[...]MPRIMATUR,

GVIL. JANE.
Nov. 24. 1677.

Mr. HALES's TREATISE OF SCHISM Examined and Censured.

By THOMAS LONG, B. D. and Prebendary of EXETER.

To which are Added, Mr. BAXTER's ARGUMENTS FOR Conformity, WHEREIN The most Material Passages OF THE TREATISE of SCHISM ARE ANSWERED.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1678.

…

Mr. HALES's TRACT OF SCHISM AND Schismaticks, (Printed by the Original Copy) EXAMINED AND CENSURED.

Who is it can think to gain acceptance and credit with reasonable Men, by opposing not only the present Church conversing in Earth, but the uniform con­sent of the Church in all Ages?

Mr. Hales in his Miscellanies set forth by Mr. Garthwait, Anno 1673. p. 260.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1678.

TO THE Right Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

IT was prophesied of our Savi­our, that the Government should be upon his shoulders, Is. 9. 6. and though he have devolved that bur­den upon mortal men, which is Angelicis humeris formidandum, yet doth he [...], put un­der his shoulder and help them to bear it, or they would soon sink [Page] under it. For however it fares with the Church, whether it be un­der persecution, none are so much exposed to a fiery trial as they; or whether it enjoy peace and plenty. Pride and contention swels up some corrupt members to the daily vex­ation of their Heads & Governors. And how blameless soever their Persons be, their Office is made a Crime.

Better things might have been expected from the Author of the Treatise hereafter considered, wherein there is so much contempt poured out upon the Episcopal Of­fice, and on all Church authority and administrations, that the Ink is not more black than the Calum­ny. But where should the impetus of discontent and faction vent it self, but against those rocks that are set by God Himself to give check and bounds unto it?

[Page] Now that in the Apostles days this sacred Order was appointed (among other great ends) as a re­medy against Schism, is acknow­ledged by such as are its reputed Adversaries: ‘In the Church of Alexandria from the time of St. Mark the Evangelist they were continued as a bulwork against Schism,’ saith St. Hierom in his E­pistle to Evagrius. ‘And in the Church of Corinth, when Men be­gun to say, I am of Paul and I of A­pollo, this Office was appointed, that the seeds of Schism might be taken away,’ saith the same Father on the first Chap. to Titus. And he tells the Luciferians in a Dialogue with them, ‘That unless an emi­nent and uninterrupted power be by all given to the chief Pastors, there will be as many schisms as there are Priests.’ In all this St. [Page] Hierom followeth the more ancient Fathers— Passibus aequis, for Ignatius advised the Trallians to do nothing without their Bishop. Which ad­vice he repeating again, tells them: ‘It is not my word, but the Word of God; and if ye suspect me to say this, as understanding that there are Divisions among you, he is my witness for whom I am in bonds, that it was not man, but the Spirit that declared this to me.’ St. Clemens in his Epistle to the Co­rinth. p. 57. says, ‘That the Apo­stles foreseeing that Divisions would arise as Christ had foretold, did establish Bishops.’ And the 32. Canon of the Apostles ordain­ed, ‘That if any Presbyter or Dea­con should make conventions with­out his Bishop, he should be de­posed.’ In the 4th. Oecumeni­cal Council of Calcedon consisting [Page] of 630. Fathers, there was read an Ancient Canon of the Council of Antioch to this effect: ‘If any Presbyter or Deacon contemning his Bishop shall separate and erect another Altar, and will not obey the Bishop, calling him home once and again, we do utterly condemn such a one.’ Which Canon being read by Aetius an Arch-Deacon, the Fathers with one consent proclaimed This is a righteous Canon of the Holy Fa­thers. In the Second Council of Carthage by the Eighth Canon it was provided, ‘That if any Pres­byter lifted up with pride should make a Schism against his Bishop, let him be accursed.’ But in de­fiance of all these Canons and cur­ses they have been accounted the only blessed Men in our times, who have most vehemently decry­ed [Page] this holy Order, and success­fully maintained a Faction against them. To whom, if they are yet capable of any Counsel, I would commend the moderation of Mr. Calvin, who speaking of Popish Bishops, Instit. l. 4. c. 10. S. 6. saith, ‘If they were true Bishops, I would yield them though not so much authority as they do re­quire, yet as much as is requisite for the well-ordering of Ecclesi­astical Government.’ And what he means by true Bishops he ex­plaineth, S. 1. ‘The form of the Ancient Church sets before our eyes a pattern of the Divine insti­tution for the order of governing his Church. For though the Bi­shops of those times did set forth many Canons, in which they seemed to express more than was expressed in the Holy Scripture; [Page] yet they composed their whole Oeconomy with such caution, ac­cording to that only rule of God's Word, that you may easily per­ceive that they held nothing in this respect differing from the Word of God.’ And in S. 4. he repeats the same: Si rem intu­emur, reperiemus veteres Episcopos non alium regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab eâ quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit. With how much truth and reverence doth this Learned man speak of those ancient Bi­shops, of whom he says not only that they did not actually swerve from God's Word as to their Government, but that they would not. This Candor is much want­ing in such as pretend to be Mr. Calvin's Disciples, with whom this Sacred Function and all its Administrations are defamed as [Page] Antichristian and Popish, and a Covenant for extirpating them root and branch is still pertinaci­ously adhered to. But though the authority of these men be despi­sed, yet methinks that of our Sa­viour who hath made them his Ambassadors, (and Apostolus cujus­que is est quisque) and hath told us, Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me; he that despiseth you, de­spiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me] should not be rejected, nor those severe penalties under which he exacts our obedience to his Officers be slighted. For whoever will not hear the Church, is to be accounted as a Heathen or Publican: and Mark 6. 11. Whosoever shall not receive you nor hear you—It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of Judgment than for them. And [Page] though wicked men do securely despise the censures of the Church, yet hath Christ said, Matth. 18. 18. of his Officers, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Hea­ven; which authority the Church of God would not have exerci­sed in the purest and most primi­tive times by so many and dread­ful Anathema's, if their great Lord had not authorized them, or if they had not experienced the good effects of them. Did the Apo­stle in vain derive a power to the Church of Corinth, 1 Epist ch. 5. v. 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one (as the Incestuous person) unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus? Or can we think the Records of the several Churches in those first Ages, which relate [Page] the divers painful and languishing Distempers of Body, as well as the anguish and trouble of Mind, which seized on such as by the Censures of the Church were cast out of Christian communion into the power of Satan, to be false or forged? The Divine Judg­ments which pursue such as in our times have been deservedly eject­ed, or do wilfully depart from the Church-communion, who are for the most part given up to a re­probate sense, and being possessed with a spirit of Giddiness and per­versness do as Cain run up and down from the Presence of God in his Publick Worship, like Va­gabonds from one Faction to ano­ther, till they fall into unnatural and diabolical practices, and stray­ing from Christ's Fold are made a Prey unto the Devil, do evidently [Page] demonstrate that the Church-cen­sures are not bruta fulmina, but have powerful effects for the con­version or confusion of contuma­cious offenders.

But non tali Auxilio, That Sacred Function which your Lordship su­stains in our Church needs not so weak an Apology as I can make for it. I have only endeavoured (as I was able) to silence the re­proaches and contradictions of un­reasonable Men, by whose strivings the burden of Government, which of it self is weighty enough, is made to sit more uneasie on the shoulders of our spiritual Guides. Against whom, it is no difficult work to maintain that assertion of Dr. Hammond in his answer to the Catholick Gentleman, p. 134. ‘That as long as any particular Bishop remains in due subordi­nation [Page] to his Canonical Superi­ors, so long the departure of any Clergy-man that is under his Ju­risdiction from that obedience which canonically he owes to him, is in him that is thus guilty of it an act of Schism. But this comes not now under considera­tion.’

My present endeavours I do lay at your Lordships feet, as an ac­knowledgment of that great hap­piness which we of your Lord­ships Diocess do injoy under your Government; in which, Autho­rity and Meekness, Candor and Courage, Piety and Prudence are so duly tempered, that though each of them be visible, yet it is hardly discernable which is most prevalent. That free and favour­able access which your Lordship hath vouchsafed me in more pri­vate [Page] concerns, hath incouraged me to this publick Address for the ser­vice of the Church, hoping that the Work may find the like gra­cious acceptance as the Author hath: both which, as they really need, so they humbly beg your Lordships pardon and protection, which will be a sufficient Sanctuary against all Adversaries of the truths which he defends, and therein of

EXON, New-Years Day, 1677.
Your Lordships most Humble and Obe­dient Servant, THO. LONG.
[...]

when all other arguments have failed, to cut the Gordian knot of our present peace and unity in pieces.

It is my endeavour by the following Exercitations to take this Sword out of the Enemies hands, or at least to blunt the edge of it, and make it unserviceable to evil designs. When I first apprehended it, I only let it fall on the Anvil by its own weight, and every one may perceive how it yielded to that gentle Examina­tion: wherefore I was encouraged by a se­verer censure to lay it on the Anvil again, and I hope with a few strokes I have so broken it, that there is scarce an Artist among the Factions can so solder it, as to make it hurtful or formidable again. I could wish they would at last turn this and other such Swords into Plow-shares, as Men of Evangelical Spirits ought to do, and study to be quiet, and do their own business.

But I think it not enough to deprive our Adversaries of this Weapon, I shall attempt to vindicate the fame and repu­tation of the Venerable Mr. Hales, of whose authority, the Churches adversa­ries do often make use to the maintenance [Page] of Faction against her, as sometime they did of the King's for raising a Rebellion against Him.

It is an aggravation of sorrow, that the Church, like the Eagle, should re­ceive its most dangerous wounds by the darts which are feathered from her own wing. And that that learning and piety, which is wanting in the adverse party, to inforce their own arguments, and sup­port their cause, should be supplied by the Revolt (as in the Apostates to Popery) or the Captivity (as in the case of Mr. Hales) of some unsetled and unwary Sons of the Church, of whose parts and repu­tation the Enemies on both sides have made more advantage than of their own.

This hath been the beginning and growth of Errors and Schismes, when Men of subtile parts, and popular esteem, raise doubts and arguments against the truth, and instill them into weaker judg­ments, and unstable minds, who are apt for want of understanding to take their Sophistry for solid reasoning, and through affection to their Persons, to adhere to them, as to the most faithful guides, [Page] and— jurare in verba magistri. But it is a very preposterous method to judge of the cause according to the reputation of such as espouse it. S. Augustine gives us a safer rule, nec causa causae, nec per­sona personae praejudicet, Let both causes, and persons, stand or fall according to their own merit.

That little which I can gather con­cerning Mr. Hales (all which and a great deal more, I charitably believe he did well deserve) is to this effect compiled by Mr. Lloid in his Memoires p. 606. In writing of which it seems he consulted the present Bishop of Chester, and Mr. Faringdon his familiar friends. ‘Mr. Hales was born in Kent, and bred Fellow of Merton Colledge, where he was chosen Greek Professor of Oxford. Sir Dudley Carleton made him his Chaplain, when he was at the Hague; about the business of the Synod of Dort, whereof (being sent thither to that purpose) he wrote a daily and exact account, completed, as appears in his Remains, by Dr. Balcanquel. At which Synod, he hearing Episcopius well pressing as he thought that of [Page] Saint John 3. 16. he said, There I bad John Calvin good night. After this he was Fellow of Eaton, and then Prebendary of Windsor, in the first of which places he was Treasurer, but (which is strange) such was his inte­grity and charity) to his loss in point of Estate; And Fellow (such his prudence in avoiding the Oaths of the times) without any snare to his Conscience. A person of so large a capacity, so sharp, quick, piercing and subtile a wit, of so serene and profound a judgment beyond the ordinary reach, built upon unordi­nary notions, raised out of strange ob­servations, and comprehensive thoughts within himself, and of so astonishing an industry, that he became the most abso­lute master of polite various and uni­versal learning, besides a deep insight into Religion: In the search after which he was curious, and of the knowledge of it studious, as in the practice of it he was sincere. And as strictly just in his dealings, so he was extraordinarily kind, sweet, affable, communicative, humble and meek in converse, and in­imitably as well as unusually charitable, [Page] giving away all that he had but his choice books, and was forced to sell them at last. He was as good a man as he was a great Scholar, and as Bishop Pearson said of him, It was near as easie a task for any one to become as knowing, as so obliging. He had so long and with such advantage and im­partiality judged of all books, things and men, that he was the Oracle consulted by all the learned men of the Nation, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Chillingworth, &c. in cases that concerned either. Whereupon he used to say of learned mens letters, That they set up tops, and he must whip them for them. There are no monuments of his learning (save the great Scholars made by his directi­ons and assistance) extant, but Sir Hen­ry Savil's Chrysostome, which he corrected with great paines in his younger dayes, and illustrated with admirable notes, (for which he is often honourably mentioned by Mr. Andrew Downs Greek Professor of Cam­bridge) and a Collection of some choice Sermons and Letters made by Mr. Gar­thwait. He was very tender of judg­ing [Page] any but himself, and never spake with complacency of any of his own works, but his Sermon intitled Dixi, Custo­diam, on Psalm 36. 1.’(And indeed had he been as good at the Custodiam, as he was at the Dixi, he had been an incomparable man.) ‘For Bishop Pearson in his Preface to his Remains saith, He was a man of as great sharpness, quickness and subtilty of wit, as ever this, or perhaps any Nation bred. His Industry did strive if it were possible to equal the largeness of his capacity. Pro­portionable to his reading was his medi­tation, which furnished him with a judgment beyond the vulgar reach of man. So that he really was a most pro­digious example, of an acute and piercing wit, of a vast and illimited knowledge, of a severe and profound judgment. Al­though this may seem, as in it self it truly is, a grand Eulogium, yet I can­not esteem him less in any thing which belongs to a good man, than in those intellectual perfections. And had he never understood a Letter, he had other ornaments sufficient to endear him. As a Christian, none ever more acquainted [Page] with the nature of the Gospel, because none more studious of the knowledge of it, or more curious in the search: which being strengthned by those great advan­tages before mentioned, could not prove otherwise than highly effectual. He took indeed to himself a liberty of judg­ing not of others but for himself. And if ever any man might be allowed in these matters to judge, it was he who had so long, so much, so advantagiously considered, and which is more, never could be said to have the least worldly de­sign in his determinations. He was not only most truly and strictly just in his secular transactions, most exempla­ry, meek and humble notwithstanding his perfections, but beyond all example charitable, giving unto all, preserving nothing but his books to continue his learning, and himself; which when he had before digested, he was forced at last to feed upon; at the same time the happiest and most unfortunate Helluo of books, the grand Exemplar of learning, and of the envy and contempt which fol­loweth it. None was more solicited to write, and thereby to teach the world, [Page] than he; yet none more resolved against it; yet did he not hide his Talent, being so communicative, that his Chamber was a Church and his Chair a Pulpit.’ So far Bishop Pearson, who testifieth also, that of all the Sermons, Miscellanies, &c. then published for his, we may be con­fident they were his.

And now you see the reason, why Mr. Hales (the famed Author of such a work) was so highly esteemed by the Brethren of the Factions, as that such, of either the Presbyterian or Independent faction, as defended their divisions and separa­tions, made him their Coryphaeus, he being for parts and learning, head and shoulders above the tallest of them. The Treatise was printed, as I find, in an un­happy time, Anno 1642. and although I am of the mind, that by the weakness of the Arguments, the Author intended rather to betray than defend the Schism, yet the Separatists wanting better reasons, made a great noise with these, as if they were justified in their Schism by this work, notwithstanding the demerits of their own.

[Page] The fame of this and some other Opi­nions of our Author came to the cogni­zance of that great Lover of learning, and learned men, Arch-bishop Laud, who sent for him on purpose to admonish him of his faults; and he being come to the Palace in the morning, the Arch-bishop presently gives order to delay Dinner, (probably that he might have the more time for discourse with Mr. Hales) and taking him to his Garden with him, they continued their conference for some hours; after which they were very good friends, the Arch-bishop studying to prefer him, and he praying for the Arch-bishop as his Chaplain. And whereas he had been heard to say in his former days, that he thought he should never dye a Martyr, yet he was known to live a Confessor, and if we will believe Mr. Marvel, he dyed little less than a Martyr for the Do­ctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, being by the enemies thereof deprived of all his livelihood, and redu­ced to such extremities as did contri­bute to the shortning of his days.

[Page] Dr. Heylen in the Life of the Arch-Bishop, tells us of another Book, called Disquisitio brevis, ascribed to Mr. Hales, in which some of the principal Socinian Tenents were cunningly insert­ed, pretending them for the best expe­dients to appease some controversies be­tween us and Rome. And that the Trea­tise of Schism not then Printed, was transmitted from hand to hand in writ­ten Copies, intended chiefly for the in­couragement of our great Masters of wit and reason to despise the Authority of the Church, the dispersing of which gave the Arch-Bishop occasion to send for him to Lambeth. And that the Arch-bishop knew his abilities while he lived in Ox­on. For (Dr. Heylen says) he was a man of infinite reading and no less inge­nuity, free of discourse, and as commu­nicative of his knowledge as the celestial bodies of their light and influences. And that after the discourse above intimated, which continued from Nine of the Clock till the usual time of Dining, was past, and the Lord Conway, and other Per­sons of Honor being there, some of the Servants thought it necessary to give him [Page] notice how the time had passed away; and then coming in high coloured and almost panting for want of breath, enough to shew there had been some heats between them, Mr. Hales met with Dr. Heylen, with whom he was acquainted, told him that he found the Arch-bishop (whom he knew before to be a nimble Disputant) to be as well versed in Books as business; That he had been ferreted by him from one hole to another, till there was none left to afford him further shelter; That he was now resolved to be Orthodox, and to declare himself a true Son of the Church of England both for Doctrine and Discipline, p. 361, 362.

If it be demanded why our Author did not refute this Tract in his life-time; I answer 1. he did do it as effectually as the Philosopher confuted him that denied motion, when he arose from his seat, and walked up and down before him; for his long profession, and practice, contrary to what was there written, was Protesta­tio contraria facto. 2. The Tract car­ried its confutation with it, as appears in the examination. 3. It's not impos­sible [Page] that he foresaw how it might be ser­viceable to the Royal Party, whom their adversaries had begun to revile and per­secute as Arminians and Papists: and in some cases, poyson well tempered and rightly applied may become medicinal. 4. He might be confident such weak ar­guments as he made use of, though they might please the factious multitude who knew no better, yet they could do no great hurt among Judicious men. And because we cannot guess at the Author's aim, which is secret, we ought to judge by his actions which were publick. The learn­ed Bishop Taylor made use of a like Stra­tagem to break the Presbyterian power, and to countenance Divisions between the Factions, which were too much united against the Loyal Clergy: for in his Li­berty of Prophesying, he insists on the same Topicks of Schism and Heresie, of the incompetency of Councils and Fathers to determine our Ecclesiastical controver­sies, and of scrupulous Consciences, and urgeth far more cogent arguments than our Author did, but still he had prepared his [...], an Antidote to pre­vent any dangerous effect of his discourse. [Page] Not unlike to some Mountebanks (Pardon the Comparison) who to amuse the vulgar, and to effect their own ends do admini­ster to their Merry-Andrews a certain Dose of Poison, but immediately give them such an Antidote as causeth them to cast it up again, and hinders the mis­chievous operation of it. For the Judi­cious Reader may perceive such a reserve (though it lay in Ambuscado, and be com­pacted in a narrow compass) as may easily rout those Troops, which began too soon to cry Victoria, and thought of nothing else but dividing the Spoil. And if the learned Bishop did this and was blameless, the goodness of the End in such cases de­nominating the Action, I see no cause why our Author, whose ends (as we ought in charity to believe, considering the inte­grity of the Person) were for the resto­ring of peace, seeing he represented the causes of War so frivolous and inconsider­able, ought to be represented as a Criminal or adversary.

And thus I have endeavoured to rescue the Author's Person, as well as his Papers from the Enemies tents, according to the [Page] advice of Tully in the case of Muraena, Tolle Catonem de Causâ, that by any means he should take off Cato from ap­pearing as an Enemy, or an Evidence against him, lest the Opinion of Cato's vertues should create him more prejudice, than the strength of his Arguments were like to do.

I have only to acquaint the Reader that the reason why in the following Censure I have sometime named the Author as distinct from Mr. Hales, is because I be­lieve it is applied by too many to such in­tents as the Author never thought of; and as the Epigrammatist saith of ill re­peating, so shall I say of ill applying other mens books, ‘—Malè dum recitas, incipit esse tuus.’

I cannot certainly calculate the time when this Tract of Schism was first penned, but I suppose it to be about Forty Years since, it being quoted by Mr. Chillingworth in his Answer to Knott, which wants but little of that age. And unless my conjecture, and [Page] credible information do both fail me, the occasion on which it was written was this: Mr. Hales and Mr. Chil­lingworth were of intimate acquain­tance, and beside a constant correspon­dence by Letters they had frequent converse with each other, but more e­specially when Mr. Chillingworth came so far in his Answer as to Vindicate our Church from Schism which was charged on her by Knott, He consulted with Mr. Hales concerning the nature of Schism, and after discourse he de­sired Mr. Hales to write his thoughts about it, which he did in this Tract, out of which Mr. Chillingworth ur­ged some arguments, which I think are the worst in all his Book. Sure I am that they caused ill reflections not only on the private reputation of Mr. Hales and Mr. Chillingworth, but on the Church of England, as if that did fa­vour the Socinian Principles. The Au­thor of Infidelity Unmasked writing against Mr. Chillingworth, tells him that his arguments concerning Schism were conceits borrowed from a Letter of Mr. John Hales of Eaton written [Page] to a private Friend of his (as I am credibly informed, saith that Author, by a Person well known to them both at that time, and who saw the Letter it self.) And he farther affirms, of his own certain knowledge, that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judg­ment, One Year (for Example says he) doubting of, or denying the blessed Tri­nity, and the next Year professing and adoring the same. And another Per­son, in a Pamphlet called the Total Summ, written against Mr. Chilling­worth, reviles him on the same ac­count in these words. In this you shew the Adamantinal hardness of your So­cinian forehead and Samosatenian Con­science. The truth is, that some argu­ments borrowed. from the Socinians, and urged first by Mr. Hales, and from him by Mr. Chillingworth, gave occa­sion to that imputation. But as for Mr. Chillingworth he had sufficiently secured his reputation in the Preface of his Book, where he thus professeth: I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of our Saviour, and all other [Page] Supernatural verities received in the Scripture, as truly and as heartily as any man. And whereas he dyed in the Faith of the Church of England, he hath given assurance that he was then no Socinian. As for Mr. Hales, what­ever he was when he wrote this Tract of Schism, and some others, yet as his Adversary says, he did afterward pro­fess and adore the blessed Trinity. And for the Reader's satisfaction, as well as for Mr. Hales his Vindication, I shall transcribe that account which he gives of his Faith concerning the Trinity in his Golden Remains.

Mr. HALES's Confession of the TRINITY.

The Summ of whatever either the Scri­ptures teach, or the Schools conclude concerning the Doctrine of the Tri­nity, is comprised in these few Lines.

GOD is One, numerically one, more one than any single Man is one, [Page] if Unity could suscipere magis & mi­nus: yet God is so One, that he ad­mits of distinction, and so admits of distinction that he still retains Unity. As he is One, so we call him GOD, the Deity, the Divine Nature, and other Names of the same significati­on; as he is distinguished, so we call him Trinity, Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In this Trinity there is One Essence, Two Emanati­ons, Three Persons or Relations, Four Properties, Five Notions. (A Noti­on is that by which any Person is known or signified.) The One Es­sence is GOD, which with this re­lation, that it doth generate or beget, makes the Person of the Father; The same Essence with this Relation, that it is begotten, makes the Person of the Son; The same Essence with this relation, that it proceedeth, ma­keth the Person of the Holy Ghost. The Two Emanations are, to be be­gotten, and to proceed, or to be breathed out. The Four Proper­ties are; First, Innascibility and In­emanability; [Page] the second is to gene­rate, these belong to the Father; the third is to be begotten, this be­longs to the Son; the fourth is to proceed, or to be breathed out, this belongs to the Holy Spirit. The five Notions are, first, Innascibility; the second is to beget; the third is to be begotten; the fourth Spiratio passiva, to be breathed out; the fifth Spiratio activa, or to breath; and this Notion belongs to the Father and the Son alike; for Pater & fili­us spirant Spiritum sanctum. Hence it evidently follows, that he who ac­knowledgeth thus much, can never possibly scruple the Eternal Deity of the Son of God. And then he inge­nuously concludes: If any Man think this Confession to be defective (for I can conceive no more in this point necessary to be known) let him sup­ply what he conceives deficient, and I shall thank him for his labour.

