schiſmatiques, in that they diuided themſelues into factions, and cauſed diſlentions in the Church, whereby the ſocietie of the faithfull was diſturbed and diuided into ſundrie partiall Sects, the one holding of Apollos, the other of Paul, and the third of Cephas, 1. Cor. 1.10.11.12. 1. Cor. 3.3.4.
Yea in Rites and Ceremonies they diſſented one from another, and auoyded one anothers communion, as damnable. 1. Cor. 11.16.17.18.
And the Defender confeſſeth, that he that rayſeth vp diſſention among Brethren, is a Schiſmatique, though he doth not ſeparate himſelfe from the Church. Milde Def. pag. 48.
As for Separation, Separation two-fold.it is two-fold: for a Man may ſeparate himſelfe, either abſolutely from the whole Militant Church, being caried away with error of mind; and ſuch is not in the Church. Or, by reaſon of ſome infirmitie, or perturbation of mind, becauſe of offences, he may ſeparate himſelfe from this or that particular Church: Such may be of the Church, ſeeing he is but rent from this or that member, not from the whole body.
It is one thing to be cut off from the Body, NW.and another thing to be cut from a Member of the body. He that is cut from the Body, hath nothing common with the body. He that is cut from a Member, may be, both formally by the Spirit, and alſo materially by touch and coheſion of ſome other member, ioyned to the body. Now eueryevery particular Church, is a member of that Catholique body.
Alſo, Vnitie conſidered two waies.the Vnitie of the Church may be conſidered two waies: for either it is Internall and formall by the Spirit of Chriſt, in faith; or it is Externall and materiall, in the proſeſſion, exerciſes and ſignes of faith. The former may really conſiſt without the later; but not contrariwiſe, the later without the former. For a Schiſmatique may breake the externall Vnion, without breaking the Internall.
Neither do I ſpeake this, N.any way to excenuate the crime of this kind of Schiſme: for certainly euen this is a moſt pernicious Sinne; becauſe ſuch a Schiſmatique, as much as in him lieth, deſtroyeth both himſelfe and the whole Church alſo.
Which that we may the better vnderſtand, we muſt call to minde the Philoſophers diſtinction of the WHOLE, WHOLE two-fold.which is of two ſorts. There is one WHOLE, euerie part whereof is foreign, alike or of the ſame kind; as earth, water, blood, ſalt, milke, &c. If diuiſion be made of any of theſe, the powers of the whole do after a ſort periſh: for by that ſeparation and plucking in ſunder, it is much weakened; yet in the parts the nature of the whole is preſerued; for eueryevery part of earth is earth, of water water, &c. There is another WHOLE, eueryevery part whereof is foreign, of vnlike or diuers kind; Such be all liuing creatures and plants, made of diuers members and parts. If a man diuide theſe, then neither the Whole, nor the parts can remaine. A man being drawen aſunder into parts, ceaſeth to be a man.
Now the Church, NW.being a bodie compoſed of diuers parts, when it is diuided, both it ſelfe after a ſort is ruined, and the parts thereof being diſtracted doe periſh.
Schiſme is two-fold, Pure; or Mixedwith Hereſie.Schiſme twofold. 1. Pure.
Pure Schiſme, is that whereby the Vnitie of the Church is broken, either by ſeparation, or other contumacie; notwithſtanding that ſuch retaine an intire profeſſion of the truth of God.2. Mixed with Hereſie.
Schiſme mixed with Hereſie, is that wherein together with the departure or contumacie, there is ioyned ſome error in matters of faith. Which likely happeneth in the end of all Schiſmes; eueryevery one being deſirous to iuſtifie his diſobedience and contumacie, or departure from the reſt of Gods people.
Schiſme differeth from Hereſie.The differēce betweene Schiſme and Hereſie.
1 Becauſe Hereſie holdeth ſome falſe point of doctrine: Schiſme breaketh ſocietie to defend it.
2 Hereſie ouerthroweth the ſinceritie of faith: Schiſme hurteth the bond of peace.
3 Hereſie in the beginning thereof holdeth ſome peruerſe opinion: Schiſme in the end bringeth foorth Hereſie.
4 Schiſme is as it were the generall kinde: Hereſie the ſpeciall kinde. For eueryevery Hereſie is a Schiſme; but not contrariwiſe, eueryevery Schiſme an Hereſie.
5 Schiſme is a certaine diſpoſition: Hereſie an indurate habite.
6 Hereſie may bee kept ſecret a long time: Schiſme is preſently diſcouered.
Againe, Schiſme may be, 1. In Externall things. 2. In proſeſſion.Schiſme is either in Externall things, as in the choice of Biſhops, or other Gouernours and Paſtors of the Church. Or in the Profeſſion of life, as the diuers orders of Monkes and Friers, wherein eueryevery Sect followeth a diuers rule or way to attaine eternall life, condemning all other different from it. 3. In Ceremonies, 4. Jn phraſes and words.Or in Rites and ceremonies of religion, as that of the keeping of Eaſter. Or in Phraſes and ſtrife of words, as is that concerning the reall preſence among the Reformed Churches, and of Chriſts Paſſion and Deſcent into hell with vsus.