But to proceed: The confutation of this Treatise of Schism will appear to [Page] be necessary not only to wipe off the as­persions of the Papists, but to silence the Objections of Factious Persons, who often take Arguments from it to defend themselves in their separation, as will appear by that which followeth.

Mr. Hales had said, p. 207. ‘That the Church might be in any number more or less, in any place, Country or Nation, it may be in all, and for ought I know it may be in none, without prejudice to the Definition of the Church, or the truth of the Go­spel.’ This strange notion is contrary to what Mr. Hales delivers in his Golden Remains, p. 260. ‘When we appeal (saith he) to the Churches Testimony, we content not our selves with any part of the Church actually existent, but add unto it the perpe­tually successive testimony of the Church in all Ages since the Apostles time.’ And, p. 186. ‘ This succession of the Church is sufficient to prove where our Church was before Luther.’ This strange notion I say, That the Church [Page] visible may totally decay, prevailed too far with Mr. Chillingworth, who saith, p. 239. It is not certain that the truth of the Article [of the Holy Catholick Church] depends upon the Actual existence of a Catholick Church, but rather upon the right that the Church of Christ, or rather, to speak properly, that the Gospel of Christ hath to be universally be­lieved; and therefore the Article may be true though there were no Church in the World. Now though this were only a probleme, which Mr. Chillingworth defends not, but in the 14. p. of his Preface overthroweth, saying, I believe that our Saviour e­ver since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a visible true Church on Earth, and that there will be such a Church to the Worlds end: yet his Adversary, p. 779. of In­fidelity Unmasked, falls heavily on him, and tells him, that this notion is not only against the Scripture, Eph. 4. 11. but against all Protestants and all Christians; and sends him to Calvin 's [Page] Institutions, l. 4. c. 1. and to Volke­lius, whom he calls his Socinian Bro­ther, de verâ Rel. l. 6. c. 5. who prove a Succession of Pastors and Doctors to have been always in the Church. Re­mansit Doctorum Pastorúmque offi­cium, nec non alia quaedam. And indeed Dr. Potter, whom Mr. Chil­lingworth defended, had said truly, That it was an error in the nature, and matter of it properly Heretical to say, the Church remained only in the party of Donatus, and that it was much worse to say she remained no where; for this were to overthrow the Article of the Catholick Church, and is little less than blasphemy, saith Arch-bishop Laud.

Again, Mr. Hales, p. 218. said, ‘It is alike unlawful to make profes­sion of known or suspected falshoods, as to put in practice unlawful or su­spected actions.’ This argument Mr. Chillingworth improveth, p. penult. of his Preface to Charity maintained. If a Church (says he) supposed to [Page] want nothing necessary, require me to profess against my Conscience, that I believe some error though ne­ver so small and innocent, which I do not believe, and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition; in this case the Church for requiring this condition is Schis­matical, and not I for separating from the Church. Mr. Baxter speaks much more like a Conformist in this case, than either Mr. Hales, or Mr. Chillingworth: If a Church (saith he, p. 464. of Reasons for Christ. Relig. S. 15.) which in all other re­spects is purest and best, will impose any sin upon all that will have any local communion with it, though we must not separate from that Church as no Church, yet must we not commit that sin, but patiently suffer them to exclude us from their communion. And I think it is more rational peaceably to dissent until we are actually excluded, than presently to pronounce that Church Schismatical, which requires such conditions of our [Page] communion. For if that which I be­lieve to be an error, (being, if an er­ror, but small and innocent) be requi­red of me by a Church which main­taineth all necessary things, I ought rather to submit to, or at least peace­ably with-hold my communion from that Church, than to violate its communion by my separation; because that Church which GOD hath preserved in all ne­cessary truths, may probably know that which I believe to be an error (and but a small one, if an error) to be an important truth; or if she be mistaken in such small things, it is not schisma­tical in her to require my profession, who may well be resolved of my doubt, when so many wiser and better than my self after mature deliberation think fit to require it.

For as Mr. Hooker saith, p. 100. In all right and equity that which the Church hath so long received and held for good, that which pub­lick approbation hath ratified, must carry the benefit of presumption [Page] with it to be accounted meet and convenient. And, p. 55. This O­pinion, That the Authority of Man affirmatively in matters Divine is nothing worth, being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort, GOD knows what it may grow unto. Thus much we see, It hath already made Thousands so head­strong, even in gross and palpable Errors, that a Man whose capacity will scarce serve him to utter five words in sensible manner, blusheth not in any doubt concerning matter of Scripture, to think his own bare Yea as good as the Nay of all the Wise, Grave and Learned Judg­ments that are in the whole World; which insolency must be represt, or it will be the very bane of Christi­an Religion. And therefore he con­cludes: The certain commands of the Church must be obeyed in all things not certainly unlawful. And page 144. That which the Church by her Authority shall probably think and define to be true and good, [Page] must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatso­ever. And as to Orders established (by the Church) sith equity and season favour that which is in be­ing till orderly judgment of Deci­sion be given against it, it is but Justice to Exact of you, and per­versness in you it would be to deny thereunto your willing obedience. Not that I judge it a thing allow­able for Men to observe those Laws which in their hearts they are sted­fastly perswaded to be against the Laws of God; but your perswasion in this case ye are all bound for the time to suspend, and in otherwise doing ye offend against GOD by troubling his Church without any just or necessary cause. Be it that there are some Reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Laws, are those Reasons demonstrative, are they necessary, or but meer probabi­lities only? An argument necessary and demonstrative is such, as being proposed unto any Man and under­stood, [Page] the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent.—But if the skil­fullest among you can shew that all the Books ye have hitherto written be able to afford any one Argument of this nature, let the instance be given. As for probabilities, what thing was there ever set down so agreeable with sound reason, but some probable shew against it might be made? Is it meet that when publickly things are received and have taken place, general obedience thereunto shall cease to be exacted, in case this or that private person, led with some probable conceit, should make open protestation, Pe­ter or John disallow them, and pro­nounce them naught?—So that of peace and quietness there is not any way possible, unless the proba­ble voice of every intire Society or Body Politick over rule all private of like nature in the same Body. Which thing effectually proveth, that GOD being Author of Peace and not of confusion in the Church, [Page] must needs be Author of those Mens peaceable resolutions, who concern­ing these things have determined with themselves to think and do as the Church they are of Decreeth, till they see Necessary cause enforcing them to the contrary. And p. 144, 145. Mr. Hooker saith, That which the Church by her Authority shall probably think and define to be true and good, must in congruity of rea­son over-rule all other inferior judg­ments whatsoever. And—where our duty is Submission, weak oppositions betoken Pride.

Now as the Name of Mr. Hales prevailed with Mr. Chillingworth to imbrace some unsound Opinions of his, so hath it done with others of great note. The Author of the Irenicum, p. 108. repeats the first and part of the second Page of this Tract, with this Commendation: It is well observed by a Learned and Judicious Divine, That Heresie and Schism, &c. And p. 120. I shall subjoyn the judgment [Page] of as Learned and Judicious a Di­vine as most our Nation hath bred in his Excellent though little Tract of Schism. And then he repeats, p. 210. In those Schisms, &c. to p. 212. And in p. 120, and 121. of the Ire­nicum, he quotes Mr. Hales, from p. 215. And were Liturgies, &c. to p. 218. and adds, So far that Excellent Person, whose words I have taken the pains to transcribe because of the great wisdome, judgment and mode­ration contained in them, and the seasonableness of his Counsel and Advice to the present posture of Af­fairs among us. And p. 394. Thus that incomparable Man, Mr. Hales, in his often quoted Tract of Schism, p. 223. to p. 225. adding, Thus that grave and wise Person, whose words savour of a more than ordinary tin­cture of a true spirit of Christianity, that scorns to make Religion a foot­stool to pride and ambition.

The Author of the Rehearsal Trans­pros'd, speaks marvellously of Him [Page] I shall conclude ( says he) with a Villanous Pamphlet, of which a great Wit was the Author; and whereas Mr. Bayes is alwayes defying the Non-conformists with Mr. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, and the Friendly Debate, I am of Opinion, though I have a great reverence for Mr. Hook­er, that this little Book of not full Eight Leaves hath shut that Eccle­siastical Polity, and Mr. Beyes too our of Doors: It is one Mr. Hales of Eaton, a most Learned Divine, and one of the Church of England, and most remarkable for his sufferings in the late times, and for his Christian patience under them. And I reckon it not one of the least ignominies of that Age, that so eminent a Person should have been by the iniquity of the times reduced to those necessi­ties, under which he lived. As I ac­count it no small honour to have grown up into some part of his ac­quaintance, and conversed a while with the living Remains of one of the clearest Heads and best prepa­red [Page] Breasts in Christendom. I hope it will not be tedious though I write some few (and yet whatsoever I o­mit I shall have left behind more) material passages. ( And then he fills up near Eight Pages of his Book, out of Mr. Hales his Eight Leaves.)— It was not amiss in the Scribes and Pharisees to build the Tombes of the Prophets, and garnish their Sepulchres; but to persecute their Successors, and Christ himself under pretence of ho­nouring the Ancients, was an impiety, full fraught with malice and envy. And a usual thing it is for such as in­tend to trample on such Worthies as are present and stand in their way, to express great respect to those that are removed out of it:

—Sed nisi quae terris semota suisque
Temporibus defuncta videt, fastidit & odit.

Yet by that Author's leave I have quo­ted much less out of the Reverend Mr. Hooker in this Parergon, yet enough [Page] to confute all that he or Mr. Hales have said in Defence of Schism.

There is another late Pamphlet cal­led Separation no Schism, which in p. 40. telleth us, That a meer suspi­cion of sin is a sufficient ground for withdrawing Communion, in the judgment of very learned Men; and then quotes Mr. Hales—So says that Universally admired Man, p. 210. and p. 216, 217, 218. and infers, These Testimonies are so clear, and backt with such Unanswerable Reasons, that not only where the Commis­sion of Sin, but the doing any thing that is suspected to be sinful, is re­quired as a condition of Communi­on, there a withdrawing is lawful, and not at all Schismatical.

Now when Men of so much Learn­ing, and Judgment, as some of those whom I have mentioned, have upon the reputation of the Venerable Mr. Hales improved such Notions and Arguments as are destructive to the Government [Page] and Peace of the Church of England, it is not strange that Men of little Learning and great Prejudices should assume them, whereby (as far as they are able) to justifie their Schismati­cal practices; nor that the Scepticke of this Age should be fond of such Noti­ons as may tend to the Subversion of what hath been so long, and so well established among us. We may rather wonder, how so Villanous a Pamphlet (as the Rehersal calls it; yet) so ob­noxious to just exceptions, should have continued so long in Vogue without a Confutation from some more Learned Hand, that the Infection of it might proceed no farther, but its weakness be made manifest to all Men.

As for Doctor Parker, he hath no less judiciously and successfully acquit­ted Himself against any thing objected by Master Hales, or Marvel, than Master Hooker. To instance in that one particular, of pretending Scruples of Conscience against the Commands of Publick Authority; he faith more [Page] in One Page, than all the Objectors will be able to Answer.

Though this pretence (saith he) might be allowed of in the Dayes of Queen Elizabeth, when it was first star­ted, yet after so long time, and so much enquiry, it is intolerable. For if after all their search and exami­nation they have not been able to descry, the evils they suspected, this is a sufficient Principle of Presum­ption that their Jealousies are un­grounded: so that if they are now able to object any certain crime a­gainst them, then this Plea of a Doubtful Conscience ceaseth, and the Certainty is to be pleaded in stead of the Doubt; if not, an Hundred and Fifty Years is a sufficient time to sa­tisfie or to cancel scruples,—And a scrupulous Conscience is of a mo­dest, yielding, and plyable temper, as arising from a diffidence and di­strust of it self. And Doubts and Scruples are rarely imployed, but up­on trifling and inconsiderable mat­ters, the material parts of Duty [Page] being too plain and easie to be liable to so much uncertainty; And there­fore obedience to Authority, being one of the greatest and most indispensa­ble Duties of Mankind, in that it is so absolutely necessary to their well being, and injoyned upon them by the most Positive Precepts and seve­rest Penalties of the Gospel:

Nor is it fit that in Doubtful ca­ses of a Publick concern Men should talk too peremptorily of their pri­vate Perswasions, because they are incompetent Judges of the Publick good, and therefore are to be deter­mined and over-ruled by the Judg­ment of those to whose care the ma­nagement of Publick Affairs is in­trusted, unless in case of certain and unquestionable Disobedience to the Law of GOD: For we are no otherway free from the Su­preme Authority on Earth, but as we are subject to a Superior in Heaven.

AN EXAMINATION OF Mr. HALES's TREATISE of SCHISM.

Q. WHat is the benefit of Communion?

Answ. Communion is the strength and ground of all society, Sacred and Civil: whoever therefore causeth a breach, if in civil occasions, is guilty of Sedition, or Rebellion; if in Ecclesiastical differences, is guilty of Schism: so that Schism is an Eccle­siastical Sedition, as Sedition is a Lay­schisme, p. 193.

[Page 2] Q. What is the definition of Schism?

Answ. Schisme is an unnecessary se­paration of Christians, p. 195. from that part of the visible Church of which they were once Members.

Q. When is Separation necessary?

Answ. Separation is then necessary, when nothing will save us from the guilt of Conscience, but open separa­tion, p. 195.

Q. When is Schisme complete?

Answ. These two things make Schism complete. First, The choice of a Bi­shop in opposition to the former. 2ly, The erecting a new Church and Ora­tory, p. 196. for the dividing Party to meet in publickly. As in the late famous con­troversie in Holland, de Praedestinatione, as long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than disputes, the Schisme was unhatched; but as soon as one Party swept an old Cloyster, and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church (by putting a new Pulpit in it) for the separating Party to meet in, what be­fore was a Controversie became a for­mal Schisme, p. 197.

Q. What is the danger of Schism?

[Page 3] Answ. What the Ancients spake by way of censure of Schisme in general, is most true, p. 198. (and they spake most strange things of it) for they saw, that unadvisedly, and upon fancy, to break the knot of union betwixt man and man (especially among Christians, up­on whom the tye of love and commu­nion doth especially rest) was a crime hardly pardonable, and that nothing ab­solves a Man from the guilt of it, but true and unpretended Conscience. And p. 192. Heresie and Schisme are things of great moment, the one offending a­gainst Truth, the other against Chari­ty, and both are deadly.

Q. Was the Schisme of the Dona­tists any way excusable?

Answ. No, they were compleat Schis­maticks, p. 196. upon the grounds before men­tioned, nor was there any necessary cause for their Separation, for the oc­casion of the Schisme was an Opinion, that where good and bad were mixed, there could be no Church, p. 205. by reason of pollution evaporating (as it were) from sinners, which blasted the righ­teous, and made all unclean, whereas [Page 4] in his Congregations, he pretended that wicked persons found no shelter, p. 206.

Q. How was this Schisme of the Donatists refuted?

Answ. By this one maxime of Saint Augustine (which was irrefragably as­serted) Unitatem Ecclesiae per totum or­bem dispersae propter nonnullorum peccata non esse deserendam, That the unity of the Catholick Church is not to be for­saken, for the sins of some that are within it, p. 206.

Q. Though in this Schism the Do­natist was the Schismatick, p. 208. yet might not any one communicate with them, if occasion so required? if so be they did not flatter them in their Schisme; for why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatist, if occasion so required, since neither Nature, nor Religion suggest the contrary? why may I not be present at such publick Meetings as pretend Holiness, p. 209. so there be nothing done but what true Devo­tion and Piety brook? p. 215. Yea, why may I not go to an Arian Church, if occasion require, so there be no Arianism expres­sed in the Liturgy?

[Page 5] Answ. 1. You may not communi­cate with such, because of the danger of Schisme before mentioned. 2ly, Be­cause it is not lawful, no not for prayer, hearing, conference, or any other reli­gious office whatsoever, for People to Assemble, otherwise than by publick order is allowed; for, why should Men desire to do that suspiciously, in private, which may be performed warrantably in publick? p. 229, 230.

Q. But what if they to whose care the execution of the publick service is committed, p. 209. do some things unseemly, suspicious, or unlawful? if their Gar­ments be censured as, or indeed be su­perstitious? what if the Gesture of A­doration be used at the Altar? what if the Homilist or Preacher deliver any Doctrine, of the truth of which we are not well perswaded?

Answ. Yet for all this, we may not separate, except we be constrained to bear a part in them our selves: p. 210. The Priests under Eli had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily Sacrifice, that they made it to stink, yet the People refused not to come to the Ta­bernacle, [Page 6] nor to bring their Sacrifices to the Priests; for in Schismes which concern fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusal of Communion, but only the requiring of the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act.

Q. What may we do when some Persons in a Church teach erroneous Doctrines, p. 214. suppose of Arius and Nesto­rius, concerning the Trinity, or the Person of our Saviour?

Answ. What to do in this case is not a point of any great depth of under­standing to discover, p. 215. so be it distemper and partiality do not intervene. I do not see, that Opinionum varietas & Opi­nantium unitas are [...], or that Men of different Opinions in Christian Religion, may not hold communion ( in Sacris) in the publick Worship: (This Argument holds, à fortiori, if I may keep communion with such as teach false Doctrines, much more with such as practise only suspected Ceremo­nies.) p. 226.

Q. What is your Opinion of Con­venticles?

Answ. It evidently appears that all [Page 7] Meetings upon unnecessary occasions of Separation, are to be so stiled; so that in this sense a Conventicle is no­thing else but a Congregation of Schis­maticks. p. 227.

Q. Is not this name sometime fixed upon good and honest Meetings? p. 227.

Answ. It is, and that perchance, not without good reason; For first, it hath been at all times confessed necessary, that God should have, not only inward and private devotion, p. 227. when Men ei­ther in their Hearts, or Closets, or with­in their private Walls, pray, praise, con­fess, and acknowledge: but that all these things should be done in publick, by troops and shoals of Men, from whence proceeded publick Temples, Altars, Forms of Service, appointed Times, and the like, which are required for open Assemblies.

Q. What is the reason of the severe Censures and Laws against private Meetings?

Answ. When it was espied that ill affected persons abused private Meet­ings, whether religious, or civil, to evil ends, p. 228. religiousness to gross impi­ety [Page 8] (and the Meetings of Christians under Pagan Princes, when for fear they durst not come together in open view, were charged with soul impu­tations, as by the report of Christians themselves it plainly appears: as also civil Meetings under pretence of Friendship, and neighbourly visits, sheltered treasonable attempts against Princes, p. 229. and Common-weals) Hence both Church and State joyned, and joyntly gave order for forms, times, places of publick Concourse, whether for civil or religious ends; and all other Meetings whatsoever besides those, of which both time and place were limited, they censured for routs, and riots, and unlawful Assemblies in the State, and in the Church, for Con­venticles.

Q. Is it not lawful then, for Prayer, hearing, conference, and other religi­ous Offices, p. 229. for People to Assemble, otherwise than by publick Order is al­lowed?

Answ. No; for why should Men desire to do that suspiciously in pri­vate, which warrantably may be per­formed in publick? p. 230.

[Page 9] Q. I pray you Sir, What general Rules are fit to be observed for the dis­covering and avoiding of Schisme.

Answ. Take heed of entertaining scruples of Conscience, about things of little moment; for when scruples of Conscience began to be made, or pre­tended, then Schismes began to break in, p. 217.

Q. What other Rule is necessary to be observed?

Answ. That you do not endeavour to advance one Bishop against another, (much more a Presbyter against the Bishop) which in St. Cyprian's lan­guage, p. 222. is Erigere Altare contra Altare, to set up Altar against Altar, to which he imputeth the Original of all Church disorders, and if you read him, you would think he thought no other Church-tumult to be a Schisme, but this; p. 221. For the general practice of the Church, was, never to admit more than one Bishop at once in one See, but it fell out among the Ancients, some­time by occasion of difference in Opi­nion, sometimes because of difference among those who were interessed in [Page 10] the choice of Bishops, that two Bishops, and sometime more were set up, and all Parties striving to maintain their own Bishop, made themselves several Congregations and Churches, each re­fusing to participate with others. p. 223. And seeing it is a thing very convenient for the peace of the Church, to have but one Bishop in a See, at once; Their pu­nishment sleeps not, who unnecessa­rily or wantonly go about to infringe it.

[Page 11] HAving by a brief Analysis of the Treatise of Schism extracted the genuine sense of the Author, who, as the Transproser says, p. 175. was one of the Church of England, (and as such I have endeavoured to represent him) it is obvious to every one that shall read that Tract, that instead of Answering Mr. Hooker's or Mr. Par­ker's Tracts of Ecclesiastical Polity, it hath fully refuted it self and all other cavils of the Schismaticks, who by these two assertions of his will for ever lye under a just condemnation. The One is, p. 209. What if those to whose care the Execution of the publick service is committed, do something either unseemly or suspicious, or peradventure unlawful? what if the Garments they wear be cen­sured as, nay indeed be Superstitious? what if the gesture of Adoration be used at the Altar? what if the Homilist or Preacher deliver any doctrine, of the truth of which we be not well perswaded? yet for all this we may not separate, ex­cept we be constrained personally to bear [Page 12] a part in them our selves—Then may not any of the Laity who are not re­quired to bear a part in such things, separate from our Congregations, and by consequence neither may their Leaders draw them into a separation.

The second Assertion is, p. 229.—It is not lawful, no not for prayer, for hearing, for conference, for any other religious office whatsoever, for people to assemble, otherwise than by publick or­der is allowed. This conclusion our Author infers from substantial pre­mises.

I confess I was so tender of the re­putation and memory of Mr. Hales, who, as the Transproser says, was not only one of the Church of England, but most remarkable for his sufferings in the late times, and for his Christian patience under them, which befel him, as Mr. Parker observes, p. 148. ‘when he had declared himself of another Opinion, and obtained leave of Arch-bishop Laud (who converted him) to call himself his Grace's Chaplain, that naming him in his publick prayers, the greater notice [Page 13] might be taken of the Alteration:’ (which doubtless was the cause why so eminent a person was by the iniqui­ty of those times reduced to those ne­cessities under which (the Transposer observes) he lived, p. 176.) that I re­solved at first not to make any reflecti­on on such passages as discovered the Author to be guilty of so many Passi­ons, infirmities and contradictions. I shall not deal therefore with Mr. Hales in this posthumous piece, but with that inimicus homo, whoever he be, that hath sown tares among the good seed, and wrapt up poyson in his Golden Remains. And necessary it is that such noxious and unsavory weeds should be rooted out, and not suffered to defile the grave of so Candid a per­son, or made use of as a shelter for un­clean creatures to hide themselves and croak under them, as the Transproser doth, who having raked a heap of them together, from p. 175. to p. 183. fancieth himself as secure on that dunghil, as if he were in some in­chanted Castle.

[Page 14] The first thing that is obnoxious in the Treatise of Schism, is p. 191. of the Posthumous works, where it is said, that ‘Heresie and Schism, as they are in common use, are two Theological Mormo's or Scarcrows:’ And what the Author means by com­mon use, you may be informed, p. 213. where he says, ‘Arrianism, Euty­chianism, Nestorianism, Photinia­nism, Sabellianism, and many more (you may add Socinianism too, which is but a compound of those) are but names of Schism, howso­ever in the common Language of the Fathers they were called heresies.’ So that our Author explodes the Judg­ment of all the Fathers who condem­ned those things for Heresies, which he thinks do scarce deserve the name of Schisms. And a new notion of Here­sies is brought in by him, p. 214. ‘In­deed Manicheism, Valentinanism, Marcionism, Mahometanism are truly and properly heresies, for we know that the Authors of them re­ceived them not but minted them themselves, and so knew that which [Page 15] they taught to be a lye; but can any man avouch (saith our Author) that Arrius and Nestorius, and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity, or the person of our Sa­viour, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake? Till that be done, and that upon good evidence, we will think no worse of all parties than needs we must, and take these Rents in the Church to be but Schisms upon matter of Opinion.’ If this be true, in vain did the Bishops of the Primitive Church assemble in the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, and other places, to condemn and suppress the Opinions of Arrius, Nestorius and other Heresiar­cha's. And the fears and jealousies of the present Church concerning the growth of heresies are groundless; for though the erring spirits of this age should revive all the dangerous tenets of Arrius, Eutychius, Nestorius, Pho­tinus, and Sabellius, and all the blas­phemies of Manes, Valentinian, Mar­cion, or Mahomet himself, yet seeing [Page 16] they did not invent these errors them­selves, but fell on them by mistake (though they adhere to them never so tenaciously, and wilfully defend them) they deserve but the name of Schismaticks. And until some such persons, as Simon Magus, Montanus, or Mahomet shall set up for a new God, or a Holy Ghost, or a Messias, in di­rect opposition to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour, we need not trou­ble the world with the odious names of Heretick, or Schismatick, which are but Theological Scarcrows. For p. 215. we are told ‘that the Rents in the Church (occasioned by those heresies) were at the worst but Schisms upon matter of Opinion. In which case (saith our Author) it is not a point of any great depth of Understanding to discover what we are to do, so be it distemper and partiality do not intervene; I do not yet see that opinionum varietas & Opinantium unitas are [...], or that men of different Opinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris, and if oc­casion [Page 17] require I may go to an Arrian Church, if there be no Arrianism ex­prest in their Liturgy.’

This is expresly contrary to what I quoted from p. 229. ‘It is not lawful for prayer, hearing, &c.’ and as contra­ry to the Holy Scriptures, Rom. 16. 17. Titus 3. 10. Ephes. 5. 11.

What error and confusion would these wilde notions bring into the Church, if false Prophets and Decei­vers should be permitted to teach, and the People not restrained from hearing them, although they should teach such damnable Doctrines as denyed the Lord that bought them? I shall ap­peal therefore from the Author to Mr. Hales; who tells us, p. 192. ‘How­ever Heresie and Schism are but ri­diculous terms in the common ma­nage, yet the things in themselves are of very considerable moment, the one offending against truth, the other against Charity, and therefore both deadly.’ So deadly, that I can­not compare them better than to that Italian, who designed to kill his ene­my, body and soul: for Truth being [Page 18] the very Soul of the Church, and Peace and Unity the great organ or instru­ment by which it becomes visible and prosperous, the toleration of Heresie and Schism will be as destructive to the Church here, as they will certain­ly be to the Authors of them without repentance hereafter.

There is a lesser mistake in our Au­thor's definition of Schism, p. 195. by which he excuseth all such from the guilt of Schism, ‘as do separate from that part of the visible Church whereof they were not once mem­bers.’ On which account all such children as were born of Schismatical Parents (though they defend the schism never so obstinately) are not guilty: whereas it is the duty of all Christians to live in communion with that part of the Catholick Church in which they reside, and not to suffer themselves (as our Author expresseth it) like beasts of burthen to be impo­sed upon by their Predecessors. The Schism of the Donatists is by our Au­thor acknowledged to be a complete Schism upon the grounds mentioned [Page 19] p. 196. I demand therefore, whether such children, as were born to the Do­natists, Optatus lib. 1. contra Parmen. says, Par­menianus whose grandfather was Majori­nus, that departed from the Chair of Cecilian & S. Cyprian, was an heir of the Schisma­ticks. and persisting in the opinions and practices of their Fore-fathers trou­bled the Churches of Africa 300. years together, were guilty of Schism or no? or whether such as among us were born of Anabaptistical or Quaking Parents, and still persist in and propa­gate Church-divisions, are complete Schismaticks or not? And if we should try them by our Author's own rules, I am sure they will be found guilty.

The next error of our Author is his allowing of Separation upon Scru­ples, and suspicions, as p. 194. he says, ‘When either Acts unlawful, or mi­nistring just Scruple, are required of us to be performed, consent were con­spiracy, and open contestation is not faction or schism, but due Christian animosity.’ This just Scruple he calls, p. 201. a strong suspicion, and p. 218. ‘Where suspected Opinions are made a piece of the Church-Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schismatick.’ It is like our Author forgat what he said a little before, p. 217. ‘that when [Page 20] Scruples of conscience began to be made or pretended, then Schisms be­gan to break in;’ as also what is said, p. 209. ‘What if the Preacher deliver any Doctrine of the truth of which we are not well perswaded? yet for all this we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to bear a part in some suspected Act.’ Against this error of our Authors I affirm, That the Scruples and suspicions of private Christians, concerning the lawfulness of Actions required by their Superiors, cannot warrant their separation, Be­cause their obedience to Superiors in things not unlawful is their duty, and to omit a certain duty, upon a bare su­spicion, is dangerous and sinful. And for a full answer to this error, I desire it may be considered what a scrupulous Conscience is, which I take to be such an act of the practical understanding as resolves what is, or what is not to be done, but with some fear and an­xiety lest its determination be amiss. And it differs from a doubting Consci­ence, which assents to neither part of the question, but remains unresolved, [Page 21] as doubting of the true sense of the rule; in which case it is resolved, that in all things doubtful we are to take the safest course. And doubtless that wherein the generality of wise and good Men as well Ancient as Modern are agreed, is much more safe than that, in which a few less knowing, prejudicated and guilty persons pre­tend to be doubtful. But where there are only groundless fears and scruples concerning some circumstance annexed to a known duty, it is the sense even of our Non-conformists, That if we cannot upon serious endeavours get rid of our Scruples, we ought to act against them; And this is so lawful and ne­cessary, that we cannot otherwise have either grace or peace. See more to this purpose in a Sermon at Cripplegate on Acts 24. 26. p. 18, & 19. And if scruple and suspicion were a just plea for Separation, then every discontent­ed Person that is resolved to contemn his Superiours, every one that is affect­edly ignorant, and lazy, or refractory to better information, every one that hath melancholy humours and temp­tations, [Page 22] or wants true Christian Humi­lity, or Charity, may make separation, and yet be guiltless. So that this Opi­nion of our Author's would be an A­pology for all Separatists; which be­ing allowed, there neither was nor can be any such sin as Schism. For I sup­pose it is sufficiently known, that nei­ther the Doctrine, or Worship of any Church is so well constituted, but some unquiet spirits have raised scruples and suspicions concerning them. And un­less the Church have power to com­mand things lawful and no way re­pugnant to the Word of God (though some giddy Persons may scruple at them) it is impossible that it should preserve it self from confusion. The Apostles I am sure did practise this in the Synod at Hierusalem, Acts 15. And St. Paul silenceth the objections of con­tentious and scrupulous Persons with the Custome of the Churches of God, 1 Corinth. 11. 16. Every Congregati­on that pretends to have the face of a Church requires the obedience of its Members to all Orders for publick Worship, as well as their consent to [Page 23] their Articles of Faith, and without this it could not subsist.

I shall conclude this with Mr. Bax­ter's advice in his Dispute of Ceremonies, Ch. 15. S. 3. ‘That the Duty of obey­ing being certain, and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being un­certain and only Suspected, we must go on the surer side.’ And the Author of the Sermon on Acts 24. 16. gives a good reason for it, saying, ‘If a Chri­stian should forbear praying or receiv­ing the Sacrament every time his scrupulous conscience tells him he had better wholly omit the duty, than perform it in such a manner, he would soon find to his sorrow the mischief of his scruples. And he adviseth— In all known necessary duties always do what you can, when you cannot do what you would.’

Our Author, p. 202. falls on an An­cient controversie concerning the ob­servation of Easter, of which he gives us this imperfect account, ‘That it being upon error taken for necessary, that an Easter must be kept, and [Page 24] upon worse than Error (if I may so speak) for it was no less than a point of Judaism forced upon the Church) thought further necessary that the ground for the keeping the time of that Feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews, there arose a stout question whether we ought to Celebrate with the Jews on the 14th. of the Moon, or the Sun­day following. This matter though most unnecessary, most vain, yet caused as great a combustion as ever was in the Church, the West sepa­rating from and refusing Commu­nion with the East for many years together.’

An impartial relation of the ground of this controversie as it lies in Church History will sufficiently discover how odiously it is represented. First then, whereas he says, it was upon error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept: I answer, if it were an er­ror, the Church had it from the A­postles themselves; for although the contending parties differed among themselves in the day, yet both agreed [Page 25] on the necessity of observing Easter in Commemoration of our Saviour's Resurrection: And the Controversie concerning the day puts it out of con­troversie that there ought to be a day observed. Some learned men have thought the setting a-part of an Easter day to be grounded on 1 Cor. 5. 8. where S. Paul speaking of the Chri­stian Passover, says, Let us keep the Feast; and Grotius observes that the word [...] answereth to the He­brew, [...], which signifieth to abstain from all work for the offering up of holy things to God. If the observa­tion of any day be necessary unto Christians, this of Easter is, because it is the Mother and ground of our weekly Sabbath, and is supposed to be the same which S. John calls the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. But we need not seek express authority from Scri­pture to make it necessary; the pra­ctice of the Apostles testified by such early and authentick witnesses, and the continued celebration of it in all the Churches of God do evince that it was not taken up on an Error, no more [Page 24] [...] [Page 25] [...] [Page 26] than the observation of the Weekly Sabbath. Mr. Hales says enough to resolve this objection in his Golden Re­mains set forth by Mr. Garthwait 1673. p. 260. on the question, how we may know the Scriptures to be the word of God. ‘When (saith he) we appeal to the Churches testimony, we con­tent not our selves with any part of the Church actually existent, but add unto it the perpetually successive testimony of the Church in all Ages since the Apostles times ( viz.) since its first beginning, and out of both these draw an argument in this que­stion, of that force as that from it not the subtilest Disputer can find an escape. For who is it that can think to find acceptance and credit with reasonable men by opposing not only the present Church conversing in earth, but the uniform consent of the Church in all ages?’—So that the Church in all Ages agreeing that an Easter must be kept, it was not taken up upon Error.

Nor, secondly, was it upon worse than error, ( i. e.) as our Author af­firms, [Page 27] ‘a point of Judaism grounded on the Law of Moses to the Jews, that the observation thereof was by some Churches solemnized on the 14th. day of the Moon.’ For the Eastern Churches alledging the practice of S. John and Philip for the 14th. day, had a better ground for it than a Jewish custom, namely that of Christian Charity; and Baronius notes it as worthy of our observation, that the Apostles had anciently appointed, that though Easter were observed on the Lords day by the generality of Christians, yet they should gently tolerate the Ju­daizing Converts, which were of the circumcision, and were in great num­bers in the Eastern parts. See Baro­nius's Annals ad Ann. 167. p. 168. Now the Western Churches pleaded for their practice (which was the obser­vation of the Sunday following) the Authority of S. Peter, and S. Paul, who had fully convinced the Gentile converts, that all Jewish rites were to be laid aside, as having had their full completion in Christ; but yet, as in other like cases, they were in­structed [Page 28] to bear with the Jews, as for some time they did; for the first time that this controversie was agitated was between Anicetus Bishop of Rome, and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who according to the custom of other Asian Churches celebrated Easter day on the 14th. of the Moon.

For which practice Polycarp alledged the Authority of S. John. And Ire­naeus in an Epistle mentioned by Euse­bius l. 5. c. 18. tells us, that Polycarp came to Rome to discourse with Ani­cetus concerning this and other diffe­rent observations between the Eastern and Western Churches; and having after some conference amicably agreed other controversies, they still differed about this observation, but without any violation of the bond of Charity, for they communicated together, Anicetus giving leave to Polycarp to perform the offices of Divine Wor­ship in his Church; and it was then concluded, That both Churches should be at liberty to observe the Ancient customes delivered to them from their Predecessors. But about the year [Page 29] of Christ, 198. Victor Bishop of Rome revives the controversie with Polycra­tes Bishop of Ephesus, who was then 65 years old and came within a little time of S. John, being cotemporary with Polycarp. Victor pleads that the custom of his Church was derived from the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and that all his Predecessors had cele­brated Easter on the Lords day. See Eusebius lib. 5. ch. 21, 22, 23. And Nicephorus l. 4. c. 36. Polycrates in his Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, l. 5. c. 24. replies, That all the Provinces of Asia observed it according to an Ancient tradition received long before ( i. e. before the second Century) from S. John and S. Philip, from Po­lycarp Bishop of Smyrna, from Thraseas Bishop of Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodi­cea, Papirius and Melito Bishops of Sardis, who always practised accord­ing to the same Canon, and all the Bishops of Asia then living consented to and subscribed his Epistle. Upon this, Victor beginneth to storm, and threatneth to Excommunicate the Bishops of Asia as Heterodox, and to [Page 30] that end he assembleth the Bishops under his Jurisdiction, who with one consent declared for peace, desiring his forbearance, and disliking his too great severity. The Epistle of Ire­naeus to Victor on this occasion is yet extant, in which he declares, That al­though for his part he was resolved to observe the Feast of Easter on the Sunday according to the practice of the Western Church in which he lived, yet he could not approve that the Eastern Church should be Excommu­nicated for observing an Ancient custom; and mindeth Victor that the Bishops before him had never broken the Churches peace on this occasion. But no mediation would prevail; Victor was Victor still, and proceeds to denounce an impotent sentence against the Asian Churches. Baronius says something to excuse the severity of Victor (viz.) That as long as those Churches were Catholick and incor­rupt, they of Rome thought it expe­dient to tolerate that custom; but when from that custom, Schism and Heresie brake in upon the Asian Chur­ches, [Page 31] (for Montanus having diffused his Heresie through Asia, those Asians began to plead that they had received this Tradition from their Paraclete, that the Pascha ought to be celebrated on the 14th. of the Moon and on no other day, and that all such as practised otherwise were in an error) then Victor thought it his duty to restrain this error. Tit. 1. 10, 11. 2. This Opinion of keep­ing Easter after the Asian manner was taken up by many Hereticks, and so spread it self that it invaded the very bosom of the Roman Church, and pluckt thence one Blastus who in the face of that Church maintained the Asian against the Roman Custom. Ter­tullian speaks of this Blastus in his book de Praescriptionibus, c. 53. saying, that he endeavoured to bring in Ju­daism, affirming that the Christian Pascha was not to be kept otherwise than was prescribed by the Law of Moses. And this opinion of Blastus drew away so many after him, that Irenaeus wrote a book of Schism di­rected purposely against Blastus, but could not recal him. And now let [Page 32] the indifferent Reader judge whether the subject of this controversie were most unnecessary, most vain (as our Author declaims.) Victor indeed did prosecute it with too much heat, in­somuch that the Cardinal knows not what to say in his excuse. An verò quod potestate, jure faciebat, recténe fecerit dubitatum est, saith the Cardi­nal. Doubtless the Asian Churches were ( sui juris) not under the juris­diction of Victor, or if they had been, yet was he not unblameable in Ex­communicating all the Churches of Asia for the fault of some few that had crept in among them, whom in due time they would have restrained by their own authority. He was also too precipitate in not yielding to the mediation of his own Bishops in be­half of those Churches. And lastly, he was much more culpable for im­posing this observation on the Asian Churches as a matter of Faith, and judged them to be heterodox and ex­communicate that would not submit. Baronius his words ad annum Christi 198. p. 191. of the Antwerp edition [Page 33] are, Totius Asia Ecclesias cum aliis fi­nit imis tanquam alterius fidei & opinio­nis à communi unitate Ecclesia amputare conatur. Nor were the Asian Churches without fault for yielding so long to a Jewish Ceremony, which might long ere that time have been decently buried as other Jewish customes had been: And also for suffering some among them to teach a necessity of ob­serving the Christian Pascha on the 14th. day and no other. So that (to conclude) though the Roman Church was in this particular stronger in the Faith, yet (as our Author saith) they should have born with the imbecillity of their weaker Brethren, a thing which (he observes) S. Paul would not refuse to do, p. 218. To which I say, that S. Paul did comply for a while with the Jewish Converts in the Case of Circumcision, but when some of them pleaded for a necessity of Circumcision, he thunders against that Opinion as loudly as Victor did against this, saying, That if they were Circumcised (i. e. with an Opinion of the necessity of it) Christ should profit them nothing, Gal. 5. 2.

[Page 34] Now from this History (as our Au­thor had contrived it) he drew several wilde inferences: As first p. 203. ‘In this fantastical Hurry I cannot see (saith he) but all the World were Schismaticks.’ To which I reply. That all the World were not concerned in it, there being some Nations that dif­fered from both these in the observati­on of Easter, as Socrates, l. 5. c. 21. hath observed: for even among the Jewish Converts, some that agreed on the 14th. day differed in the Moon, and Venerable Bede observes that our Na­tion (which the Pope pretends to have been his Converts) did in those pri­mitive times observe their Easter on the 14th. day (which by the way is an argument that we at first receiv­ed the Christian Faith, not from the Church of Rome who exploded this custome, but more Anciently from Jo­seph of Arimathea, or from St. Philip, who, as many good Authors affirm, planted the Christian Religion in our neighbour Nation of France, and as the Asian Churches affirm, was one of them that taught them this custom) [Page 35] nor do we read that they were con­demned for Hereticks for so doing. Neither did those Eastern Churches who differed in the Moneth anathema­tize each other; and Socrates (ubi su­pra) gives this reason for it, They that agree in the same Faith may differ from each other in respect of Rites. (as the Reformed Churches do at this day) And though the Roman Church did excommunicate the Asian, yet were they never the more Schismaticks for that, being they were ( sui Juris) not under the Roman power. And accord­ing to our Authors definition of schism, they being never members of that Church from which they were excom­municate, could not be guilty of schism notwithstanding Victors rigor. We say therefore they were still members of the Catholick Church. And as for the Roman Church what should make them Schismaticks? For though Victor did arrogate too much as to the man­ner of his proceedings, yet as to the matter, his prosecution against a Jew­ish ceremony when it grew into an Opinion of being necessary to be ob­served, [Page 36] was his duty, and approved by the practice of St. Paul himself. Gal. 5. 2. And while there was a controversie between their Governors, the People and Clergy too of both Parties conti­nued in due subjection to their Supe­riors, and in mutual charity to one another. So that the Separatists of our Age can have no excuse for their Schism from this instance.

But our Author infers, Secondly, ‘that this fell out through the igno­rance or ( which he mentioneth also) the malice of their Governors, and that through the just judgment of God on the People, because through sloth and blind obedience they examined not the things which they were taught, but like beasts of burthen patiently couched down and indifferently un­derwent whatsoever their Superiors laid upon them.’ To which I Answer. It doth not appear there was any charge of ignorance to be imputed to Victor, or his People, for the reasons above mentioned; much less of ma­lice. Our present Sectaries do call their opposition to Ceremonies (more inno­cent [Page 37] than that) by the name of zeal, and love to the cause of God. Nor was there any thing imposed on the Churches of either side, that concer­ned their Faith, nor any custome or rite ( de novo) but only the Asian Chur­ches were desired to translate the cu­stome of observing Easter, from a day which gave offence not only to the Church of Rome, but several other Churches. Petavius says, the differ­ence was not de Catholico dogmate, sed de Ritu, seu Ritûs potiùs tempore. And if the Superiors in the Asian Churches had thought the Alteration fit, (as shortly after they did) it had doubtless been the Peoples duty to submit; for every Church hath power in those things which are indifferent, and much more in such things as give offence to other Churches, to appoint and alter rites and ceremonies for the publick Worship of God; and the People shew themselves not beasts of burthen but Christ's Free-men, in submitting to their Governors as far as Christian li­berty doth permit. If Victor had im­posed new Articles of Faith, as Pius [Page 38] Quintus did in the Council of Trent, doubtless those Primitive Christians would have resisted even to bloud; of which they gave too many instan­ces when they constantly endured all manner of torments rather than they would renounce the Faith once deli­vered to them.

Our Author therefore needed to ask pardon for wounding the reputation of these Ancient Worthies in cool bloud, as well as for massacring at once the authority of all the Fathers in the heat of a temptation, p. 204. where he says thus: ‘You may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiqui­ty for resolution in controversies of Faith, and how small relief we are to expect from thence; for if the discretion of the chiefest Guides of the Church did in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the truth in a subject wherein it is the greatest marvel, how they could avoid the sight of it; Can we without the imputation of ex­treme grossness and folly, think so poor spirited persons competent Judg­es [Page 39] of the questions now on foot in the Churches? Pardon me, I know not what temptation drew that note from me.’ To this I reply: 1. Whoever he be that so contemptuously rejects the Authority, and trampleth on the reputation of the Fathers, hath suffi­ciently excused those that shall slight his own. This is the Author's own sense, Golden Remains, p. 260. 2. I refer it to the judgment of the Reader whe­ther Victor Bishop of Rome condemning some of the Asian Churches for adhe­ring too tenaciously to a Jewish cere­mony which was of ill consequence to those and other neighbouring Church­es, were not more excusable than a private person, living many hundred years after the fact, (and never rightly knowing, or else wrongfully represent­ing it) insolently and causlesly condem­ning the Ancient Fathers, not of one or two Ages or parts of the Church, but all in general; as if the failing of one man in a point so trivial and in­considerable (as our Author calls it) were sufficient reason to condemn them all for indiscreet and poor spiri­ted [Page 40] persons; And to impute extreme grossness and folly to all that should think them competent Judges of our differences. This is a [...] beyond that of Abailardus, who was wont to say, that the Fathers for the most part did think this or that to be right, but I think otherwise, as if his single au­thority could out-weigh all theirs. 3. He must pretend to have some new light for his guide, and be either an Enthusiast, or Socinian, that can see any danger in appealing to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith. For seeing there is scarce any point of Faith but some unhappy Wits have controverted it, and in de­fence of their Opinions have put the Scriptures on the rack to make them speak their own sense; how can points of Faith delivered in the Scriptures be better understood and confirmed than by the joynt consent of such Ancient Doctors who conversed with the A­postles or their immediate Successors, and are rightly called Apostolici, many of which were Persons of great Lear­ning and Eloquence, and so could not [Page 41] be charged with ignorance? And doubtless they were very industrious in inquiring into the grounds of the Christian Faith, for which they for­sook all temporal accommodations, and most of them their lives, and against all opposition have not only handed down to us the Scriptures themselves pure and incorrupt, but the proper and genuine sense of them. We do not make them Judices but Indices fi­dei, not the Authors but the witnes­ses to confirm and give evidence in matters of Faith. 4. The Papists do calumniate the Reformed Divines as if they rejected the judgment of the Fathers; whereas they do with one consent (and none more readily than they of the Church of England) appeal to their Authority for confirmation of the Faith which they profess. I could easily fill a Volume with the testimo­nies of our Modern Divines concern­ing the authority of the Ancients, how competent Judges they are of the que­stions now on foot. The naming of some few will resolve us whether our Author's Opinion or theirs deserves [Page 42] the imputation of grosness and folly. Calvin in his controversie with Pig­hius, de libero Arbitrio, says, The con­troversie between me and Pighius would soon be ended if he would de­clare the tradition of the Church in the certain and perpetual consent of the Holy and Orthodox. Bucer says as much on Matth. 1. concerning the consent of the Church about the per­petual Virginity of the Holy Virgin Mary. That to doubt of that con­sent, unless some plain Oracle of Scri­pture doth inforce it, is not the part of them that have learned what the Church of Christ is. When Zanchy was 70. Years old, and had long stu­died the point, He tells us in these words: Hoc ego ingenuè profiteor talem esse meam conscientiam, ut à veterum Patrum sive dogmatibus, sive scriptura­rum interpretationibus, non facilè nisi manifestis scripturarum testimoniis vel necessariis consequentiis apertisque de­monstrationibus convictus atque coactus discedere queam; Sic enim acquiescat mea conscientia, & in hac mentis quiete cupio etiam mori. Epistola ad Confess. [Page 43] fidei, p. 47. Gualter in his Preface to Peter Martyr's common places, says, From hence come all kinds of evils, the pest of disputatiousness, the viola­tion of all bonds of Charity, and sha­king the fundamentals of Faith, be­cause we do not reverence the Anci­ents as much as we ought. Nor fear I to affirm, that the chief cause of the Contentions of our Age, is, because most Divines insist on the Opinions of their present Masters, and read their Books, not enquiring what learned Antiquity did think, or what errors and heresies were condemned by it. As for the Divines of our own Church, it may be sufficient to men­tion Bishop Jewel's Chalengee, and how well he discharged it. ‘If any learned man of our adversaries (said that learned Bishop) or all the learn­ed men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholick Doctor or Father, or out of any old General Council, or out of the Holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the Primitive Church, whereby it may be clearly [Page 44] and plainly proved, that there was any private Mass in the world for 600 years after Christ, or that, &c. (to the number of 27. Articles now in controversie between us and the Church of Rome) I am content to yield and to subscribe. And in his Apologie for the Church of England he says, We came as nigh as possibly we could to the Apostolical Churches and the Ancient Bishops, neither did we direct our Doctrine only, but our Sacraments and form of Publick Prayers to their rites and institutions.’ And after him the Church provided by her constitutions, Anno 1571. Imprimis videant Concionatores, ne quid unquam pro con­cione doceant quod à populo religiosè tene­ri & credi volunt, nisi quod consenta­neum sit Veteri & Novo Testamento, quód (que) ex iis docuerint Antiqui Patres & veteres Episcopi collegerint. I add only that of the Royal Martyr in his discourse with Henderson, 3d. paper. ‘When you and I differ about the sense of the Scriptures, and I appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fa­thers and the Primitive Church, you [Page 45] ought to find a more competent Judge, or to rest in him that is pro­posed by me.’ And this shall serve to assoil that question which our Author saith, carryeth fire in the tail of it, and brings with it a piece of Doctrine which is seldom pleasing to Superiors, p. 200. But the fire proves an Ignis fatuus, and our Author himself brings water e­nough to extinguish it; for in p. 65. he saith, ‘If Aristotle and Aphrodiseus, and Galen, and the rest of those ex­cellent men whom God hath endued with extraordinary portions of na­tural knowledge, have with all thankful and ingenious men through­out all generations retained their cre­dit intire, notwithstanding it is ac­knowledged that they have all of them in many things swerved from the Truth; Then why should not Chri­stians express the same ingenuity to those who have laboured before us in the exposition of the Christian Faith, and highly esteem them for their works sake, their many infirmi­ties notwithstanding?’