Furthermore, NW.Schiſme euen from the originall thereof proceedeth from euill. For all good is vnited, not diuided: and GOD, the auctor of all good, is one, ſimple, without diuiſion.
Amongſt Schiſmatiques, Some Schiſmatiques greater ſinners, then others.ſome are greater ſinners than other: neither are all induced to bee ſuch, vponupon the ſame grounds and reaſons.
For, Some are carried with hatred towards their brethren: with which vice the Donatiſts ſeeme to hauehave been infected in Auguſtines time.
Others are lead by ambition and deſire of rule: Many ſuch ſchiſmes hauehave happened in the Synagogue of Antichriſt, at what time there were two, or three, or foure Popes together at once.
Others are carried with blind affection and fauour towards mens perſons: ſuch were the Corinthians in the Apoſtles time; and ſuch at this day are thoſe fond Preachers that, not caring for truth, labour to pleaſe men.
Others follow factions of meere ignorance of the truth, who are the more tolerable, if their ignorance be not wilfull and affected: ſuch were the people in Chriſts time (Ioh. 7.12.40.41.42.43.) For ſome ſaid of Chriſt, He is a good man. Other ſaid, nay, but he deceiueth the people. Some ſaid, Of a truth this is that Prophet. Other ſaid, This is that Chriſt. And ſome ſaid, But ſhall Christ come out of Galile? &c. So there was (ſaith Iohn) a Schiſme among the people.
Others are puffed vp with admiration of their owne vertues, or with a vaine perſwaſion of their owne holineſſe: Such were the Cathariſts or Puritanes in the daies of Tertullian, who ſought for pure aſſemblies.
Others flie out by reaſon of diſcontentments and want of preferments: of which ſort we hauehave too many examples in our daies.
I neede not particularly to applie theſe things, either vntounto the Browniſts, who hauehave ſeparated themſelues from vsus; or vntounto the refractarie Miniſters, who are diſobedient vntounto their lawful Gouernours amongſt vsus, and diſquiet our Church with Contentions. Theſe grounds, which I hauehave laid, are ſo plaine and eaſie; that (I thinke) there is not any man ſo ſimple, but may manifeſtly diſcerne how, and in what ſenſe they are, and may be rightly termed Schiſmatiques.
If it be demanded; How Schiſme may be excuſed.Whether in any caſe Schiſme may be excuſed?
I anſwere; It may ſo, in ſome ſpeciall caſes.
I. Neceſſitie excuſeth Schiſme: namely when good men are publikely expelled and baniſhed, and violently put out of their Churches, ſo that they can hauehave no place left them, neither among the Teachers, nor among the hearers. As at this day we ſee whole families and aſſemblies compelled to flie out of their owne countrie, and to liue in exile for Religion ſake.
II. When the ſinceritie of faith is ſo corrupt, that holeſome doctrine (as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh) can bee neither taught, nor learned; the godly may depart. For agreement and vnitie is commendable onelyonly in the truth: if truth be away, wee ought to make no queſtion of agreement and vnitie.
III. When the Sacraments are ſo corruptly adminiſtred, that there is not ſcarſe any ſtep to be ſeene of Chriſts inſtitution; There is no doubt but a man may lawfully ſeparate himſelfe from that ſocietie which retaineth not true Doctrine and the lawfull vſe of the Sacraments.
But here both the Separatiſts and the Refractaries ſtep in, Obiections of the Browniſts and Refractaries.and labour to defend their Schiſme, alleaging; 1. That we liue not according to our dostrine neither Ministers, nor people. 2. That whereas we abound with wickedneſſe yet we admit eueryevery one promiſcuouſly vntounto the Lords Supper, without further cenſure or diſcipline. 3. That we vſe Popiſh ceremonies in the worſhip of God.
I anſwere, Anſw.generally: Theſe are no iuſt and ſufficient cauſes, to make a Schiſme, as appeareth in that the truth of doctrine and puritie of faith, conſiſt not in theſe things: which whileſt they grant vntounto vsus, they condemne themſelues in that they hauehave inconſideratly made a ſchiſme from vsus without iuſt cauſe.
Neither is it any hard matter, to anſwere all their arguments in particular excepting the firſt.