[...]
[...]

[Page 46] From this general contempt of the Fathers our Author proceeds, p. 206. to cast a slurr on S. Augustine. For having mentioned S. Augustines argu­ment which he maintained against the Donatists, which was, Unitatem Ec­clesiae per totum Orbem dispersae propter nonnullorum peccata non esse deserendam; (i. e.) that the Unity of the Church spread over the whole world ought not to be forsaken for the sins of some few that were in its communion, he adds, ‘that though it were de facto false, that Donatus his party shut up in Africa, was the only Orthodox party; yet it might have been true notwithstanding any thing S. Au­gustine brings to confute it. And contrarily though it were de facto true that the part of Christians dis­persed over the face of the Earth were the Orthodox, yet it might have been false notwithstanding any thing S. Augustine brings to confirm it.’ As if that learned Father who was as close and exact a disputant as the Church hath enjoyed ever since, had wholly mistaken the question, [Page 47] or were unable to urge one argument pro or con, (i.e.) either for confutation of that wretched Schism, or for de­fence of the Catholick Church. That learned Father wrote a very large Vo­lume against those Schismaticks, which contains so much both of wit and Argument, that there would not need any thing else to be said for the confutation of Schismaticks to the worlds end if his arguments were well understood and applyed. And when our Author proves the Dona­tists in two lines to be complete Schis­maticks, first for choosing a Bishop in opposition to the former, secondly, for erecting new places for the divi­ding party to meet in publickly, I wonder with what confidence he could deny that S. Augustine had done so much in so many writings and dis­putations. But when I consider how palpably this Author contradicts him­self; I cease to wonder that he should oppose and contemn that Great man. For, p. 208. he seems with some passion to interrogate, ‘Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with [Page 48] the Donatists?’ and p. 215. ‘why may I not go if occasion require to an Arrian Church?’ when p. 229. he says expresly ‘that it is not law­ful no not for prayer, hearing, con­ference, &c. to assemble otherwise than by publick order is allowed.’ And if our Author knew not that as well the Schism of the Donatists as the heresie of the Arrians was often condemned and forbidden by the Em­perors and Councils of that age, he was very ignorant indeed.

But the reason which our Author gives, why S. Augustine said nothing to the question, is as strange as any thing else. ‘ S. Augustine (saith our Author) brought nothing to prove that the Orthodox were the true Church, or the Donatists were Schis­maticks. For the Church may be in any number, in any place, coun­try or nation, it may be in all, and for ought I know it may be in none, without prejudice to the definition of a Church or the Truth of the Go­spel.’ He might as well have told us of a Church in Utopia, which is the [Page 49] same with a Church in no place, country or nation. What Idea of the Church our Author conceived I cannot imagine, but that which he expresseth concerning it is as contrary to the truth of all the Prophecies of the Old Testament, as well as the description of it in the New, from whence the definition is taken, as light is to darkness. For Acts 2. 41. ad finem, the Church is described to be a num­ber of men (not all nor none) called out of the world by the preaching of the Apostles, and joyning themselves to their Spiritual guides by Baptism and breaking of Bread, by publick Prayers, and hearing the Word. These in verse 47. are expresly called the Church, and to this Church the Lord added daily such as should be saved. Now such Churches were by Christ's commissions to be planted in all Na­tions, which we believe was really effected; and the truth thereof is still apparent, that God hath given his Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for hs posses­sion: and therefore to say that a [Page 50] Church may be in none, either num­ber or place, (for I suppose the Au­thor intends both, because if it may exist in no place, it must not consist of any number, nor so much as admit of one) as contrary to sense and Reason as to the Truth of the Gospel. And is such a fancy as that of Mrs. Trask, who having shifted from one Con­venticle to another in New-England; and at last on pretence of impurity in their ordinances and members, se­parated from them all, affirmed, that she alone was the Church and Spouse of Christ. But I think Mr. Hales himself sufficiently refutes this fancy of our Author. Page 185, & 186. of his Golden Remains he tells us, ‘that to prove the existence of our Church before Luther, all that is necessary to be proved in the case is no­thing else but this; that there hath been from the Apostles times a per­petual succession of the Ministry to preach and to baptize, of which by the providence of God there remains very good evidence to the world, and shall remain.’

[Page 51] Having told us that the Church may be in no place, that is in effect that there may be no Church, he doth with the more confidence affirm, p. 213. ‘That Church Authority is none, and tradition for the most part but figment.’ Answ. As to traditions in general I defend them not, nor can any man else; but for such as bear the Characters, which Vincentius Li­rinensis describes, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, we have all reason imaginable to inforce the im­bracing of such traditions as have been received and delivered to us by all the Churches of Christ, in all ages and in all places, unless we were of the Authors opinion, that Church authority is none; and this can never be made good but by proof of our Authors fiction of a Church in Utopia. For if our Saviour did out of man­kind redeem a Church by his own bloud; if he planted it by his Apostles, and promised his presence with it to the end of the world; if he made it the ground and Pillar of Truth, and promised to hear her prayers, and to [Page 52] bind in heaven what they bound on earth, and that the gates of Hell, i.e. neither persecutions, nor heresies, nor schisms should prevail against it: doubtless there is a Church, and that Church hath some authority granted to her by her dear Redeemer, to de­fend that peace and unity, as well as those truths, which he bequeathed to her. Did our Saviour take care for the Church of the Jews only, or did he not also mind the Christian Church, when Matt. 18. 17. he enjoyns us even in private differences among our selves, much more in those which concern the publick peace of the Church, as in the case of scandals mentioned in the context, v. 7. to go tell the Church; and if any should neg­lect to hear the Church, that he should be unto us as an heathen man and a Publican, i.e. Excommunicate from that holy Society; which pu­nishment being spiritual doth clearly evince, that the causes submitted to the judgment of the Church were spiritual also. But I demand farther, did the Apostles usurp more autho­rity [Page 53] than was given them, when they assembled together, Acts 15. 6. about the case of Circumcision; and after the difference had been fully debated by Peter, Paul, Barnabas and S. James in the presence of the Elders and the multitude, they all agreed, and that by the approbation of the Holy Ghost, v. 28. to impose upon the Churches certain constitutions as necessary to be observed at that time for the peace of the Church? If they did not, then the Church had some authority. And so when S. Paul pleaded the custom of the Churches of God against contentious persons in the Church of Corinth, 1 Epist. c. 11. v. 16. And doth not the same Apostle tell us, that when our Saviour ascended up on high, Eph. 4. 11. he placed rulers and governors in his Church, whose care it should be to provide that the people should not be thenceforth as children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness where­by they lie in wait to deceive, v. 14. If Church authority be none, to what [Page 54] end did S. Paul injoyn Timothy to see that women should keep silence in the Church, 1 Tim. 2. 12. not only to teach but command, 1 Tim. 4. 11. to give charge concerning widows, 1 Tim. 5. 1, 7. how to receive accusations against Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 19. how to ordain, 1 Tim. 5. 22. and see that they held fast the form of sound words, 2 Tim. 1. 13. to suppress striving about vain words and prophane bablings, such as were the discourses of Hyme­naeus and Philetus, which did eat as a canker and overthrew the faith of some, 2 Tim. 2. 14, 16. to rebuke (au­thoritatively) such as would not en­dure sound doctrine, but agreeably to their own lusts did heap up teachers to themselves, having itching ears, 2 Tim. 4. 2, 3. And in like manner that Titus should suffer no man to despise his au­thority, Titus 2. 15. but diligently discharge the duties for which the Apostle setled him in Crete, i. e. to set in order things which were wanting, and to ordain Elders in every City, Titus 1. 5. and to reject hereticks after a second admonition, Titus 3. 10. [Page 55] Besides we find the Spirit of God com­mending the Angel of the Church of Ephesus for shewing her hatred against the Nicolaitans, and blaming the An­gel of the Church of Pergamus for to­lerating the Doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans, and the Angel of Thyatira for permitting the Doctrine and practice of Jezebel, Rev. 2. 6. &c. Nor did I ever hear yet of any Con­venticle that pretended to have the face of a Church, that did not exer­cise some authority over their mem­bers: for as the Synod of Dort de­clared, No order nor peace can be pre­served in the Church, if it should not be lawful for it so to judge of its own members, as to restrain within bounds wavering and unsetled spirits. This hath been the practice of the Churches of all Ages; the particulars to which their authority did extend are not now to be reckoned, nor the arguments for vindication thereof necessary to be insisted on: I shall shut up this with that of Beza, de pace Ecclesiae: Neque enim Dei gratiâ ignoro Ecclesiam esse ve­ritatis testem, extra quam non sit salus, [Page 56] & Orthodoxorum consensum in Synodis adversùs Haereticos plurimi fieri par est, & Patrum in interpretandis Scripturis, in refutandis erroribus, in admonendis po­pulis, labores adeò non contemni oportet, ut secundo à Scripturis loco meritò habeantur. These things do certainly infer, that Church-authority is something. How­ever our Author, p. 224. dares to tell us, that ‘They do but abuse them­selves and others that would per­swade us, that Bishops by Christ's institution have any superiority above other Men further than of Reverence.’ And the reason which he gives for it is this, ‘For we have believed him that told us, that in Jesus Christ there is neither high nor low, and that in giving honour every Man should be ready to prefer another before himself.’ Which reasons do as certainly con­clude against Magistrates as Bishops, viz. that there is no obedience, no tri­bute or homage due to them by Christ's institution, nothing further than an airy superiority of reverence, which if the other were denyed would be but a mockery; Like that wherewith the [Page 57] late Royal Martyr was Reverenced, when the Usurpers robbed him of all that God and the Laws invested him withall, and gave him only the supe­riority of reverence in a Noble Death. But as to Bishops, let our Author's As­sertion Answer it self: For first, It grants that Bishops were by Christ's institution, because by his institution they had a superiority of reverence a­bove other Men. 2ly, This superiori­ty was grounded on their Office as Bi­shops, that is, Overseers of the Flock committed to their charge, which Of­fice was assigned to them by the Holy Ghost, Acts 20. 28. And now I would have the Reader consider whether those that by the institution of Christ and of the Holy Ghost were made Rulers and Governors of the Church, have no other superiority above other Men beside that of reverence? There is more expressed, Hebr. 13. 17. in these words, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves. And when St. Paul instructs Timothy in the office of a Bishop, he tells him how he should learn to rule the House [Page 58] of God, 1 Tim. 3. 4. by ruling well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. Again, when he chargeth Timothy, 1 Ep. 5. 17. to provide that those Presbyters that did not only rule well but laboured (above others) in the Word and Do­ctrine, should be counted worthy of double honour, he intended somewhat more than a superiority of Reverence, namely an Honorary maintenance, such as was the portion of the elder Brother under the Law, not a preca­rious Eleemosynary stipend, but that which was as due to them as the hire is to the labourer; and I suppose that this is by Christ's institution, the A­postle assuring us, that as it was set­led by a Divine institution under the Law, Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9. 14. Be­sides, the Apostle grounds the superi­ority of Reverence on that of the office of governing, labouring and watching for the Souls of the People. So 1 Thessal. 5. 12, 13. We besseech you Brethren to know them which labour [Page 59] among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And that the Apostles were superior in office not only to the People, but to the 72. Disciples, and to the Dea­cons, is clearly evinced by the Scri­ptures; for upon the miscarriage of Judas another being to take his office, Acts 1. 20. the Apostles met toge­ther, and in a solemn assembly after prayer and supplication the lot fell on Matthias, who was one of the 72. Dis­ciples, and had accompanied the A­postles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them. And this method was to continue, by Saint Paul's advice to Timothy, 1. Ep. 3. 13. where such as had used the office of a Deacon well, are said to purchase to themselves a good degree, i. e. as the Assembly expound it, doth deservedly purchase to himself the honour of a higher office in the Church. And whereas we read, Acts 1. 3. that our Saviour Christ after his Resurrection conversed 40. days with his Apostles, speaking of the things pertaining to [Page 60] the Kingdom of God, i. e. the teach­ing and governing of his Church; and when he ascended up on high he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, &c. not only for the work of the Ministry, but preventing of false Doctrines and Schisms, Ephes. 4. 11-14. compared with 1 Cor. 12. 25, 28, 29. it is evi­dent there was a superiority of office as well as of reverence given to the Teachers & Governors of the Church. For God hath set these several orders in his Church, first Apostles, secon­darily Prophets, &c. all are not Apo­stles, nor all Prophets, nor all Teach­ers, there were some even by God's institution above others in place and office as well as in reverence; where­of we cannot expect a better proof than the Universal practice of the Churches of Christ even in the Apo­stles days, and immediately after their decease. For unless we could conceive that all the Churches should even in those Primitive times conspire toge­ther to cast off some other government appointed by Christ, and admit of this to which they could have no tempta­tion [Page 61] or inclination, the People and Bi­shops both, being then as sheep ap­pointed to the slaughter, we must needs conclude, that a superiority of office and government, as well as of reve­rence was their due. Now not only the Persons that were set over the Churches, and had the Characters of Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction, are plainly recorded in the Writings of the Ancients; but their power and su­periority over Presbyters and Deacons, their supreme care and inspection of the affairs of the Church are so fully explained, as if they had been written on purpose to prevent the objections of these later days. For instance, we read in Authentick Authors of

  • St. James at Hierusalem,
  • St. Mark at Alexandria,
  • Timothy at Ephesus,
  • Titus at Crete,
  • Crescens at Galatia,
  • Archippus at Caloss,
  • Epaphroditus at Philippi,
  • Gaius at Thessalonica,
  • Apollos at Corinth,
  • [Page 62] Linus and Anacletus at Rome,
  • Ignatius at Antioch,
  • Papias at Hierapolis,
  • Dionysius Areopagita at Athens:

Yea the Ancients tell us particularly who were those seven Angels of the Asian Churches that are either appro­ved or reprehended for their govern­ment, Viz.

  • Antipas at Pergamus,
  • Polycarp at Smyrna,
  • Carpus at Thyatira,
  • Sagaris at Laodicea,
  • Melito at Sardis,
  • Onesimus at Ephesus:

And Ignatius gives the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia the like cha­racter as the Spirit of God doth, though I find not his name. It were no great difficulty to set down the Successors of divers of these Bishops through ma­ny ages of the Church, together with the dignity and power they had as well over Presbyters as People: Igna­tius and Clemens, Tertullian and Irenaeus; [Page 63] Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus speak largely of them. I shall hope to satisfie the Reader with a passage or two out of St. Hierome, who is thought no Friend of Episcopacy, yet in his Epistle to Evagrius, he says, Whatever Aaron and his Sons and the Levites could vindicate to themselves in the Temple, the same may Bishops, and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselves in the (Christian) Church. Here you have a plain distinction of Orders. And in his Epistle to Riparius you have a di­stinction of Power, for speaking of Vi­gilantius an Heretical Presbyter, he saith, Miror sanctum Episcopum in cujus parochia esse Presbyter dicitur, acquiescere ejus furori, & non virgâ Apostolicâ, vir­gâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat; I wonder the holy Bishop in whose Diocese the Heretical Presbyter is said to be, doth not restrain his mad­ness, and with his Apostolical rod as with an Iron rod break that unprofitable Vessel, and deliver him for the destruction of the flesh, that his Soul may be saved. So that there was a sub and supra by [Page 64] Christ's institution, it did not all come from composition and agreement of Men among themselves, as Mr. Hobs and our Author do affirm.

But if there were indeed a superi­ority of reverence due to Bishops by Christ's institution, I fear the Author sinned against that institution when he spake so irreverently of them, as in Page 226. speaking of contentions be­tween Bishops; ‘Private and indif­ferent Persons may as securely be spectators of those contentions in re­spect of any peril of conscience, as at a Cock-fight where Serpents fight, who cares who hath the better? the best Wish is that both may perish in the fight.’ Ità convitiis debacchatur ut plusculum in eo modestiae desiderare cogor; utinam ar­gumentis tantùm egisset, & à convitiis temperâsset. Eras. in praefat. Epist. Hieron. ad Vigilantium. I know not under what temptation the Author was when he wrote this, nor did he himself consider from what spirit it came. St. Jude tells us, v. 9. that Michael the Archangel, when contending with the Devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation: but [Page 65] this Author (whether Aerius revived, or the Ghost of that Monster Smectym­nuus become incarnate, (no Archangel I am sure) doth not only despise Do­minions, and speak evil of Dignities, but breaths out fire and utter destru­ction, against Episcopacy root and branch. Who the contending Bishops were of whom he speaks, I have told you in the controversie between Victor and Polycrates, the one contending too violently for a truth, the other too tenaciously defending an ancient but erroneous custome. The errors of both would extract pity and prayers from any Christian spirit, that were sensible of humane infirmities. When there arose a contention among Christ's own Disciples, Luk. 9. 46. which should be the greatest; And when the dispute about circumcision somewhat like this arose between Paul and Bar­nabas, and them that came down from Judaea, did Christ or his Apostles think themselves as unconcerned at these contentions, as at a Cock-fight? or had it been a fit option to wish that they might all perish? How destru­ctive [Page 66] are the curses of such men, when their prayers, their best wishes are for destruction? There appears more of the Serpent in this rash vote, than in all Victor's contention.

But our Author thinks he may be well excused for this uncharitable vote against Bishops, seeing ‘they had so little charity as by their frequent con­tests to make butter and cheese of one another,’ p. 220.

It is a sad story to read the great vi­olences acted by some Bishops, and the indignities and tortures indured by o­thers in that period of time to which Socrates confines his History: for in the close of it he says, it contained the History of 140. Years from the begin­ning of Constantine's Empire unto the 17. consulship of Theodosius: In all which time Socrates relates with as much sorrow, as our Author seems to do with merriment, what agonies and convulsions the Arian Heresie made in some Churches, and the Schism of the Donatists in others, where the Facti­ons (being cruel and implacable) as often as they got any power, did not [Page 67] only make butter and cheese but shed the bloud of the Orthodox and more peaceable Bishops. There are still some such as would gladly reduce them again to butter and cheese, and like vermin corrode and devour them too. If any be of the Authors mind, I hope and pray that God would give them repentance, that they may live so peaceably under the Bishops of the Church here, that they may live eternally with the Bishop of their Souls hereafter: Or if they shall despise my advice, I intreat them to consider that of Mr. Hales, p. 223. ‘It being a thing very convenient for the peace of the Church, (to have but one Bishop in one See, at one time) neither doth it any way savour of vice or misdemeanor, their punish­ment sleeps not who unnecessarily and wantonly go about to infringe it.’

I meet with one observation more fit to be animadverted on under this head which is in page 218, &c. ‘The third thing I noted for matter of Schism, was, Ambition, I mean [Page 68] Episcopal ambition, shewing it self in two heads; one concerning Plu­rality of Bishops in the same See, another the Superiority of Bishops in divers Sees. Aristotle tells us, that necessity causeth but small faults, but Avarice and Ambition were the mothers of great crimes.’ He in­stanceth in the Sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Rome.

I am glad our Author found no in­stances of Episcopal ambition nearer home; if there had been any, in all probability he would have told us of them. If he had been a friend to the Episcopal Order, he would rather have done as Constantine said he was ready to do with his Bishops, make his royal robes a covering for their infirmities, than like a Cham discover the nakedness of those Fathers. The best of Bishops are but men, and so are subject to the like passions and infir­mities as other men. I have already instanced in the Apostles and other disciples of Christ; and certainly it is not christianly done so to aggravate the faults of particular persons as to [Page 69] reflect upon the whole office. Besides, our Author might have mentioned as many and as dangerous Schisms made by covetous and ambitious Presbyters as by the Bishops; Novatus and No­vatian, See the Hist. of Donatists. Aerius and Arrius, Donatus and his fellow Presbyters, who as­sumed the Episcopal power to them­selves, and shed more bloud, and committed more outrages than were done under any instance of Episcopal ambition.

I will not insist on any foreign com­parisons, our late Schism at home is so fresh in our memories, and the wounds made by it are yet so open, that there needs no other Rhetorick than our own experience, to teach us that the little finger of the Presbyte­rians was heavier than the Episcopal loins. Let any person sum up toge­ther the mischiefs occasioned by the avarice and ambition of Bishops for 500 years together in this Nation of ours, and I dare engage to demon­strate, that for wickedness in con­triving, for malice and cruelty in ex­ecuting, for pride and arrogance in [Page 70] usurping, for obstinacy and impla­cableness in continuing and endea­vouring still to perpetuate our unpa­ralleled confusions; though many Bi­shops have done wickedly, yet our Presbyterians have exceeded them all. For let me be informed whether for a Juncto of Presbyters, who had of­ten sworn obedience to their lawful Ordinaries, as well as allegiance to their Prince, to cast off all those sacred obligations, and dethroning one in­comparable Prince, to advance many Tyrants, and by covenanting against one Bishop in a Diocess, erect 100, or 200, in the same See, and expose all to contempt and misery that would not partake with them in their sins, whose tender mercies Mr. Hales him­self found to be cruel, being deprived of that plentiful estate which he en­joyed under the Episcopal Govern­ment, and reduced to that extremity that he was forced to sell his books for the supply of his necessities: let me be informed I pray, whether this be not more than any Bishop ever did or could be guilty of? Such indignities, per­juries, [Page 71] usurpations and cruelties against an Equal, as these men have acted against their just, lawful and excellent Governors both in Church and State, I believe have not been acted since Judas betrayed his Master.

P. 225. Our Author infers from the Scriptures before mentioned, ‘That those sayings cut off most cer­tainly all claim to superiority by title of Christianity, except men can think that these things were spoken only to poor and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath a hand in this heraldry of Secundum Sub & Supra. All this comes from composition and agree­ment of men amongst themselves.’ The first Scripture referred to by our Author is, I suppose, Gal. 3. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Here is not a word of high nor low in this nor any other Scripture that I can find in our authors sense; for the Apostle only shews, that as to our acceptance by God in Christ there is no respect of persons; but as [Page 72] he had said, verse 26. ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, No difference from country, relation, sex or condition, but as the King's Manuscript, [...], ye are all Christs: i. e. of his mystical body, utcunque alia sunt diversa, as Calvin observes, the rela­tion of King and subject, Parent and child, Husband and wife, Master and servant notwithstanding. Not that these relations are destroyed, for then Christian Religion would be of all factions the most intolerable. Estius on this place intimates, that lest the Galatians should think they got advan­tages by being in Christ, he tells them the Jew if he believed was as good as the Gentile, the bond as the free, which is therefore first named. And if this sense could be applied to this Scripture which our Author gives, then might the Quakers use it to de­fend all their rudeness, because there is neither high nor low; and the Fa­mily of love for all their carnality, be­cause there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

[Page 73] The second Scripture is Rom. 12. 10. In giving honour let every one prefer an­other before himself: which place is so far from licensing any Christians to deny honour to those Superiors to whom it is due, and strictly injoyned in the next chapter, that it obligeth them to give it to equals and inferiors, as S. Bernard says, The first degree of Christian humility is, Inferiorem se exhi­bere Aequali; secundus, Aequalem se ex­hibere Inferiori; tertius, Inferiorem se ex­hibere Inferiori, in all which the giving honour to our Superiors, is not mentio­ned, being a duty that nature it self doth teach. The Assembly gives a right sense of this Scripture: Christian humility teacheth us not only not to prefer our selves above our equals, nor to equal our selves to our betters, but in some cases to equal our selves to our Inferiors. So that we need not think these things were spoken to poor & private men, but were to be the common duties of all Christians without prejudice to their particular relations, all which Christianity provides for. S. Paul instructs Timothy, as the Servant of the Lord to be gentle to all men, apt to teach, [Page 74] patient, in meekness instructing those that opposed themselves. But withal he in­courageth him to teach and to command, to rebuke and reprove, to see that no man did despise him, and leaves to him the go­vernment and care of the Church of God at Ephesus. Where there is true Christianity, there will be as much humility and meekness in the hearts and lives of Kings and Princes, Bishops and Priests, as of the meanest Pea­sant. And therefore the Monks of Bangor were not advised amiss; That they should know whether Austin that was sent by Gregory the Great to be an Arch-Bishop, was a servant of God or no, if he did meekly salute them, and behave himself humbly towards them as to his Brethren.

Secondly, Both Nature and Reli­gion agree in this Heraldry, that all Families and Societies of men, and therefore the Church of God also, have ever born something in chief; the Father was ever above the Son, and the Priest, who for a long time was the Father of the Family, was superior to the people: All did not [Page 75] come by composition and agreement. To evince this, I shall assert these three propositions: 1. That God is to be Worshipped, is a dictate of the law of Nature. 2. That men ought to gather themselves into assemblies for the Worship of God, is a result of the same Law. 3. That in those So­cieties there should be a power and government for the preservation of it self is from the Law of Nature, and by consequence from the Law of God, both which have directed a Sub and Supra in all Societies, and ingraven the principles of it in the Souls of men.

First, That Nature teacheth us that God is to be Worshipped. This im­pression we find in Adam, not only before, but after the fall, who taught his Sons, as well Cain as Abel, to honour God with their substance. And we read, Gen. 4. 3. That in process of time, that is say some, at the revolu­tion of a determined time, which be­ing described to be (in the Original) at the end of days, others think it to be meant of the Seventh or Sabbath day, Cain brought of the fruit of the [Page 76] ground an offering to the Lord, and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. Whether they brought it to a designed place, or to their father Adam as their Priest, I shall not now enquire. I shall only give you an observation of the learned Doctor Outram on this place: That the period of days whereon Cain brought his offering, was at the end of Harvest, and the time of Abels offering was when his flocks were in­creased, at which seasons both of them being instructed by natural reason (for no command doth appear) thought it meet to return to God some part of the blessing given them by God. And whereas it is said, Hebr. 11. 4. that by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, which some think could not be said to be done in faith unless it had been in obedience to some command of God; He consenteth with some others, that this place doth evince the contrary, because if Abel had sacrificed accord­ing to some express command, we cannot conceive but Cain offered upon [Page 77] the same command also, and so might be said to have done it by faith as well as Abel, which is contrary to that text which implies that Cain did not. Whence it may be concluded, that they did neither of them present their offerings by virtue of any command, but according to a dictate of nature imprinted on their Souls as an acknow­ledgment of their several blessings received from him: which if Cain a wicked man was inclined to do by the light of nature, how much better may it be said of Abel who was a good man? But it will be demanded, wherein that faith of Abel which is so commended did consist? And the An­swer is, in that he had so great a re­spect to the Dominion, power and goodness of God the author and giver of all blessings, and Lord of life and death, that he thought himself ob­liged to offer the best of his flocks in testimony of the Worship of his Crea­tor, and of a thankful mind towards him. And indeed the light of nature might serve not only to direct the fa­mily of Adam who had so much of [Page 78] the knowledge of God, but others also that were removed into a greater darkness and ignorance, That as the invisible God had manifested his eter­nal power and Godhead to them by things visible, so they ought to agnize and honour their invisible Creator and benefactor by offering him some por­tion of those visible and sensible bles­sings which he had vouchsafed them. These and such like arguments saith Dr. Outram, p. 7. did so prevail with the Ancients, that they were of opi­nion that men did first offer sacrifice from an instinct of natural reason and not from any command of God, for which he quoteth many learned Au­thors, and concludes with the Opini­on of Eusebius de demonstratione Evan­gelica, l. 1. c. 10. That Cain did of his own accord offer the fruits of the ground, but every good man as Abel, Noah and Abraham did by Divine reasoning or understanding sacrifice living creatures ( [...],) which as the learned Doctor proves, cannot be understood of a Divine Command. I shall add but this one [Page 79] medium more for the proof of my first proposition, That the general instinct and inclination of Mankind to worship some thing as God, doth argue that the Light of Nature doth direct them that God is to be worshipped; only through the decay and weakness of Reason they mistake the Object, and are become ignorant of the right man­ner of serving him, which hath been the cause of all Idolatry. And it is ve­ry observable that whereas other di­ctates of Nature have been obliterated and disused among divers Nations, this hath been constantly and universally observed by all with great solemnity: which is the second Proposition, viz.

That God must be worshipped by Men in Society, is according to the Law of Nature, which I suppose our Author doth grant, p. 227. where he saith, ‘It hath been at all times con­fessed necessary, that God requireth not only inward and private Devo­tion, when Men either in their hearts and closets, or within their private walls pray, praise, confess and ac­knowledge; but he further requires [Page 80] all those things to be done in publick, by Troops and Shoals of Men.’ If this was always necessary, then sure be­fore there was any positive command for it, God requiring it by the Law of Nature, which doth not only teach us that God is to be worshipped, but in such a manner as may best display his excellencies, and manifest that he is glorious in praises, which cannot be done in a corner but in the great Con­gregations, and therefore God so gra­ciously accepted the intention of David and Solomon's devotion in building him that great Temple at Jerusalem, where all the Tribes of Israel at Solemn times should meet together to offer up their prayers, and to give thanks to the Name of the Lord. And before we read of any precept for this purpose, we find, Gen. 4. 26. that in the days of Enos the Grand-son of Adam by Seth, that is, as soon as there was a compe­tent number to make a Solemn As­sembly, Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord, viz. in Publick As­semblies, as the best Expositors do in­terpret it. Which farther appears, in [Page 81] that all Nations have built Temples, set a-part solemn Festival days, and in­stituted Priests, and mysterious Rites, for the honour of their Gods; which they have done without any previous command or commerce with more civilized or religious Nations. As therefore it is said of the rise of Nile, which in plentiful streams spreads it self over Egypt, and yet the Origin of it cannot be found, that it comes from Heaven: so these solemnities of As­semblies and sacred Rites for the Wor­ship of God being found to abound every where, and no humane institu­tion can be alledged as the rise of them, we may conclude them to flow from Heaven into the Souls and Consciences of Men. But St. Chrysostome on He­brews 10. asks how God came to com­mand it? and he answers, by conde­scending only, and submitting himself to humane infirmities; which conde­scension Oecumenius thus expresseth: Because men had a conceit, that it was convenient to offer up some part of their substance unto God, and they were so strongly possessed with this conceit, that [Page 82] if they offered it not to him, they would have offered it up to Idols; God (saith he) rather than they should offer unto Idols, required them to offer unto himself.

The third Proposition is, That it is a result of the Law of Nature, that such Societies should have a power to preserve themselves. For seeing God nor Nature do any thing in vain, and without this power all Societies will soon be dissolved and perish, it follows, that both by the Law of God and Na­ture those Societies that are assembled for the Worship of God, should have a power to maintain and preserve themselves. This Serm. on Joh. 18. 36. p. 146. Mr. Hales affirms: There is a necessity of disproportion or inequality between Men; for were all persons equal, the World could not subsist. Now this inequality and po­wer implie a superiority in some, and a subordination in others; for, par in parem non habet potestatem: if every one were left at his own liberty, as none could rule, so none would obey: That therefore there should be both sub and supra is of the same Law of Nature, without which there could [Page 83] be no government or order at all either in Civil or Ecclesiastical Societies. And seeing, as Aristotle observed, that the Paternal power was the Original of all Government, Pol. l. 1. c. 2. every Fa­ther governing his Family both as a Prince and as a Priest in the most an­cient times; it is evident, that both by Nature, and Religion, there ought to be a sub, and supra; and if so, our Saviour never did nor intended to al­ter such Laws, but to reinforce and to confirm them; which that he did hath been already proved. However whether this power shall be exercised by one or more Persons, and be deri­ved by Succession, or applied by ele­ction, this is to be regulated accord­ing to some positive determination ei­ther Divine or Humane. And if the Law of God, or where that is silent (which I think it is not in the case of sub and supra, in Ecclesiastical officers) the Law of Man shall set up one or more Governors for the government of the Church, the Persons advanced by such authority ought to have more than a Superiority of Reverence, name­ly [Page 84] of obedience and a willing submissi­on in all lawful and honest commands. I conclude therefore with my Author, p. 193. Communion is the strength and ground of all Society, whether Sacred or Civil: whoever therefore they be that offend against this com­mon Society, and Friendliness of men, and cause separation and breach among them, if it be in Civil occasions, are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion; if it be by Occasion of Ecclesiastical dif­ferences, they are guilty of Schism. And it shall alway be a part of my Li­tany, From all sedition, privy conspi­racy and rebellion, from all false Do­ctrine, Heresie and Schism, from hard­ness of heart and contempt of thy Word and Commandments, good Lord deliver us.

I shall consider only one instance more of the Author's too great indul­gence to Schism and Heresie; and then leave it to the Reader to judge, Whe­ther the opinion of the Ancients, as it is generally received by our Modern Divines, or the fond conceptions of the Author, be more agreeable to the [Page 85] nature of the things, or conducing to the peace and prosperity of the Church. The instance is that of the second Council of Nice, of which he says, p. 211. ‘That until that Rout did set up Image-worship, there was not any remarkable Schism upon just occasi­on of fact.’ To this our Author gives an Answer himself, page 201. where he describes Schism on matter of fact to be such a separation as is occasioned by requiring something to be done by us, which either we know or strongly suspect to be unlawful; and concludes, p. 202. that the first notable Schism of which we read in the Church ( viz. that concerning the observation of Easter) did contain in it matter of fact. Now how can these two asser­tions be reconciled? That until the Schism occasioned by setting up Image-worship there was not any remarkable Schism upon just occasion of fact; Anno 787. And that the first notable Schism that we read of in the Church, ( viz. that a­bout Easter) did contain matter of fact, Anno 168. and it was 600. Years before a Schism so notable, as that our Author [Page 86] thinks, p. 203. all the World were Schismaticks. And if our Author be right, the occasion of fact was just; for he determines it to be so, when something is required to be done by us which either we know or strongly su­spect to be unlawful. And the Asian Churches thought it unlawful for them to submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, who would impose on them a rite contrary to an ancient custome of theirs, to be received as a matter of faith: of which before. A­gain, he instanceth in the Schism of the Donatists which was a complete Schism by our Author's own rules; for they did not only erigere Altare contra Altare, set up Bishop against Bi­shop (to which, our Author observes, that St. Cyprian imputed the Original of all Church-disorders, page 222.) but they erected also new Churches and Oratories for the dividing Party to meet in publickly, which serves to make a Schism complete, p. 196. so that there were notable Schismes long before that occasioned by setting up Image-worship. To that which fol­lows [Page 87] in our Author, p. 211. concern­ing Image-worship set up by the se­cond Council of Nice I fully accord, ‘That in this the Schismatical party was the Synod it self and such as con­spired with it. For concerning the use of Images in Sacris, first it is ac­knowledged by All, That it is not a thing necessary; 2. That it is by most suspected; 3. It is by many held utterly unlawful; and that the in­joining of such a thing can be no­thing but abuse: And the refusal of communion here cannot be thought any other thing than duty.’ All this is true; but our Author speaks not the whole truth: he calls that only schism which was heresie in a fundamental point concerning the Worship of God according to his express will in the se­cond Commandment. And when that Council had the confidence to con­demn them as Hereticks that were the Iconoclastae or adversaries to the wor­shipping of Images, we may with more truth account them who were Icono­latrae, worshippers of Images, Hereticks, if not Idolaters. By the way let me [Page 88] observe, that if it be my duty to withhold communion from such as set up a false way of worshipping God, as this Council did, it is my duty also to withdraw from the Communion of such as profess false opinions of the true God, as the Arrians, &c. did, to whose assemblies the Author sees no reason but we may joyn our selves, p. 215. Though this be contrary to his own rule, p. 218. ‘It is alike un­lawful to make profession of known or suspected falshoods, as to put in practice unlawful or suspected Actions.’

I hope the Reader will not think his patience injured, if on this occasi­on I give him a brief account how Images were first brought into the Church of God, and what reception they found in the Primitive times; of both which I shall speak briefly. They were first brought in by lewd hereticks, and simple Christians new­ly converted from Paganism, the customs whereof they had not fully unlearned. Bishop Usher in his An­swer to Maloon, p. 508. gives this par­ticular, that the Gnostick hereticks [Page 89] had some Images painted in colours, others framed of gold, silver and other matter, which they said were the re­presentations of Christ, made while he was in the power of Pontius Pilate. The Collyridians, who at certain times offered Cakes to the Virgin Mary, did also cause Images of her to be made. Carpocrates and Marcellina his compa­nion brought the Images of Jesus and Paul to Rome in the time of Anicetus, and worshipped them. But the more plentiful seeds of this Idolatrous wor­ship were sown by the heathen con­verts, as Epiphanius observes. We have seen the pictures of Peter and Paul and of Christ himself (saith he) for that of old they have been wont by a hea­thenish custom thus to honour them whom they counted their benefactors or Saviours. And the Arrians and Dona­tists having for a long time rent the Church of God and pulled down the Fences both of Church and State, they made way for vast numbers of Infidels to enter, among whom the Christians being mixed and living in subjection to them in divers places, [Page 90] they learned this custom also of ma­king and honouring the Images of those whom they accounted their Pa­trons and benefactors. Men of here­tical perswasions were the first that were tainted, worshipping the Graves and Pictures of their Leaders, then these painted toyes insnared the vul­gar, and at Rome under Gregory the Second the worship of them is first practised and defended, but at the same time opposed by Leo Isauricus and his successors. And in a Council at Con­stantinople 338 Bishops condemned it, Anno 754. the primitive Fathers having before that time constantly disputed against the very making and painting of Images as well as worshipping them, whose testimonies against Images it will be in vain to heap up here. I think it enough to observe, that since Bishop Jewel challenged the Church of Rome to shew but one authority out of the Ancients for setting up of Ima­ges in the Churches and worshipping them, during the first 600 years, there hath not yet been any tolerable reply made. But in the year 787. [Page 91] Hadrian being Bishop of Rome, and Tharasius of Constantinople, like Herod and Pilate were reconciled in this mis­chievous design, and having the oppor­tunity of a female Governess (for Dux foemina facti) they prevailed with Irene the Mother of Constantine to assemble a Council at Nice (which the Papists call the seventh Oecumenical Council, but by the Ancients was condemned as a Pseudo-synod.) This Irene was a Pagan, the daughter of a Tartarian King, and an Imperious tyrannical woman, who in despite to the Council of Constantinople that had decreed against Images, sum­moned this Synod, which she so far de­fended, that she caused the eyes of her own son Constantine to be pulled out be­cause he would not consent to the Ido­latrous having of Images, as Bp. Jewel observes in the Article of Images, where you may see more of the ignorance and impiety of this Synod. This was the wo­man that called this meeting of the Bi­shops, and you may guess under what fears they were of the cruelty of that woman who was so unnatural to her Son. He that will be satisfied more [Page 92] fully concerning the Ignorance of this Synod, may read it in their Acts men­tioned by Binius or Surius, or in Bishop Jewel concerning the Worshipping of Images ( ubi suprá.) Mittens Irene convocavit omnes Episcopos, saith Baro­nius ad annum 787. (so that the Pope had not then the power of calling Councils by the Cardinals own con­fession.) There was great intercourse of Letters between Hadrian and Tha­rasius before this Council was assem­bled, which was done at last by Tha­rasius perswading of Irene, and then there met 350 Bishops, who agreed in this base decree for the adoration of Images, as Bishop Usher calls it. In this Synod the question for admission of lapsed Bishops and Presbyters was first proposed, and although the Bishops that were readmitted were tainted with Arrianism, as appears by the Synods demand, that they should in the first place make an acknowledg­ment of the blessed Trinity; yet Ba­ronius slightly passeth over that, and makes mention only of their sub­mission to that point, which as well [Page 93] the Cardinal as that Synod chiefly designed to advance, i.e. the wor­shipping of images. Basilius of Ancy­ra, Theodorus of Myrene, and Theodo­sius Bishop of Amorium are first called, and these three post confessionem San­ctissimae Trinitatis (of which the Car­dinal says nothing more) make a large profession of their sorrow for having adhered so long to the Iconoclastae or oppugners of Image-worship, and pre­sent a confession of the Orthodox Faith (as he calls it) in opposition to those errors and hereticks to which they had adhered. Now what that Or­thodox faith was, appears by the Con­fessions mentioned by Baronius, where­in they did Anathematize them that broke down the images, as Calum­niators of Christians, and such as did assume the sentences that are in the Scriptures against Idols, and apply them to the venerable Images; with much more to the like purpose. But concerning their reception into the Church, the question is greatly agi­tated; and the books being produced by which it did appear that Athanasius, [Page 94] Cyril and other ancient Pillars of the Church had received notorious here­ticks into the Church, a Bishop of the Province of Sicilia objects, that the Canons of the Fathers which had been produced were enacted against the Novatians, Encratists and Arrians, hu­jus autem haeresis magistros quo loco habebi­mus? but in what rank (saith he) shall we place the Masters of this heresie? To which it was replyed by a Deacon of the same Province, that it should be considered, Minórne est quae nunc no­vata est haeresis, an major illis quae hacte­nus fuere, whether this new-sprung he­resie were greater or less than those that were before it. This is resolved by Tharasius, malum perpetuò idem est & aequale, That evil is alway the same, which sounding too Stoical, one Epi­phanius a Deacon and representative of Thomas Arch-Bishop of Sardinia, solves it by saying, That it held true, especially in causes Ecclesiastical (Aquibus decretis cùm parvis, tùm magnis errare idem est, siquidem in utrisque lex divina violatur,) for to erre from such decrees whether in small matters, or great is a [Page 95] contempt of the Divine law. But John a Monk Deputy for the Oriental thrones pronounceth this heresie worse than all other heresies, and of all evils the worst, as disturbing the whole Oeconomy of Christ. However their penitents being but few, for we find not above three or four mentioned, they restore three of them to their dignities, and one other, Gregory Bi­shop of Neocaesareae, who was judged to be a chief Leader of the Iconoclastae was admitted only to the Communi­on of the Church, not to his Bishop­rick although he declared for Image-worship. But the Anathema is denoun­ced against many others who abhorred this Idolatrous practice, (professing they did reject all images made by the hands of men, and worshipped that only, Qua filius Dei in Sacramento panis & vini ante passionem seipsum expressit,) as did the whole Council of Fremen­tum, Theodosius Bishop of Ephesus, Si­sinnius of Pastilla, Basilius and others. And shortly after Charles the Great assembleth a Council of the Bishops of Italy, France, and Germany at Franc­fort, [Page 96] Anno 792. of the transactions whereof we have four books yet ex­tant, in which we have not only the Canons of that Council, but many Imperial Edicts for the taking away of Images, and forbidding any worship to be given them. Sir Henry Spelman, p. 305. of his first Volume of Councils acquaints us that Charles the Great sent a book to Offa King of the Mercians, wherein Images were decreed to be worshipped by this Sy­nod of Nice: of which he tell us from Hoveden, That in that book ma­ny things disagreeing and contrary to the true faith were found, especially that Images ought to be worshipped, which the Church of God doth utterly condemn. And that Alcuinus, Master to Charles the Great, but by birth a Britan, in an Epistle written in the name of the Bishops and Princes of England, and sent back to Charles the Great, did wonderfully overthrow that opinion of the Nicene Council by testi­monies of Holy Scripture, which moved him to call that Synod of Franc­fort consisting of 300 Fathers, who [Page 97] refuted and condemned this decree of worshipping Images: which is the cause (saith that Author) why the Monuments of that Synod are sup­pressed. And I suppose that all the Reformed Churches, especially the Church of England; cannot but abhor those that established so great an ini­quity by a Law. I remember the learn­ed Doctor Jackson, p. 113. of his Trea­tise of the Church, saith, that by the self same stroke, by which this Coun­cil did de facto thrust all other out of the visible Church that would not worship Images, they declared them­selves to be excommunicated de Jure, from the Holy Catholick Church, and by consequence from Salvation. When therefore our Author endeavours by his Rhetorical flourishes to make such destructive errors to dwindle into schisms, and allows only the names of schism, p. 213. to Arrianism, Euty­chianism, &c. I thought I had just cause to except against his first Paragraph, especially when I found how much it took not only with the Fanaticks and some witty men of our days, but with [Page 98] persons of real worth and learning, one of which (whom I forbear to name) repeats the whole clause in a book of good note in these words: It is very well observed by a learned and ju­dicious Divine (quoting the Tract of Schism, which he calls that little but excellent Tract of Schism) that heresie and schism as they are commonly used, are two Theological Scar crows with which they who use to uphold a party in Religion use to fright away such, as making inqui­ry into it, are ready to relinquish and op­pose it, if it appear either erròneous or suspicious. For as Plutarch reports of a Painter, who having unskilfully pain­ted a Cock, chased away all cocks and hens, that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with na­ture: so men willing for ends, to admit of no fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder an enquiry into it, by way of com­parison of somewhat with it, peradven­ture truer, that so the deformity of their own might not appear. This story of a Cock I shall Answer with another of a Hen; for I have seen a Countrey­man with the picture of a Hen Phea­sant [Page 99] artificially drawn on a stained cloth, and a little Pipe to call the Cock-pheasants, to draw them from place to place, until in pursuit of their pleasures they have been taken in a Snare. The reputation of the Author is as a Pipe which calls unwary Per­sons to view the Pictures on that stain­ed cloth, whereof they that grow too fond may follow them to their own destruction.

Our Author, page 215. gives his ad­vice for the composing of Liturgies: ‘Were Liturgies and publick forms of service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree, schisms on opinion were utterly vanished. For consider of all Liturgies that are or ever have been, and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any Party, and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the event shall be that the publick service and honour of God shall no way suffer. Where­as to load our publick forms with the private fancies upon which we [Page 100] differ, is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schism to the Worlds end. Prayer, Confession, Thanks­giving, Reading of Scriptures, Ex­position of Scripture, Administration of Sacraments in the plainest and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of Church-pomp of Gar­ments, of prescribed Gestures, of I­magery, of Musick, of matter con­cerning the Dead, of many superflui­ties which creep into the Churches under the Name of Order and De­cency did interpose it self: for to charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first be­ginning of all Superstition.’

We have a Devonshire Proverb—
He that builds his house by every ones chop
Shall never see his Ouice drop.

If every Man's fancy should be complied with, It is impossible to pro­pound any form of Litur­gie wherein both parts can hold it lawful to commu­nicate. Infidelity unmas­ked▪ p. 216. in the framing of a Liturgy, it is most certain we should never have any; seeing as there is scarce any part a­gainst [Page 101] which some do not except, so others are offended at the very form, as being a stinting of the Spirit; and the opposing of a Directory to the An­cient Liturgy, shews that this was the sense of the Presbyterians them­selves, which appears also by this, that when they had in the Grand Debate given in their Objections to the Li­turgy, some of the Brotherhood had prepared another form, but a great part of their Brethren objected many things against that, and never as yet did (that I hear of) agree upon any other, nor I think ever will. For let it be considered that there is scarce any part of our Liturgy which some have not excepted against, and you will find our Author's advice impracticable. He himself would have no Absolution, as appears, not only by his omission of that Office, when he enumerates the parts of a Liturgy, but by telling us, that the power of the Keys belongs to every one, Clergy or Lay, Male or Female, not only for himself, but for the benefit of others, p. 172. and p. 183. that you may as well make your Mu­letter [Page 102] your Confessor, as your Parish-Priest; Others will have no confessi­on; Some are displeased at the Re­sponses, others cannot be reconciled to the Lord's Prayer, against the use of which as the Leaders of one Faction have Printed, so the Grandees of a­nother have often preached. The Reader knows what sort of People cannot joyn in the Gloria Patri, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and it is well if they will stand to the Apo­stles. The Te Deum and Magnificat are displeasing to some; the Collects, because they are too short, and the Li­tany because it is too long, to others. Some are angry at the Prayer for Bi­shops, others not very well pleased with those for the King. If you read what our Author saith, p. 60. concer­ning the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup­per, (as 1. that in the Communion there is nothing given but Bread and Wine; 2. The Bread and Wine are signs indeed, but not of any thing there exhibited, but of something given long before; 3. That Jesus Christ is eaten at the Communion-Table in no sense [Page 103] neither spiritually by vertue of any thing done there, nor really nor meta­phorically nor literally. 4. The Spi­ritual eating of Christ of common to all places, as well as the Lords Table:) you may see the Author was no friend to the Office for Administration of the Lord's Supper. And it's well known who are enemies to that of Baptism. Our Author dislikes the consecration of Bishops, to whom he denies any Su­periority but that of reverence, others oppose the Ordination of Priests. It is sad to consider at what a Distance many of our People yet keep them­selves and children from the Catechism and Confirmation, and the burial of the Dead; only that of Marriage they are pretty well reconciled to. So that I say, our Author's Proposals are im­practicable if not impossible to be ob­served, either to remove from our Li­turgies whatever is ( i.e. seems) scan­dalous to every Party, or to leave no­thing but what all agree on; and I think we shall all agree sooner in an Universal character and language too, than in such a Liturgy.