Touching the Munisters therefore; It is moſt certaine, Of Scandalous Miniſtersthat a faithfull Minitier of Chriſt ought not onelyonly to know the will of God but alſo to do thereafter. What Paul ſpake of the Law, that not the hearers, but the doers thereof ſhould be iuſtified, (Rom. 2.13.) that Chriſt ſpeaketh of his Diſciples, (Ioh. 13.17.) If you know theſe things, happie are you if you doe them. But it cannot bee denied but that ſome Miniſters offend this way, which how they will anſwere before God, let themſelues looke vntounto. For my owne part, I can ſay no more of ſuch Miniſters, than what Chriſt ſaith of the Scribes and Phariſies, (Mat. 23.2.3.) They ſit in Moſes chaire: All therefore whatſoeuer they bid you obſerue, that obſerue and doe; but after their works do not; for they ſay and do not. It ought to content vsus, that they teach true doctrine; and that they liue not thereafter, it hurteth not me, for they ſhall carrie their owne burdens. The doctrine is ours; the life is theirs: let vsus take the doctrine, and leaue the manners. I had rather hauehave a ſincere Preacher of Gods Word, that will declare Chriſt vntounto me purely, rebuke my ſinful liuing, comfort me with the ſweete promiſes of the Goſpell, ſhew me how I ought to frame my life according to the will of God, &c. albeit his manners be ſomewhat corrupt, and diſſent from his preaching; then to hauehave a wicked Heretique, a peſtilent Phariſie, or a ſuperſtitious Hypocrite, who outwardly ſhall pretend a certaine grauitie, and a pure manner of liuing, and yet corrupt the holy Scriptures, leade the people into ſuperſtitious errors, ſlatter the hearers, preach for lucre, mangle the doctrine of Chriſt, and obſcure the way of truth. Of ſuch Chriſt warneth vsus to take heed ſaying. (Matth. 7.15.) Beware of falſe Prophets which come to you in ſheepes cloathing, but inwardly are rauening wolues. Theſe things our Schiſmatiques know very well; but not contented herewith, they vrge; Such a man was vnworthie to be admitted, and now being in the Ministerie, be ought to be put out; which I leaue to the Magiſtrates and ſuch as be in auctoritie to conſider of.
As for the People: Of Scandalous People.the Separatiſts and Refractaries do limite and hedge in the Church too narrowly and ſtraightly. It is very lamentable indeed, that the doctrine of truth is not heard with more fruit; yet do they offend, who looke for pure aſſemblies in earth, without ſpot or blemiſh. Chriſt compareth the Goſpell vntounto a net, that containeth fiſh and filth: and the Lords field hath in it both good corne and tares; which yet muſt not be weeded out, vntill harueſt be come. Vainely therefore doe they labour to ſeeke pure aſſemblies; albeit if they would looke into their owne ſocieties, it may be they might finde therein as many Sinners as are in ours. But theſe men ought to content themſelues, as the godly hauehave euer done, that the wicked being knowne cannot hurt the ſaithfull; who either hauehave no auctoritie to curbe them, or cannot otherwiſe prouide for publique peace, then by tolerating ſuch. And yet there want not in the meane time publique Lawes and penalties to reſtraine and bridle ſuch as be notorious offenders.
That which they ſpeake concerning the Communion, Of promiſcuous admiſſion to the Communion.is very inconſiderate alſo and fooliſh: ſeeing neither Chriſt, nor the Apoſtle Paul, did euer ſpeake any thing at all, concerning the cenſuring and examining of others; But command only that eueryevery man ſhould examine himſelfe. Chriſt celebrated his Supper with his weake Diſciples, and admitted Iudas to be partaker thereof, as many excellent Diuines do hold. Paul expreſſely commandeth, that eueryevery man examine himſelfe. It is my dutie to looke vntounto my ſelfe, and thine vntounto thy ſelfe, & of eueryevery other vntounto himſelfe. So that a faithfull Miniſter ſeemeth to hauehave ſufficiently diſcharged his dutie, if he ſhall diligently admoniſh the Communicants hereof, and not curiouſly prie into the ſecrets of other men. Concerning manifeſt crimes the Church hath preſcribed Lawes of admonition, of Counſell, &c. If any liſt to communicate contemning theſe; I ſee not how any man may exclued thoſe from the Communion, whom God the Father, and Chriſt Ieſus admit their ghueſts: neither doeſt thou know what God may worke in a Sinner, euen in that very houre. It is not a ſigne of an ingenuous and charitable mind, to depart becauſe of Sinners, whom Chriſt inuiteth to come vntounto him. The Apoſtle ſaith. (2. Tim. 2.20.) In a great houſe there are not only veſſels of gold and ſiluer, but alſo of wood and of earth, &c. we muſt endeuour, that we may be veſſels of gold and ſiluer: God only is to breake the veſſels of earth in pieces.
As touching that we vſe Popiſh Ceremonies in the Worſhip of GOD, that appeares otherwiſe, in my booke De Adiaphoris, whereunto I referre the Reader.
Many men moue this Queſtion. Whether Schiſmatiques may be compelled.Whether Schiſmatiques ought to be compelled to vnitie? I anſwere; Compulſion ſeemeth to be hard, ſpecially in ſuch things as ought to be voluntarie. Augustine confeſſeth, that he was once of mind, that neither Schiſmatiques, nor Heretiques ought to bee compelled. (Lib. Retract. cap. 5.) But afterwards hauing by vſe and experience learned what good a little diſcipline would effect, he altreth his opinion, and plainly defendeth, that Schiſmatiques ought by all meanes to be compelled to concord and vnitie.
Yet herein great moderationought to be vſed: we muſt otherwiſe deale with the Auctors of Schiſme, and ſuch as be ſtubborne and wilfull; than with ſuch as of meere ignorance and prepoſterous zeale of pietie, are Seduced by others. But I leaue this vntounto the graue and religious conſideration of the wiſe Magiſtrates.