[Page 104] Our first Reformers have given us undeniable Proofs that they were very learned and very good Men, and Bi­shop ubi suprá. Jewel in their name professeth that they did consult the ancient Li­turgies of the purest times, and adap­ted ours to them. The Papists condemn us for castrating as much as was thought sinful, must we be still condemned for retaining what is decent? If any thing in our Liturgy had been contrary to the Word of God, I am confident the Church would have expunged it as soon as its adversaries had discovered it: but if it be quarrelled at for requi­ring us to worship God according to the Apostolical injunction in Decency and order, we had rather be account­ed beasts of burden in submitting to the lawful Ordinances of our Superi­ors, than wild Asses for kicking against our Masters. It hath alway been the practice of the Church of God, con­form to the practice of the Holy Apo­stles, Acts 15. when any opinions or practices contrary to Faith or Unity be­gan to prevail, to assemble in Councils and Synods, that by conference and [Page 105] consulting with the Scriptures and Pri­mitive customes, they might raise a fence against the growing torrent, and as well confirm their own, as confute the opinions and practices of their ad­versaries: as may be seen in the De­crees and Canons made in the first 600 Years. And when by general consent and subscription these Decrees were approved, they did as occasion requi­red insert sometimes into the Liturgy such passages out of their own or for­mer Articles, as might help to instruct the People in the true Faith, and be an antidote against those poisonous errors that were become Epidemical. Hence first the Apostles Creed, and the Gloria Patri, &c. and those being not express enough against prevailing er­rors, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were inserted, and some whole Articles were added to the Apostles Creed. And if, as our Author saith, a man may go to an Arrian Church, so there be no Ar­rianism exprest in their Liturgy, why may not▪ our Superiors require our communion in the Liturgy which is free from that and all other Doctrinal [Page 106] errors? And whereas our Liturgy is in all things conform to our Articles of Doctrine, which are so free from the exceptions either of Calvinists or Arminians, as that both Parties appeal to it as to the standard whereby they would have their Opinions tryed, as appears in the late quiquarticular con­troversies between Doctor Heylin and Mr. Hickman; I see no reason why they may not upon our Author's grounds conform much rather to ours than unto Arrian Liturgies. A Liturgy that hath past many fiery Trials, first in the Ma­rian days, when the Composers of it imbraced it at their Martyrdom, after which it appeared so inoffensive to the Papists themselves, which I account no small commendation, that for some Years after Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, they omitted not to fre­quent the use of it, and in the begin­ning of our troubles when the Sme­ctymnuans heated the Irons, and made it pass the trial Ordeal, its innocency was such that it came off untoucht. And when in the Grand Debate their Successors thought to have blown it [Page 107] up by the fewel which they had heap­ed together in a mock-liturgy, their plot was so confused and imperfect, that a great part of the Brotherhood were of the Opinion that the old was better. And I am still perswaded, if it were put to the vote whether this Liturgy should be retained, or any other formerly used in the Primitive, or now in use among the Reformed Churches brought into its room, they would give the like suffrage as I have heard Sr. Harry Martyne did when some of Cromwels Confidents had moved the question, whether They should have a King or no King, that if they must have a King, they had rather have the Old Gentleman (mean­ing King Charles of blessed memory) than any other in the Nation.

Our Author begins to treat of Con­venticles from p. 226. and continueth it to the end. The substance of which I shall present to the Reader in these several and divers Periods.

First, he says truly, that all meetings upon unnecessary occasions of Separa­tion are to be so stiled, so that in this [Page 108] sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a congregation of schismaticks. And he had before, p. 196. determi­ned them to be schismaticks, 1. That do chuse a Bishop in opposition to the former, and 2. That do erect a new Church and Oratory for the dividing party to meet in publickly. Now our Author, p. 200. moves the question, ‘Who shall judge what is a necessary occasion of separation? which questi­on, he says, hath been often made but never truly Answered; not be­cause it is a point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it, but be­cause the true solution carryeth fire in the tail of it; for it bringeth with it a piece of Doctrine which is sel­dom pleasing to Superiors. To you for the present this shall suffice, if so be you be Animo defaecato, if you have cleared your self from froth and grounds, if neither sloth nor fears nor ambition nor any tempting spirits of that nature abuse you (for these and such as these are the true impedi­ments why both that and other que­stions of the like danger are not truly [Page 109] Answered) if all this be and yet you see not how to frame your resolution and settle your self for that doubt, I will say no more of you than was said of Papias S. Johns own Scholar, you are [...], your abi­lities are not so good as I presumed.’

This question is so easie to be re­solved, that (as our Author thinks) every person may settle himself, and re­solve what to do in it, if he be Animo defaecato, and have cleared himself from froth and grounds, if neither sloth nor fears nor Ambition nor any tempting spi­rits of that nature abuse him.

One or more of these impediments it is probable prevailed with our Au­thor not to determine the question so plainly as he ought, and most likely that of fear; because he saith it would be displeasing to Superiors, and would carry fire in the tail of it. And doubt­less his fears were just, it could not do otherwise than provoke his Supe­riors in a high degree, if he had per­emptorily delivered what he intimates in diverse parts of the Treatise to be his Opinion, and when I shall collect [Page 110] them you will see they carry wild fire and powder-plots in their tails enough to blow up all Government.

The Question is, who should judge what is a necessary Occasion of Sepa­ration? Which question he intends not to leave to the judgment of Go­vernors, whom he supposeth to give the Occasion and to whom the resolu­tion would not be pleasing, but to those that take the occasion; and in­deed he leaves it to private persons to judge of the Laws of their Superiors, who if they cannot find will easily seign some occasion to excuse their se­paration. And our Author hath fitted it to their hands, for he informs them, p. 194. ‘That when either false or uncertain conclusions are obtruded for truth, and acts either unlawful or ministring just scruple are required of us to be performed, in these cases consent were conspiracy; and open contestation is not faction or schism, but due Christian Animosity.’ And p. 201. He makes it a just occasion of separation, when ‘something is re­quired to be done by us which either [Page 111] we know or strongly suspect, (which in our Authors phrase is the same with just scruple) to be unlawful.’ And again, p. 218. ‘Wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a piece of the Church Liturgy, he that separates is not the schismatick.’ So that now there needs no Oedipus to unriddle the mystery. For 1. if our Governors shall at any time ob­trude uncertain conclusions for truth (how certain soever they be to our Go­vernors, if they appear not so to us:) Or 2. if they require something to be done by us, which we may justly scruple or strongly suspect: Or, 3. if they shall make suspected Opinions a piece of Church Liturgy; this is in­deed sufficient not only to justifie a se­paration, but to entitle the Separatists to due Christian Animosity. And our Author needed not the spirit of Pro­phecy to foretel that this would be displeasing to Governors and carry fire in its tail; for it strikes directly at the foundation of all Government both in Church and State. For in both Governments when such things [Page 112] are by solemn Edicts commanded or forbidden as are apparently good or evil, we are to obey for Gods sake; but where things neither good nor evil by any natural or positive law of God are injoyned by our superiours, it is undoubtedly our duty to submit to them. A scrupling Conscience, or the dissent of private judgments to the deliberate determinations of Supe­riors in these cases can be no superse­deas to the obedience that is due from subjects, as hath been already proved from the Nonconformists own con­fessions, and will yet more clearly appear.

To which end I shall premise out of Dr. Owens concessions, p. 408. of his survey of Ecclesiastical Polity. Those pretended errors in our case (saith he) are not in matters of faith, nor for the most part in or about the Worship of God, or that which is acknowledged so to be; but in or about those things which some think it convenient to add unto it or con­joyn with it. And what peace, what quietness is like to be in the world, when the sword of vengeance must be drawn [Page 113] about these things? To which I only reply, Let them that draw the sword in such quarrels perish with the sword. God hath put a sword into the Ma­gistrates hand, to be a terror to evil works, and if unpeaceable men will not be subject, neither for fear of wrath, nor for Conscience sake, but will raise tumults and seditious Factions against their lawful Rulers upon scruples and punctilio's, they are the Aggressors; and unless the Magistrate will suffer the sword which God hath put into his hands, to be wrested from him, he ought to be an Avenger to execute wrath upon evil doers, their scruples concerning the lawfulness of such ex­ternal acts of Worship notwithstan­ding.

2. I premise, that such men as are sound as to the foundation of faith, and careful thereupon to build a holy life, and keep a Conscience void of offence towards God and man, (though in such things as Dr. Owen hath men­tioned, they should not be able through their weakness of judgment, after se­rious endeavours to get resolution of [Page 114] their scruples) if they do yield obe­dience to them that God hath set over them, though they should be mista­ken, yet their errors would not pre­judice their Salvation. And on this ground many of the Reformed Di­vines hope well, of multitudes under the Roman tyranny, and I doubt not but the Nonconformists have so much Charity as to have as good hopes of such honest Christians as die in the Communion of our Church.

3. If it should happen that some good and honest men who are both sound in the faith and unblamable in life, do after serious inquiry remain scrupulous still, it is their duty to take the safest way, and that is the way of obedience to their Lawful Governors, which being a moral duty and strict­ly enjoyned by the word of God, can­not be dispensed with by scruples about the lawfulness of rites and ceremonies in the external worship of God. And I may safely add,

4. That if honest and well meaning men shall so far indulge to such scruples as to live in disobedience to the Laws [Page 115] and constitutions of their Superiors, their Superiors may justly punish them for so doing, or the frame of their Government will soon be turned off its hinges: The taste of liberty is so sweet, that except Kings maintain their Authority with as great violence as the People affect their Li­berty, all things will run to confusion. Golden Re­mains, p. 149. And Governors not being able to discern the hearts of men, may equally ani­madvert upon all refracto­ry persons, or they must let all go unpunished; and if they should resolve on this later, farewell all Government. And seeing the wisdom of Man cannot prevent it, it is better that a few mistaken Inno­cents should be punished, than the peace and foundation of a Church or Nation be overturned. Melius pereat unus quàm unitas. Better is a private inconvenience than a publick mischief. This is a foundation necessary to the settlement of all humane Laws and Constitutions. Thus in matters of common right and interest, when the several Courts of a Nation have esta­blished and published rules and orders for the appearances and proceedings of Persons litigant, they who omit the [Page 116] time, or mistake the right methods of pleading, and thereupon suffer damage, though as to the merits of their cause they be severely dealt with, yet the proceedings of the Law are right and justifiable, because it is more for the publick peace and establishment that some persons should sustain loss for their unwilling neglects and errors, than that all wilful Offenders should go unpunished, and publick Orders of Court be contemned and disobeyed. And this Rule holds much stronger in such Ecclesiastical cases as are now under our consideration; because the controversie is not here between pri­vate persons, but between Superiors and Subjects. If therefore one or more private Persons purely on mistake, and after humble and serious inquiry for satisfaction (though I think few sober persons using such means can remain unsatisfied in so plain a case, Whether Scruples concerning ancient and inno­cent rites in the external Worship of God can justifie disobedience to the constitutions of lawful Governors) should still judge contrary to their Go­vernors, [Page 117] who impose such things as lawful and convenient, to be unlawful and superstitious, and thereupon re­fuse to appear at their Courts and be ordered by them; It is agreeable to the Laws of all Societies that such Per­sons should not go unpunished. If a Child or Servant shall neglect to obey his Father or Master because he hath some Scruples against his commands, I think such Father or Master may without Scruple correct that Child or Servant, or within a short time they will become incorrigible. And the Case is almost the same as if the de­bauched part of the Nation, who are morally vicious, should pretend scru­ples of conscience against such Laws of the Land as restrain their enormi­ties, suppose of Sabbath-breaking and neglecting the Publick Worship, which yet I think the Nonconformists would not judge to be a tolerable plea.

I have insisted so long on this argu­ment not only because our Author mentioneth it so often, and ever makes it a ground for separation, telling us that Not only in Reason but in Religion [Page 118] too this Maxime admits of no release, Cau­tissimi cujusque praeceptum quod dubitas nè feceris; Non enim nè dubium malum e­veniat, cer­tum & li­quidum of­ficium nostrum des [...]rere debemus, nec vel sanctissimos fines per illicitae media consectari. Dissert. de pace, p. 77. Quis erit Schismatum modus, si promiscua dissentio ad secessionem sufficit? p. 91. but often insinuates them to be guilty of Schism that do require any suspected thing, as you may see, p. 194. and p. 218.

After this Pipe all the Factions do dance. The Presbyterians in their Commissioners Papers suggest it fre­quently, whether Ecclesiastical con­stitutions concerning things which are or may become matter of dispute and opposition, are to be allowed. See the Reasons for Neces­sity of Re­formation, p. 36. And John Owen for the Independents would have some warrant from Scripture for every thing that is required in the Worship of God. But minding my Reader of Dr. Owen's concessions be­fore mentioned, to which I shall only add the confessions of the Presbyteri­ans, who from the beginning opposed our Rites and Ceremonies not as un­lawful, but only as inconvenient, as Mr. Cartwright did in his second Reply, [Page 119] p. 262. and therefore perswaded Mini­sters rather to wear the Garments re­quired by Law than cease their Mini­stry. And in his Evangelical Harmo­ny on Luke 22. à versu 14. ad 19. saith, That kneeling in receiving the Sacra­ment being incommodious in its own nature, and made more incommodious by Popish superstition, is not so to be rejected, that for the sake thereof we should abstain from the Sacrament: (His words are these, Geniculatio in participatione suâ naturâ incommoda, su­perstitione pontificiâ longè facta est incom­modior; Nec tamen propterea ita rejici­enda, ut ejus nomine à Sacramento absti­neamus, si ejus caeteroquin participes esse nequimus, quia res suâ naturâ non est purè illicita) because the thing is not in its own nature utterly unlawful. From whence we may conclude, that such things as are not purely unlawful in their own nature, though they are incommodiously applied and have been grosly abused by Popish superstition, are not a sufficient cause to hinder our par­ticipation of Divine Ordinances. And yet to what mischievous ends is this [Page 120] forlorn scruple, of receiving that bles­sed Sacrament on our Knees, made use of by Fanatick Persons as a Bar against the receiving of it at all? though it be a posture sanctified by the Son of God when in the days of his being in the flesh he offered up Prayers to God, and hath been used by all sober Chri­stians in their publick and private De­votions, and therefore most agreeable to that Solemn Office, wherein we cannot with sufficient humility and reverence receive at the hands of God such an ineffable blessing, nor worthi­ly express our humble acknowledg­ment of thankfulness to God. And in the act of receiving besides our se­cret supplication to God to pardon and absolve us from all our sins for Christ's sake, we joyn with the Minister to pray, that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for us may preserve our Bodies and Souls to Eter­nal life; though the Church hath used as plain and effectual a mean to pre­vent our being scandalized, and scru­pled at it (by declaring in the Rubrick that no adoration is intended or ought to [Page 121] be done either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or to any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and bloud; for the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natu­ral substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be ab­horred of all Christians. And that it was intended for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for avoiding such disorder and profanation in the holy Com­munion as might otherwise ensue) as the wisdom of Men can invent; yet the outcry of Superstition, Will-worship, and Idolizing the Creatures of Bread and Wine is kept up, and the hearts of the People filled with invincible prejudices and scruples, to the neglect and contempt of this necessary duty which by Christ's institution and by Primitive practice ought to be fre­quently performed, and by the Con­stitutions of the Church at least three times every Year, but hath been to­tally omitted by some very adult Chri­stians all their lives; contrary to the [Page 122] advice and practice of former Noncon­formists as well as to the commands of God and his Church. And what can the end of these things be, but hardning the People in their disobe­dience and ignorance, in uncharitable prejudices and distances from their more pious and peaceable Brethren, and provoking their Superiors to Acts of rigor and severity, unless they will permit all things to run to confusion? And whereas upon the late Test all Persons that had any publick office or imployment were required to receive this Holy Sacrament according to the Custome of the Church of England, or to forfeit that imployment, not one of an Hundred of those scrupulous Persons that were concerned continu­ed a Recusant: I suppose they have sufficiently convinced the Magistrates that the best way of removing these Scruples is to require the more fre­quent practice of that duty under the like penalties.

And now I hope the frivolousness of our Author's position, p. 218. That wheresoever false or suspected Opinions [Page 123] (and he asserts the same of practising suspected Actions in the same period) are made a piece of the Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schismatick, doth evidently appear.

And if he that separates be not the Schismatick, then they that require the performance of a suspected action are so, and by consequence it will be in the power of every scrupulous facti­on to denominate their Governours to be the Schismaticks. As our Au­thor determineth the case, a man may as innocently disbelieve any Article of his Christian faith upon this pretence of scruples against them, as disobey the command of his Superiors. For (saith he, p. 194.) when uncertain con­clusions are obtruded for truth, or acts ministring just scruples are required to be performed, consent were conspiracy and open contestation is not faction or schism, &c. And p. 218. he gives this Reason for it, It is alike unlawful to make pro­fession of known or suspected falshoods, as to put in practice unlawful or suspected [Page 124] Now suppose a subtle Socinian should meet with a scrupulous person and tell him, that he doth well in­deed to suspend his Communion from that Church which imposeth those things to be practised in the worship of God, which have no warrant from thence, but are rather condemned as Will-worship and Superstition; but yet while he strains at a Gnat he swal­lows a Camel, and suffers his Con­science to be imposed upon in matters of Faith which are of greater con­cern: and then insinuate, that there is no express text in Scripture nor any good Argument from Reason for a Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead, but both Scripture and Reason affirm there can be but one Supreme eternal God; and then by wresting the Scriptures, and per­swading him that the Doctrine of the Trinity had its rise from Ecclesiastical Tradition not from the Scriptures, and they that require the belief of it do teach for Doctrines the Command­ments of men: suppose, I say, by this leaven the scrupulous humor is fer­mented [Page 125] and swells up into a strong suspicion, and he begins to grow sowr and discontented with his Tea­chers, and likes the Arrian and So­cinian Doctors better; Doth not this man proceed upon the Authors grounds, and may be as much justi­fied by them if he turn Heretick, as if he become a Schismatick? And in­deed there is not one Article of our Faith but cunning Sophisters may work upon persons disposed to scruples to have strong suspicions of them. For Mr. Baxter tells us in his Saints everlasting rest, Part 1. ch. 7. Sect. 14. That Professors of Religion did op­pose almost all the Worship of God out of Conscience, which others did out of Prophaneness. Upon this very pretense some will not hear of Infant Baptism, nor others of the Lord's day, but turn Anabaptists and Sabbata­rians, and for ought I know others may justifie rebellion, and not only the Omission of moral duties, but the Commission of any vice or impiety. Experience hath evidently taught us, that those persons who have been [Page 126] prone to entertain scruples in matters of Religion first, have fallen next into sedition and rebellion, and then to impiety and immoralities, to Qua­kerism, Atheism, unnatural affection to Parents, and acts and practices of as great cruelty and barbarity against themselves as against others.

But our Author grounds his Ob­jection on Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin; and He that doubt­eth is damned if he eat. And this ob­jection seems to be inforced by the Authority of Bishop Sanderson, who p. 228. de Obligatione Conscientiae▪ saith thus: If any one through some fast rooted error of judgment do think the Law to be unjust which is not so, the obligation of the Law doth remain, not­withstanding that error of mind, so that he is not free from sin if he do not obey; yet that he sinneth more grievously if he should obey, before that error be laid aside. Which ease the Reverend Casuist intended to speak of more at large when he should come to treat of the comparison of both obligations, viz. (as I suppose) the authority of the Magistrate and [Page 127] of Conscience. For I perceive the question to which he makes this an Answer was, What assurance that any Law is unjust, is required to secure a subject in point of Conscience that he is not bound by that Law? But the good Bishop never came to that point under which we might have expected his farther judgment in that case; and therefore I shall take a little pains in finding out his resolution, in some other parts of his writings.

Answer. The Bishop says: If a sub­ject, because that probable reasons do appear on both sides, knoweth not nor can determine whether a Law be just or no, so that his judgment hang in aequi­librio not knowing to which to incline; in this case the subject is bound actually to obey; so that he sinneth if he do not obey, and if he do obey he sinneth not. Now I observe, that when the Bishop comes to give his reasons why a subject should obey against a scrupulous Conscience, the same Reasons do require his obe­dience though his scruples he invete­rate and obfirmed, yea in things doubtful, as by these following Reasons of his may appear.

[Page 128] His first Reason is, because by a Reason of Law, In dubiis potior est con­ditio possidentis; therefore where there is a contest concerning a right betwixt the Lawgiver and the subject, the right is alway to be presumed to be on the Lawgivers side, as being in possession of the right, unless some fit reason can be given to the contrary: but in this case ( i. e. in things doubt­ful) no such fit reason can be given, because it would destroy the supposi­tion, which is, that the things are equally doubted of.

A second reason is taken from ano­ther rule of Law, That in a doubtful case the safer part is to be chosen: and it is certainly more safe to obey with a doubting Conscience, than not to obey with a doubting Conscience; Because secondly it is safer in giving honour to Superiors to exceed that measure which we owe, than to be defective in it. Thirdly Because from the same rule it is generally more safe that he who is free should think himself bound, than that he who is bound should think himself free: for seeing through [Page 129] the natural pravity of mans heart he sinneth more often through too much confidence than through too much fear, and we are more prone to carnal licentiousness than is fit, and we are all too impatient to bear the yoke; un­less we do with full purpose of mind resolve to obey such Laws as are not evidently unjust, the wisdom of the flesh and the craft of the Serpent there­unto added, will often suggest such excuses as will hinder us from doing our duty in this respect.

In his Sermon on Rom. 14. 23. the Bishop first shews what a doubting Conscience is, namely when the scales hang even, so as a man cannot well resolve whether way he should rather take, Sect. 25. which he says, may be because reasons seem to be probable pro and con, and there are learned men of the one opinion as well as of the other; and Sect. 28. he says, If the liberty of the agent be determined by some Superior power to whom he ow­eth obedience so as he is not sui juris ad hoc, to do or not to do at his own choice, but to do what he is comman­ded; [Page 130] this one circumstance quite al­tereth the whole case, and now he is bound in Conscience to do the thing commanded, his doubtfulness of mind whether that thing be lawful or no notwithstanding. And afterward he adds: Truly it is a great wonder to me that any man endued with under­standing, and that is able in any mea­sure to weigh the force of those pre­cepts and reasons which bind inferiors to yield obedience to their Superiors, should be otherwise minded in cases of like nature. As for Orders established, sith Equity and Reason favour that which is in being, till orderly judgment of decision be given against it, it is but justice to ex­act of you, and perverseness in you it would be to deny thereunto your willing obedience. Mr. Hoo­ker's Preface, I assert, that as to things in the judgment of the pri­mitive and reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God, and in matters of meer decency and order, and wholly as to the form of Government, every one, notwithstanding what his private judgment may be of them, is bound for the peace of the Church of God to submit to the lawful determination of the lawful Governors of the Church. Idem. Whatever is commanded us by them whom God hath set over us either in Church, Common­wealth or Family ( quod tamen non sit cer­tum displicere Deo, saith S. Bernard) which is not evidently contra­ry to the Law and will of God, ought of us to be received and obeyed no otherwise [Page 131] than if God himself had comman­ded, because God himself hath com­manded us to obey the higher powers, and to submit our selves to their Or­dinances. And in the close of the 29 Sect. If the Conscience be only doubt­ful whether the thing be lawful or no, but have not as yet passed a perempto­ry judgment against it (yea although he rather incline to think it unlawful) in that case if the Magistrate shall command it to be done, the subject with a good Conscience may do it, nay he cannot with a good Conscience refuse to do it though it be Dubitante Conscientiâ. And he is positive, p. 240. de Obligatione Conscientiae, That there is no reason nor shew of reason yet given why the power of determining and appointing things indifferent should not oblige in Ecclesiastical as well as in Civil affairs.

Pardon the repetition of the Argu­ments; because as Diamonds are not cut but by Diamonds, so I could not pre­sume of explaining his meaning but by himself. And if the Reader will but add to this, what Mr. Falkner hath said [Page 132] concerning this objection from Rom. 14. 23. he may easily perceive that neither that text nor any conclusions to be drawn from it can be prest for the service of our Separatists. For as he says, p. 425. This rule must be applyed to the special case intended, which is, that wherever the omitting any action is certainly free from sin, and the pra­ctice of it appeareth to any person doubtful, there to do that action is a very evil and dangerous practice, be­cause it containeth in it a chusing to run the hazard of Sin, which choice is alway a sin. But the case is much different when both acting and forbearing may be doubted of, where the one of them is a duty, and it is impossible that both of them should be forborn. For God having commanded Superiors to rule and In­feriors to obey, to suspend all action here is to perform an inward moral action of choice about a matter of duty, which if it be not regularly ma­naged is a sin. And in this case so far as concerneth the obedience of a Child, Servant or Subject, they ought [Page 133] to account their Superiors command to lay such an obligation upon them to duty, that they must be guided thereby, unless they be able to prove themselves bound to act the contrary.

Having thus removed the Objection concerning doubts and scruples, I may take liberty to recreate my Reader with a known story of a Scrupling house erected in Oxford by some of the Visi­tors, Anno 1646.

There was in S. Peters the East a place set a part for all people that were dissatisfied or troubled in mind to meet in every Tuesday, for resolution of their doubts in a plain and familiar discourse. Many Sermons were preach­ed to commend the usefulness of that Ordinance, which they grounded on several places of Scripture. One day while Hen. Wilkinson, Sen. was Chair­man, and Mr. Reynolds, Harris, Tem­ple, Cornish, Lungly and Cheynel were set down with him, some souldiers of the Independent party, Erbury, Grymes, Hewson and others came to visit the Visitors, and after a while Erbury proposeth his doubt, whether in the [Page 134] Church of Christ the Ministery was committed to certain select men, for he thought all the gifted Brethren might preach; and declared his readi­ness to dispute it with them: but the [...] pretending an Order, a­greed upon for delaying the resoluti­on of Scruples a week after the first proposal, put off the dispute until the next meeting. Which being noised through the University, a great con­course of Gentlemen, Scholars and Souldiers attended it. And Erbury who had been sometime of Brasen­nose Colledge, after a bold Prologue begun the Comedy, affirming, That in the Church of Christ there was no Commission given to Select men for preaching the Gospel. And after some discourse about stating the Question, Erbury urgeth, that if they had such a commission it was either Ordinary or Extraordinary. The Answer was, that it was Ordinary. He replies, then they had it from the Bishops, or some others. At which the Doctores Resoluti were unresolved what to Answer; for if they should say from the Bishops, they [Page 135] feared to displease the people to whom they had often preached that they were Antichristian, and yet they could not deny it, they having been all Episcopally Ordained. And so be­ing put into some confusion, and not replying directly, but seeking subter­fuges, the souldiers were with great acclamations proclaimed Victors, and the scrupling house shut up, and the Comedy ended. But nondum finitus Orestes. I wish the Tragedies occa­sioned by these scruples were ended also. But Quousque tandem? How long will these Scrupulists halt between God and Baal, between the reasona­ble service of God in his Publick Wor­ship, and the unreasonable suggestions of those imperious masters that Lord it over their Consciences? They that inject these Scruples to the minds of younger and weaker persons are for the most part men of age and compe­tent understanding, and in so long a time as they have been in travel with them, and knowing that as well their own temporal and eternal happiness as the establishment of the Church and [Page 136] State depends on the resolution of them, it may rationally be expected that after their mutual conference with one another in divers Assem­blies to that end, and their solemn seeking of God, they should have been able to discover where the sinfulness of these things which they scruple at doth lye; or, that not being yet done, nor I think possible for wiser Men than themselves to do, they should deliver the Nation and themselves from those throws and pangs which such false conceptions have occasioned. And when the Inventors of State fears and jealousies have been ashamed and confounded upon the discovery and punishment of their villanous designs, it is strange that Men of such tender Consciences as our Church-reformers pretend to be, should feel no regret for all those real mischiefs and confu­sions which their fond suspicions and scruples have occasioned. Others may call this morose humour, conscience and constancy, but in truth it is no­thing else but a stubborn contumacy and a proud contempt of Superiors. [Page 137] For a grand principle on which Go­vernment doth subsist, is, That Infe­riors do submit their own judgments to the Decrees of their Superiors in order to publick peace, which the A­postle plainly requires, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, so that nothing can excuse our disobedience to Governors but their requiring something contrary to the Command of God. When there­fore they injoyn some things that are not unlawful in themselves, and by reason of some scruples we refuse to obey them; our very scrupling mani­fests that we know not, but they may be agreeable to God's will, and there­fore our not obeying is a violation of the Law of God as well as of our Su­periors. The greater authority always makes void the less. A Master cannot oblige his Servant against the com­mand of his Prince, nor a Prince a­gainst the command of God; nor can our private Consciences in any thing for which we have not a command from God, oblige us against the De­crees of our Prince. And when in all [Page 138] other things we submit our selves to the determinations of others that are wiser than our selves, as in matter of health to the prescripts of Physicians, in matters of right to counsel of Law­yers; I see not any reason why we should not in the externals of Religion submit our selves to them that have the rule over us as God hath com­manded: unless we will give this as a Reason, that we think our selves wiser and better than they, and that every Man should be left to his own liberty, which is as much as in us lyeth to make void the Ordinance of God.

Besides, the nature of those things that come in competition ought to be considered. The Magistrate injoyns such things for decency and uniformi­ty in the Worship of God, as after mature deliberation consulting the Word of God and the precedents of the most pure and primitive times he hath found to be most for edification; and the things which he injoyneth o­thers he practiseth himself, which he would not do if he had not found them [Page 139] to be the best. Now if he be mista­ken, it is but in an indifferent or di­sputable thing, the observance of which by himself or his Subjects, pro­vided they be Men that follow peace and holiness, will not prejudice their Salvation. Now on the Subjects side there lies at stake the great duty of Obedience to Governors, of reverence and decency in the publick Worship of God, of Charity and Unity with their Brethren, wherein if they be peccant, they withhold from Caesar the things which are Caesars, and from God the things that are God's, and from their Brethren the duties which they owe to all Men, with whom as far as it is possible, and as much as in them lyeth they ought to live peace­ably. And can a little mistake or ir­regularity in external Worship, if such should happen, be thought so great an evil, that for avoiding of it, we should throw our selves over the precipices of disobedience to Rulers, a contempt of God's solemn Worship, and living in debate, contention and perpetual vexation of our Brethren? Those [Page 140] things that are immutably and essen­tially good or evil ought more to be heeded than those which are such un­certainly and by accident or circum­stance only; and no good Man to a­void a doubtful scruple will run him­self into a certain sin. In such things therefore as I have now discoursed of, it is certainly more safe to erre with our Rulers than to be in the right a­gainst them.

And thus I have discarded that Maxime of our Authors, which he saith not only in Reason but in Reli­gion too admits of no release.

Page 228. our Author saith— ‘While Men were truly pious, all Meetings of Men for mutual help of Piety and Devotion, wheresoever and by whom­soever celebrated, were permitted without exception.’

It is great pity but it had been so, yet that it was so will not appear. For I suppose our Author doth not mean by Men truly pious, those that were Governors; for the more pious they were, the more care they alway had of the publick Worship, and such as [Page 141] would not joyn in it, gave occasion to have their piety questioned. For why, saith our Author, should Men de­sire to do that suspiciously in private which warrantably may be performed in publick, p. 230. He must there­fore be understood of pious Christi­ans that met for the Worship of God in times of Corruptions and Persecu­tions, as he expresseth it. Now that such Meetings wheresoever and by whomsoever celebrated were permit­ted without exception, whoever shall but run over the Ecclesiastical History will find exceptions enough against it. Were not Christ and his Apostles and such Converts as met with them tru­ly pious, and Acts 26. 12. yet their Meetings were in great fear of being disturbed, and they were persecuted as no Friends to Caesar, Acts 12. 12. but such as turned the World upside down. And did not our Savi­our foretel his Disciples how they should be hated and persecuted for his sake? Never were there more pious and peaceable Christians than under the Emperors of Rome that preceded Constantine, yet they did generally by [Page 142] them, as Pilate by the Galileans whose bloud he mingled with their Sacrifi­ces, and haled all such to torments as would not deny Christ and burn their Bibles, and offer Incense to the Pagan Gods. Trajan was one of the mildest of those Emperors, and Pliny the Younger being required to certifie the practices and behaviour of the Chri­stians in his days, acquainted the Em­peror, that they did meet together in the Night and sung Hymns to Christ as to their God, which was their only crime; for as to other things, They bound themselves by an Oath not to run into any wickedness, not to com­mit Thefts, Murders or Adulteries, not to break their promises or with­hold any thing committed to their trust, l. 10. Epist. 97. And yet besides those famous Bishops, Ignatius, Clemens, Anicetus, Plures effi­cimur quo­ties meti­mur à vo­bis; Cru­delitas ve­stra est glo­ria nostra. Tertul. Apol. many Thousands of pious Christians were martyred; the Hea­then were so far from permitting their Meetings howsoever and by whom­soever celebrated, that they hunted out private Christians, and upon their confessions that they were so they [Page 143] were instantly condemned. If a Le­gion of Witnesses will suffice, I shall produce that of the Noble Thebean Legion, consisting of 6666. Souldiers, who when Maximinus was Emperor and prepared to fight his Enemies, though they had often given testimony both of their valour and fidelity to his Predecessors, and had by the accu­stomed Oaths sworn the same to him, (which Oaths Vegetius de Re militari, l. 2. sets down in these words, Jurant per Deum, Christum & Sanctum Spiri­tum, & per majestatem Imperatoris, quae secundùm Deum generi humano diligenda est & colenda, omnia se strenuè facturos quae praeceperit Imperator, nunquam de­serturos militiam, nec mortem recusatu­ros pro Romana Republicâ) were yet required to lustrate or expiate them­selves by offering sacrifice to the Hea­then Gods; which they refusing to do, jointly professing themselves to be Christians, he decimates the whole Legion, and slays every Tenth Man with the Sword, and afterward re­quires the same impiety from the rest; but their chief Commanders who de­serve [Page 144] serve to be mentioned in all Histories, Mauritius Tribune of the Legion, Exuperius their Standard-bearer, and Candidus one of the Senatorian Order, exhorting them to constancy in the Christian Faith, being required to bring their Legion to the Emperor at Octodurus, and there perform those Pagan rites, answered, That they were ready in all things to obey the Emperors commands in fighting against his Enemies, only being Christians they could by no means Sacrifice to his Gods. Whereupon they suffered another De­cimation; at which the remainder of the Legion were so far from being daunted, that they all professed them­selves of the same resolution, and should rejoyce to obtain the same ho­nour of Martyrdom. Whereupon the Emperor Ordered his Army to fall on them, and cut them in pieces, which was accordingly done, not one of them seeking an escape. Baronius ad Annum 297. Nor were these Massa­cres only committed in the times of the ten persecutions, but afterward [Page 145] when some Christian Emperors in­fected with Arrianism had the power, they made havock of the peaceable and Orthodox Christians, and denyed them the priviledge of publick or pri­vate meetings. And our Author him­self observes, p. 228. That Christian meetings under Pagan Princes, when for fear they durst not come together in open view, were charged with foul imputations, as by the report of Christians themselves plainly appears. And again, p. 227. That time had taken leave to fix this name (of Con­venticles) upon good and honest meetings, and that perchance not al­together without good reason. Which reason he expresseth, p. 228. it was espied that ill affected persons abused private meetings for Religion to gross impiety, and therefore both Church and State jointly gave order for Forms, times and places of publick Concourse, and all other meetings besides those of which both time and place were limi­ted, they censured for routs and riots and unlawful assemblies in the State, and in the Church for Conventicles. [Page 146] Upon which our Author concludes, p. 229. It is not lawful no not for prayer, hearing, &c. for people to Assemble otherwise than by publick order is allowed.

But notwithstanding this concession our Author having distinguis [...]ed be­tween times of corruption and incor­ruption, he says, p. 230. ‘That in times of manifest corruptions and persecutions, wherein Religious as­sembling is dangerous, private meetings, however besides publick Order, are not only lawful but they are of necessity and duty.’ And this he supposeth a competent Plea as well for the Papists in our days as for the Protestants in Queen Maries dayes: ‘For else (saith he) how shall we ex­cuse the meetings of Christians for publick service in time of danger and persecutions, and of our selves in Queen Maries days? and how will those of the Roman Church amongst us put off the imputation of Conventicling, who are known amongst us privately to assemble for Religious exercise against all esta­blished [Page 147] order both in Church and State?’—Now I willingly grant that in times of manifest corruptions and persecutions, such as the Roman and Marian were, private meetings are lawful and necessary duties; be­cause, if men do forbid what God hath commanded, it is better to obey God than man: But this rule will not hold with that Latitude which our Author annexeth to it, that such meet­ings are lawful however besides publick order: and p. 231. however practised. For suppose that Dioclesian or Queen Mary had published their Edicts that on such days such a number of Chri­stians or Protestants should meet and worship God in publick places allowed them for that purpose, or as by the late Act of Parliament, any Family not admitting above five for Religi­ous exercises were tolerated; it had been their duty to acquiesce in such an Indulgence, and not by meeting in greater numbers and in places and times prohibited to provoke their Go­vernors. For certainly God hath com­mitted to the Soveraign authority a [Page 148] power of regulating the External ex­ercise of Divine Worship, nor can the irregularity of good men make void that Ordinance of God. And therefore our Author concludes amiss when he sayes, That all pious Assem­blies in times of persecution and cor­ruption, however practised, are in­deed or rather alone the lawful congre­gations: and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing else but Riots and Con­venticles, if they be stained with cor­ruption and superstition. A Doctrine that is very pleasing both to the Pa­pists and other Sectaries, who being perswaded that we are corrupted and they are persecuted, may be incou­raged once again to set up the good old Cause, that is, the overthrow of Mo­narchy and Episcopacy in this Nation, and the setting up of Popery and Anar­chy in their rooms. Mr. Hales tells us in his Sermon on Luke 18. 1. p. 134. of his Golden Remains, that Tully ob­served that Antony the Orator being to defend a person who was accused of Faction and Sedition, bent his wits to [Page 149] maintain that Sedition was good, and not to be objected as a fault: our Au­thor hath strained his wits to do the like by Schism, and so far to excuse separation as ordinarily to lay the blame thereof upon Superiors, and to make them the Schismaticks as often as they endeavour to vindicate their authority in lawful things against such, as find any Scruples against obedience to their commands. Which Mr. Hales shall Answer for me: The taste of Liberty is so sweet, that except Kings maintain their Authority with as great violence, as the people affect their Li­berty, all things will run to confusion. Sermon on John 18. 36. p. 149.

THE END.
…

Mr. BAXTER's ARGUMENTS FOR Conformity, AGAINST SEPARATION: BY WHICH The most Material Parts OF Mr. HALES's TRACT of SCHISM ARE CONFVTED.

Every tender Conscience should be as tender of Church-division and real Schism, as of Drunk­enness, Whoredom, or such other enormous Sins, James 3. 14, 15, 16, 17.

Mr. Baxter 's Reasons for Christian Religion, p. 485. S. 34.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, 1678.

Imprimatur,

C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domesticis.

TO THE READER Concerning the Pretence OF Conscience for Separation.

THE Conscience of Man is a very sacred thing; the great King hath made it his Chan­cellor to determine of such cases as are not plainly determinable by his Law, and hath given it a large Empire and Power to absolve or condemn. Of this Seneca divinely informs his Luci­lius (Epist. 41. Ita dico, mi Lucili, sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bono­rúmque nostrorum observator, & custos hic prout à nobis tractatus est, nos tractat) There is a Sacred spirit residing with­in us observing and recording all our good and evil actions, and as this is [Page 154] dealt with by us, so it deals with us. If our Consciences be first rightly in­formed, and then duly consulted with and obeyed, there is not a safer Guide, a better Comforter, nor a more impar­tial Judge: for (it is magni illius Judicii praejudicium) as that acquits or con­demns us, so have we confidence towards God, 1 Jo. 3. 20.

It ought therefore to be our great care that our hearts do not reproach us for any wilful transgression of the Laws of God, or such as he hath set over us, whom he hath required us to obey for Conscience sake.

And in the next place it is our duty tenderly to commiserate such weak Brethren whose Consciences being re­ally doubtful of the lawfulness of those actions which are required of them, dare not obey till they obtain a fiat from them; but while they suspend their duties are peaceable and faithful in the Land, and humbly and indu­striously seek for satisfaction from them whom God hath set over them. And truly I have not more Charity for ma­ny thorow Conformists, than for such [Page 155] meek and teachable Dissenters. And I doubt not but their Rulers and Spi­ritual Fathers would deal with them in all gentleness and long-suffering, with familiar and easie methods to inform their judgments, and recon­cile their affections to the knowledge and practice of the truth. But alas! how small is the number of such, a­mong them that pretend conscience, not in things doubtful and undeter­mined, but against plain and express commands in the Laws of God and their Superiors, and under that pre­tence seek to be justified in notorious and scandalous impieties? Who can without indignation recount the hor­rible villanies and mischiefs that have been acted in our Generation under this pretence? or who can sufficient­ly deplore the contumacy and opposi­tion of such as pretend Conscience against the means which God hath appointed for their information? The case seems to be well represented in the entertainment of the Angels a­mong the Sodomites: (for Conscience as an Angel of God is with a Commis­sion [Page 156] to save or to destroy) And in Ge­nesis 19. we read only of Lot who with great humility and respect met them, and bowing his Face to the ground, with great importunity pressed them to take their repose with him; and he washed their Feet and feasted them, and they delivered him from that great overthrow. But the Men of Sodom, old and young, from all quarters of­fered violence to them, and would have prostituted them to their unna­tural lusts. And do not they declare their sin to be like that of Sodom, who stifle the good motions of this Guar­dian-Angel, and make it an instru­ment and Pander to their carnal lusts? incessantly abusing it as the Gibeathites did the Levites Concubine, even to Death, Judges 19. And if a righte­ous Lot intercede for it, how do they reply as the Sodomites did, This fellow is come to sojourn, and he will needs be a Judge. Now will we deal worse, with thee than with them, Gen. 19. 9. But the punishment of the one should make the other to tremble and do no more so wickedly, lest those Angels of Light [Page 157] leave them in darkness, and rain some­thing most like to fire and brimstone, even horror and despair into their Souls.

But beside these wilful persons there is a sort of weak people among us, who have so intangled themselves in nets of their own weaving, partly through ignorance, prejudice and evil education, and partly by melan­choly and superstitious apprehensions, fearing where no fear is, and taking their own fancies and shadows for Ghosts and spectres, and lastly by the dark suggestions of seducing spirits who despair of making any to be of their perswasion till they have fright­ed them out of their wits, that it is with them as sometime it was with the people of Rome (nec ferre vul­nera possunt, nec remedia) they can neither endure their wounds nor suffer the remedies. By their long striving against their Prince, their Priests and their own Reason, they are so woun­ded and ensnared, that though their grievances be almost intolerable, yet they dread to disclose them or to use [Page 158] the advice of such Physicians as upon their submission might through God's blessing heal and restore them. Every Quack that can administer Opium, or stupifie the part affected, is more ac­ceptable to them than a Colledge of able Physicians who discerning the cause could with more easie methods and at a cheaper rate cure their distem­pers. For the Nets that entangle most of these, are but like the spiders webs, strong enough to captivate them out of whose bowels they were spun: But a man of reason may dissipate them with the breath of his mouth. The Lion in the Fable was once thus in­tangled, and all his strugling did but involve him more: yet when he was toyled and lay quiet, a very little Ani­mal came and corroding the threads set the Royal Captive at liberty. There needs no great art if they would be patient and follow regular prescripts, to reduce such men to a sense and en­joyment of their Christian Liberty. If they would but follow the best of their own Leaders, two of which I have hereafter proposed to them, their Ar­guments [Page 159] and practices might soon un­deceive them. For in truth it is not Conscience but nice scruples, false opinions and prejudice and disaffecti­on to the Lawful Guides and Physici­ans of their Souls, and a fond admi­ration of some cunning persons that lay in wait to ensnare them, and keep them in bondage, that they may make merchandise of them, which have so perplexed them. Can that be Con­science that causeth men to strain at a Gnat and swallow Camels? to start at a shadow and throw themselves over Precipices? so to abhor a Ceremony as to commit Sacriledge, and rob the Church of Christ of his last and best Legacy, that of Peace? Can Consci­ence perswade a man who confesseth his own ignorance (by his doubting) to judge of the things in controversie, to conclude that his Superiors are in an error, and that they who disobey and oppose them are in the right? or can we think that they did cast themselves out of their own Cures on a principle of Conscience, who against all good Conscience intruded upon other mens [Page 160] and still invade their rights? Is it Conscience that teacheth them to interpret the actions and constitutions of their Superiors in the worse sense, and by their corrupt glosses to make faults where they can find none? Is it conscience that causeth men who are under Oaths and obligations of obe­dience and peace, to withdraw cause­lesly into factious and seditious assem­blies to the disturbance of the Church and State, where they might lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty? Is it conscience that teacheth men to scruple at Ceremonies, and to omit the weighty matters of the Law? Or can we think that they do really believe in their Consciences that to live in Conformity to the Church of England is a sin, who do educate their children (the care of whose Souls next to that of their own is incumbent on them,) in such professions as will necessarily engage them to be Con­formists? The Ancient Nonconfor­mists thought themselves bound in Conscience to use their utmost endea­vours to prevent separation from the [Page 161] Church of England, and to ingage their people to frequent the publick Worship. And can it be a point of Conscience in the present Nonconfor­mists so industriously to promote Sepa­ration, and as much as in them lyeth to bring the publick Worship into contempt? Or can they pretend con­science for despising the prayers of the Church, who at the same time reject our Lords prayer also? Is it conscience that makes private and illiterate men to think themselves wiser and better than their Rulers and spiritual Guides, whom God hath set over them? Is it conscience that doth dispense with the same men to conform and commu­nicate with the Church when they are required to do so under some pre­sent and severe penalty (as on the late Test) and to shun it at other times? Lastly, who can believe that they err through weakness or doubtfulness of Conscience, who refuse to make use of those obvious and probable means for their satisfaction, which God hath appointed for them? That is, in such doubtful cases which their own [Page 162] son cannot determine, to consult with those to whom God hath committed the conduct of their Souls. For what is Conscience but a mans judgment concerning things and actions accord­ing to Gods Word, and Right Reason inlightned and directed thereby? For, seeing the Word of God hath not par­ticularly determined of all things and actions, we ought by our Reason com­paring one place of Scripture with ano­ther and drawing conclusions from them, to be guided and acted in such things as are not determined in Scri­pture: and if our own Reason be too short-sighted and dull, to apprehend the nature of the things doubted of; we ought to use such Instruments and helps as God hath provided, who hath said by his Prophet, that the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, and the people should seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts, Mal. 2. 7. where the peoples duty is plainly asserted. And by his Apostle, that we should know them that are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12. And Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the [Page 163] rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your Souls as they that must give account, &c. But as Mr. Bax­ter complains, p. 570. of his Saints Rest, ‘Few of the Godly themselves do understand the Authority that their Teachers have over them from Christ, they know how to value the Ministers Gifts but not how they are bound to learn of him and obey him because of his office.—People are bound to obey and learn of their Teachers, as Scholars of their Masters.’ And if the people were as willing to do their own duties, and as apt to learn of their Ministers as they are forward to teach them, or blame them for not doing theirs, they might soon ease their Consciences of much guilt as well as of many doubts and scruples, whereby for want of an humble and teachable spirit they so much trouble themselves and others. And it is but reasonable, that the established Clergy of the Church of England should ex­pect as great a submission from their people as the Worcester Ministers who required their people to acknowledge [Page 164] in these words: I . . . do consent to be a Member of the particular Church of Christ at . . . . whereof . . . . is Teacher and Overseer, and to submit to his teach­ing and ministerial guidance and over­sight according to God's Word.

Those Men therefore whose Consci­ences are truly tender, ought in doubt­ful cases, to apply themselves to the means which God hath instituted (and will therefore most probably bless) for their information; as first, their own Pastor; or if he be thought defective, some neighbour Minister, of whom the doubting Person hath a good opi­nion for his parts and piety; if no such can remove his doubts, he seems to me to be a Person capable to read the Works of Learned men that have written of the things in controversie, and he may take in the help of Foreign Divines, and perhaps inquire into the practice of the Church in the most pure and primitive Ages. And if he find that they do all agree, as Mr. Hooker and Mr. Baxter say, That the certain commands of the Church we live in, are to be obeyed in all things [Page 165] not certainly unlawful, I cannot think that such as will still pretend doubts, and espouse Parties, and disobey their Governors, and promote Schism and Divisions, do erre out of weakness of Conscience, but out of pride, and stub­bornness, through great prejudices or for some little interests and concerns of their own, which they value more than the Peace of the Church.

Now that Man doth judge extreme­ly uncharitably of his Rulers, whose Consciences are as tender, and their Judgments better informed than his own, and who being at liberty to choose and propose what may most conduce, as well to their own, as the Peoples salvation, shall upon mature deliberation in solemn Assemblies ap­point such a Discipline and Rites as they think most agreeable to the Word of God and the practice of the purest Churches in all Ages; that Man, I say, must judge most uncharitably of them who should think that they im­pose on him any thing that is unlaw­ful, (without a very clear evidence of its unlawfulness) seeing that therein [Page 166] they should not only wound their own Consciences and hazard their own Sal­vation, but draw upon themselves the guilt of the Peoples sins, by establish­ing iniquity by a Law, and incoura­ging the People to comply with it by their examples, and so like Jeroboam make the Israel of God to Sin.

But if in a deed done by a doubting Person, at the command of one that is indued with lawful authority, there be a sin, it must go on his score that requireth it wrongfully, not on his that doth but his duty in obeying; nor is the Salvation of an obedient subject hazarded by a peaceable com­pliance with his Superiors commands in such doubtful and disputable acti­ons. Bishop Sanderson resolves a case that will put this out of doubt, Sermon on Rom. 14. 23. p. 92. ‘A Prince com­mandeth his Subjects to serve in his Wars, it may be the quarrel is un­just, it may be there may appear to the understanding of the Subject great likelihoods of such injustice, yet may the subject for all that fight in the quarrel, yea he is bound in Consci­ence [Page 167] so to do, nay he is deep in dis­loyalty and treason if he refuse the service, whatsoever pretensions of Conscience he may make for such refusal.’ Mr. Baxter speaks almost as much, p. 461. of his Five Disputations: ‘Every War that is unlawfully under­taken by the Prince, is not unlawful in all his Souldiers. Some of them that have not opportunity to know the evil of his undertaking, may be bound to obey; the case of others I determine not.’ But a greater than he (as I have shewn) hath determined it, and the practice of the Primitive Christians, which stoutly fought the Battels of Heathen Emperors, have confirmed that determination. Now it is worthy of our consideration, to think what manner of Souldiers such scrupulous Persons would make in case of a War begun against a just Prince by some of his Subjects, that should pretend a Reformation of the Laws, and arm themselves to redress abuses in the administration of Justice, can we think, that they who are apt to disobey upon I know not what scru­ples [Page 168] of the lawfulness of innocent Rites and Ceremonies injoyned by his autho­rity, will be ready to fight against their Brethren (that herein agree with them?) would they not rather side against him, (as their Predecessors have done?) I suppose there are very few that are scrupulously factious in the Church, but would in such a case be seditious and rebellious in the State. I am sure they would find more plau­sible pretences, as, That the Prince commands such things as are to their Consciences unlawful, and that they durst not ingage with him, lest they draw innocent bloud upon their heads; they think they are rather bound to help the Lord's People against the Mighty, to rebuke even Kings for their sakes, and if they see it meet; to bind their Kings with Chains and their Nobles with fetters of Iron, and to execute upon them the Judgment written: This Honour have all his Saints. And yet that learned Casuist says, that the fears of such scrupulous Persons need not trouble them, no not in this grand case, lest they should [Page 169] bring upon themselves the guilt of in­nocent bloud; for the bloud that is unrighteously shed in such a quarrel, he must answer for, that set them on work, not he that spilt it. Is damnum dat, qui jubet dare; ejus verò nulla cul­pa est, cui parére necesse est: He doth the wrong that commands it to be done, not he whose obedience is a ne­cessary duty. ‘And truly (says the same Casuist) it is a great wonder to me, that any Man endued with un­derstanding, and that is able in any measure to weigh the force of those precepts and reasons which bind in­feriors to yield obedience to their Su­periors, should be otherwise minded in cases of like nature. For whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us either in Church, Common-wealth or Family ( quod ta­men non sit certum displicere Deo, as saith St. Bernard) which is not evi­dently contrary to the Law and Will of God, ought of us to be received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it; be­cause God himself hath commanded [Page 170] us to obey the higher Powers, and to submit our selves to their Ordinances.’ And if these things should not be so, either Government or Christianity would in a short time be rooted out as incompetent one with the other, for by such Men Christ is really represent­ed as an enemy to Caesar; and the e­vent will be, to have him crucified again in his members, and put to open shame.

THE PREFACE TO Mr. BAXTER's ARGUMENTS.

THe same wise and Gracious Pro­vidence of Almighty God which over-ruled the Actions of those Armies that had kept us long in confusion and made them instrumental for the setling of peace in the State, hath so directed the consultations and publick trans­actions of such as intruded on the affairs of the Church, that if they would practise according to their own principles, and acquiesce in their own arguments, we might see peace and unity established also in the Church. For besides the Arguments of the Non-conformists before 1642. who both by example and publick writings shewed their abhorrence of open Sepa­ration, [Page 172] I do confidently affirm, that if there were a collection made of those reasons which were urged by the Presbyterians to prevent the other Factions from separating from them, as well in their Annotations, Assem­blies, publick debates, Sermons, books of Schism, Separation, &c. there needed no other security to the people of this Nation, that they might with good Conscience conform to the pub­lick Worship of God as it is now esta­blished. I have formerly published Mr. Calvin's arguments to this pur­pose, and now I present the Reader with Mr. Baxter's, not only because I thought them most rational and per­swasive, but because I believe he was not acted by (a studium partium) any ambitious or private design, but in­tended them as an Irenicum to per­swade peace and reconciliation be­tween all sober dissenters. And I hope he will pardon me for prosecuting his own design, while I do it in his own words published in several Treatises since he first set forth his Saints ever­lasting Rest, in the Epistle to which [Page 173] he tells us he should fear of being a fire­brand in Hell, if he should be a firebrand in the Church. I was much moved to see what odium he contracted from some of his Brethren, of whom he deserved better things, for endeavouring to heal our divisions; yet was he not ashamed to write himself in the title page of his second admonition to Bagshaw, a long-maligned and resisted endeavourer of the Churches unity and peace; and in pag. 11. of that book, he thus declares his Christian temper and resolution. If injuries or interest would excuse any sin, I think there are few Ministers in England who have more inducement to the Angry separating way than I have; But shall I therefore wrong the truth and Church of God and my own and others Souls? God forbid! And page 52. he farther tells us— I repent that I no more discouraged the spirit of peevish quar­relling with Superiors and Church-orders, and (though I ever disliked and opposed it, yet) that I sometimes did too much incourage such as were of their temper, by speaking too sharply against those things which I thought to be Church corruptions, [Page 174] and was too loth to displease the conten­tious for fear of being uncapable to do them good, (knowing the prophane to be much worse than they) and meeting with too few religious persons, that were not too much pleased with such invectives. And as an Argument of his repentance, he defends himself against Bagshaw, who objected that he chose on Easter day to communicate in a very populous Church purposely that it might be known, saying, p. 76. If a man by ma­ny years forbearing all publick prayers and Sacrament should tempt others to think that he is against them or counts them needless, how should he cure that scandal but by doing that openly pleading for it, which he is supposed to be against? Ministers being bound to teach the people by Example as well as Doctrine, p. 78. And what he practised himself he care­fully perswaded the people, to avoid separation and hold communion in the parochial Churches. For the Questi­on which he maintained against Bag­shaw was— ‘It is lawful to hold com­munion with such Christian Churches as have worthy or tolerable Pastors, [Page 175] notwithstanding the Parochial order of them, and the Ministers confor­mity and use of the Common Prayer-book:’ and with two limitations concludes, p. 89. ‘That we ought to do so when some special reasons (as from Authority, scandal, &c.) do re­quire it.’ And whereas by these acti­ons and writings, Mr. Baxter had so provoked the dissenting parties, that it was objected, as himself intimates in a second objection, in the Preface of his Christian Directory, That his writings differing from the common judgment had already caused offence to the Godly; in the fourth Answer, he sayes: ‘If God bless me with oppor­tunity and help, I will offend such men much more, by endeavour­ing further than ever I have done the quenching of that fire which they are still blowing up, and de­tecting the folly and mischief of those Logomachies by which they militate against Love and Concord, and in­flame and tear the Church of God, and let them know that I am about it.’

[Page 176] These are resolutions becoming a Minister of Christ, an Ambassador of the Prince of Peace, taken up after long and serious deliberation, well rooted and fixed in his judgment and Conscience, by reason whereof he was enabled through the Grace of God to withstand manifold temptations and violent oppositions to the contrary. Nor can I think that such a man as Mr. Baxter can flee and desert so good a cause, and after Vows to make en­quiry, and render himself guilty of all those calumnies and reproaches which his enemies have endeavoured to fix upon him: Nor can I think, that having brought our present controver­sies to so narrow a compass of ground, he will contribute to the building of a Babel upon it. This were to make good those hard speeches of Mr. Bagshaw against him, who tells us, p. 152. That one worthy of Credit told him that the Learned and Judicious Mr. Herle having read that cryed up book of his, said, It had been happy for the Church of God if Mr. Baxter's friends had never sent him to School; [Page 177] and that Mr. Cawdry had the same opi­nion of it. And that another person as knowing in the Mystery of Godli­ness as either of them told a friend of his, that notwithstanding the noise about him, Mr. Baxter would end in flesh and bloud. And in a word, this would set home his own fears upon his spirit, that he might be a fire brand in hell for being a fire-brand in the Church.

I shall therefore charitably believe, that though he seem to look another way, yet he is labouring to bring the people that adhere to him, to the har­bour of Ecclesiastical peace and unity; that he doth still preach up not holi­ness only, but peace too, without which he knows no man shall see God; nor can I think that he doth now practise in contempt of Authori­ty, what himself had condemned in others; or that he intends to harden the people in such a Separation, as he had so long, so passionately, so ratio­nally declaimed against. I rather hope that he hath some dispensation from his Lawful Superiors, and that by a [Page 178] pia fraus having greater advantages of doing good put into his hands, he will by degrees improve them to the glory of God and the peace of this distracted Church.

If he drive any other design, I would desire him to consider, first, how he can Answer his own Argu­ments unto men; and secondly, how to give an account to God for his con­trary practices.

But I have a very great confidence, that he who hath with great industry and faithfulness provided so many solid materials from the Scriptures and right reason for the supporting and beauti­fying a Temple of peace, having car­ved and guilded them over with se­rious Protestations of his own pacifick intentions, and variety of Rhetorick to perswade others, will not be a Leader of that rabble, which shall first break down the carved works with axes and hammers, and at last (though sore against his will) raze the very foundations, and cry Down with it, down with it even to the ground.

Of the Church.
Mr. Baxter in his Reasons for the Christian Religion, p. 464.

S. 2. THE Church of Christ being his Body is but one, and hath many parts, but should have no Parties, but unity and concord without Divi­sion.

S. 3. Therefore no Christian must be of a Party or Sect as such, that is, as dividing it self from the rest, cau­sing Schism or Contention in the Body, or making a rent unnecessarily in any particular Church which is a part.

S. 8. Nothing will warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church, but the want of something essential to a Church.

S. 11. It is essential to particular Po­litical Churches, that they be consti­tuted of true Bishops or Pastors and of Flocks of baptized or professed Chri­stians, united for holy Communion in [Page 180] the worshipping of God, and the pro­moting of the Salvation of the several Members.

S. 12. It is essential to a true Bishop or Pastor of the Church to be in office (that is in authority and obligation) appointed by Christ in Subordination to him in the three parts of his offices, Prophetical, Priestly and Kingly. That is, to teach the People, to stand between them and God in Worship, and to guide or govern them by the Paternal exercise of the Keys of his Church.

S. 15. If a Church which in all o­ther respects is purest and best, will impose any sin upon all that will have any local Communion with it, though we must not separate from that Church as no Church, yet must we not com­mit that sin, but patiently suffer them to exclude us from their Communion.

Of the Doctrine of the Church of England.

As for the Doctrine of the Church of England, Preface to [...]. Disput. p. 6. the Bishops and their Fol­lowers from the first Reformation be­gun [Page 181] by King Edward the Sixth, were sound in Doctrine, adhering to the Augustane method expressed now in the Articles and Homilies; they differed not in any considerable point from those whom they called Puritans, but it was in the form of Government, Liturgy and Ceremonies that the dif­ference lay.

The Independents as well as the Pres­byterians offer to Subscribe the XXXIX Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony. Defence of principles of love. p. 64. And when I was in the Country, I knew not of one Minister to ten that are now silenced, that was not in the main of the same Principles with my self.

Mr. Baxter's Reasons for Obedience in Lawful things, page 483. of his five Disputations.

§. 1. LEST Men that are apt to run from one extream into ano­ther, should make an ill use of that which I have before written, I shall [Page 182] here annex some Reasons to perswade Men to just obedience, and preserve them from any sinful nonconformity to the commands of their Governours, and the evil effects that are like to fol­low thereupon.

§. 2. But first I will lay together some Propositions for decision of the Controversie; How far we are bound to obey Mens Precepts about Religion? Especially in case we doubt of the law­fulness of obeying them? and so can­not obey them in faith?

§. 3. Briefly: 1. We must obey both Magistrates and Pastors in all things lawful which belong to their offices to command. 2. It belongs not to their office to make God a new worship; But to command the Mode and Circumstances of worship belong­eth to their office: for guiding them wherein God hath given them general rules. 3. We must not take the Law­ful commands of our Governours to be unlawful. 4. If we do through weak­ness or perversness take Lawful things to be unlawful, that will not excuse us in our disobedience. Our error is [Page 183] our sin, and one sin will not excuse another sin. Even as on the other side, if we judge things unlawful to be law­ful, that will not excuse us for our dis­obedience to God in obeying men. 5. As I have before shewed, many things that are miscommanded, must be obeyed. 6. As an erroneous judg­ment will not excuse us from Obedi­ence to our Governours, so much less will a doubtfulness excuse us. 7. As such a doubting, erring judgment can­not obey in (plenary) faith, so much less can he disobey in faith. For it is a known Command of God, that we obey them that have the Rule over us: but they have no word of God against the act of obedience now in question. It is their own erring judgment that intangleth them in a necessity of sin­ning (till it be changed.) 7. In doubt­ful cases, it is our duty to use God's means for our information: and one means is to consult with our Teachers, and hear their words with teachable­ness and meekness. 8. If upon advi­sing with them we remain in doubt about the lawfulness of some Circum­stance [Page 184] of order, if it be such as may be dispensed with, they should dispense with us: if it may not be dispensed with without a greater injury to the Church or cause of God, than our di­spensation will countervail, then is it our duty to obey our Teachers, not­withstanding such doubts: For it be­ing their office to Teach us, it must be our duty to believe them with a hu­mane faith, in cases where we have no Evidences to the contrary: ☞ And the Duty of Obeying them being certain, and the sinfulness of the thing com­manded being uncertain & unknown, and only suspected, we must go on the surer side. 9. Yet must we in great and doubtful cases, not take up with the suspected judgment of a single Pa­stor, but apply our selves to the una­nimous Pastors of other Churches▪ 10. ☞ Christians should not be over-busie in prying into the work of their Go­vernours, nor too forward to suspect their determinations: But when they know that it is their Rulers work to guide them by determining of due Circumstances of worship, they should [Page 185] without causless scruples readily obey, till they see just reason to stop them in their obedience; They must not go out of their own places to search into the Actions of another Man's office, to trouble themselves without any cause.

§. 4. And now I intreat all humble Christians readily to obey both Magi­strates and Pastors in all lawful things; and to consider, to that end, of these Reasons following. Reas. 1. If you will not obey in Lawful things, you deny authority, or overthrow Govern­ment it self, which is a great ordinance of God, established in the fifth Com­mandment with promise: And as that commandment respecting societies and common good, is greater than the fol­lowing commands, as they respect the private good of our neighbours, or are but particular means to that Publick good, whose foundation is laid in the fifth commandment; so accordingly the sin against this fifth commandment must be greater than that against the rest.

§. 5. Reas. 2. In disobeying the law­ful [Page 186] commands of our Superiors, we dis­obey Christ, who ruleth by them as his officers. Even as the disobeying a Justice of Peace or Judge is a disobey­ing of the soveraign Power; yea in some cases when their sentence is un­just. Some of the ancient Doctors thought that the fifth commandment was the last of the first Table of the Decalogue; and that the Honouring of Governors is part of our Honour to God, they being mentioned there as his officers, with whom he himself is ho­noured or dishonoured, obeyed or dis­obeyed: For it is God's Authority that the Magistrate, Parent, and Pastor is endued with, and empowred by to rule those that are put under them.

§. 6. Reas. 3. What confusion will be brought into the Church if Pastors be not obeyed in things lawful? For instance: If the Pastors appoint the Congregation to Assemble at one hour, and the People will scruple the time, and say, it is unlawful, and so will choose some of them one time, and some another, what disorder will here be? and worse, if the Pastors appoint [Page 187] a Place of worship, and any of the People scruple obeying them, and will come to another place, what confusion will here be? People are many, and the Pastors are few: and therefore there may be some unity if the People be Ruled by the Pastors; but there can be none, if the Pastors must be ruled by the People, for the People will not a­gree among themselves: and therefore if we obey one part of them, we must disobey and displease the rest. And their ignorance makes them unfit to rule.

§. 7. Reas. 4. Moreover, disobedi­ence in matters of Circumstance, will exclude and overthrow the substance of the worship it self. God commandeth us to pray: If one part of the Church will not joyn with a stinted form of Prayer, and the other part will not joyn without it, both Parties cannot be plea­sed, and so one part must cast off Pray­er it self, or separate from the rest. God commandeth the reading, and preach­ing, and hearing of the Scripture, and the singing of Psalms: but he hath left it to Man to make or choose the best [Page 188] Translation of Scripture, or version of the Psalms. Now if the Pastor ap­point one version and Translation, and the Church joyn in the use of it, if any members will scruple joyning in this Translation or version, they must needs forbear the whole duty of Hearing the Scripture, and singing Psalms in that Congregation. If they pretend a scru­ple against the appointed time or place of worship, they will thereby cast off the worship it self. For if they avoid our Time or Place, they cannot meet with us, nor worship with us.

§. 8. Reas. 5. And when they are thus carried to separate from the Con­gregation, upon such grounds as these, they will be no where fixt, but may be still subdividing, and separating from one another, till they are resolved into individuals, and have left no such thing as a Church among them. For they can have no assurance or probability, that some of themselves will not dissent from the rest in one Circumstance or other, as they did from their Pastors and the Church that they were of be­fore.

[Page 189] §. 9. Reas. 6. By this means the wicked that are disobedient to their Teachers, and reject the worship of God it self, will be hardened in their sin, and taught by Professors to defend their ungodliness: For the very same course that you take will serve their turns. They need not deny any Duty in the substance, but deny the circum­stance, and so put off the substance of the Duty. If a wicked man will not hear the word preached, he may say [I am not against preaching; but I am unsatisfied of the lawfulness of your Time or Place, I am in judgment against com­ing to your Steeple-house, or against the Lords Day.] And so he shall never hear, though he say he is for hearing. If a wicked man will not be personally in­structed, or admonished, or be account­able to the Church or Pastors for any scandals of his life, nor submit to any discipline, he may say [I am for disci­pline, I know it is my duty to be instructed: but I am not satisfied that I am bound to come to you when you send for me, or to appear at such a place as you appoint: the word of God nameth no time or place, and [Page 190] you shall not deprive me of my liberty.] If a wicked Man would not hear or read the Scripture, or sing Psalms, he may say that he is for the duty, but he is only against this and that Tran­slation and version: And so while eve­ry version is excepted against, the du­ty is as much evaded as if it were de­nied it self. By this device it is that the Rebellion of unruly People is de­fended: They run to the circumstances of the duty, and ask, [Where are they bound to come to a Minister? or to be examined by him in order to a baptism or Lords supper? or to speak their consent to be Church-members, or to subscribe to a Profession, or to read an English Bible, or to hear in a Steeple-house, with many such like.] Thus also it is that they put off Family-prayer, and ask, [Where are they bound to pray in their Family Morning and Evening?] and so keep no constancy in Family-prayer at all, under pretence of denying only the circumstances.

§. 10. Reas. 7. By this disobedi­ence in things lawful, the members [Page 191] of the Church will be involved in contentions, and so ingaged in bitter uncharitableness, and censures, and persecutions, and reproaches of one another: which scandalous courses will nourish vice, dishonour God, re­joyce the enemies, grieve the Godly that are peaceable and judicious, and wound the consciences of the conten­ders. We see the beginning of such fires are small, but whither they tend, and what will be the end of them, we see not.

§. 11. Reas. 8. By these means also Magistrates will be provoked to take men of tender consciences for factious, unruly, and unreasonable men, and to turn their enemies, and use vio­lence against them, to the great injury of the Church: when they see them so self-conceited, and refusing obedi­ence in lawful circumstances.

§. 12. Reas. 9. By this means also the conversion and establishment of souls will be much hindred, and peo­ple possessed with prejudice against the Church and ordinances, when they take us to be but humorous people, [Page 192] and see us in such contentions among our selves. To my knowledge, our late difference about some such lesser things, hath turned off, or hindered abundance of people from liking the holy doctrine and life which we pro­fess.

§. 13. Reas. 10. It will seem to the wisest, to savour of no small measure of Pride, when people on the account of lawful circumstances, dare set themselves against their Governors and Teachers, and quarrel with the Ordinances of God, and with the Churches: Humble men would soon­er suspect themselves, and quarrel with their own distempers, and sub­mit to those that are wiser than them­selves, and that are set over them for their guidance by the Lord. There may more dangerous Pride be mani­fested in these matters, than in Appa­rel, and such lower trifles.

§. 14. Reas. 11. Consider also what yielding in things lawful the Scri­pture recommendeth to us? How far yielded Paul when he circumcised Timothy? Act 16. 3. And when he [Page 193] [took the men, and purified himself with them in the Temple, to signifie the accom­plishment of the days of purification, un­til that an offering should be offered for every one of them] and this for almost seven dayes, Acts 21. 26, 27. with the foregoing verses.

§. 15. So 1 Cor. 9. 19, 20. [For though I be free from all men, yet have I made my self servant unto all, that I might gain the more: And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law: To them that are without Law, as without Law (being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might, by all means save some, and this I do for the Gospels sake, &c.] Study this example.

§. 16. Read also Rom. 14. and 15. Chapters, how much condescension the Apostle requireth even among equals, about meats and dayes. And 1 Cor. 8. 13. the Apostle would tie up [Page 194] himself from eating any flesh while the world standeth, rather than make a weak brother to offend. Many other passages of Scripture require a con­descension in things of this indiffe­rent nature, and shew that the King­dom of God doth not consist in them.

§. 17. And Matthew 12. 1, 2, to 9. you find that hunger justified the Disci­ples of Christ for plucking and rub­bing the ears of Corn on the Sabbath dayes. And hunger justified David and those that were with him, for en­tring into the house of God, and eat­ing the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them which were with him, but only for the Priests: And the Priests in the Temple were blameless for prophaning the Sabbath day.] Now if things be­fore accidentally evil, may by this much Necessity become lawful and a duty, then may the commands of Ma­gistrates or Pastors, and the Unity of the Church, and the avoiding of con­tention, and offence, and other evils, be also sufficient to warrant us in obeying, even in inconvenient Cir­cumstantials [Page 195] of the worship of God, that otherwise could not be justified.

§. 18. Reas. 12. Lastly consider, how much God hath expressed himself in his word to be pleased in the Obedience of believers. Not only in their Obe­dience to Christ immediately, but also to him in his officers, 1 Sam. 15. 22. [Behold to obey is better than Sacrifice, &c.] Col. 3. 20, 22. [Children obey your Parents in all things (that is, all lawful things) for this is well-pleasing to the Lord] [Servants Obey in all things your Masters according to the flesh, &c.] And Obedience to Pastors is as much commanded, 1. Thes. 5. 12, 13. [We beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them very highly, &c.] Heb. 13. 17. [Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, &c.] So Verse 7. & 24. 1 Tim. 5. 17, &c.

§. 19. As the General Commission to a Parent, or Master, or Magistrate to Govern their inferior relations, doth [Page 196] authorize them to many particular acts belonging to their office, that were never named in their commission: so your general command to obey them, obligeth you to obey them in the said particulars. And so it is also betwixt the Pastors and the flock, in matters belonging to the office of a Pastor.

§. 20. If a Child shall ask a Parent, [Where doth Gods word allow you to com­mand me to learn this Catechism, or read this Divines writings, or repeat this Sermon, or write it? &c.] doth not the question deserve to be answered with the rod? The General Commission for Parents to Govern their children is sufficient. So if a Schoolmaster com­mand his Scholars to come to such a place to School, and to take their pla­ces in such an Order, and to learn such books, and do such exercises, &c. the General Commission that he hath to teach and Govern them, will allow him to do all this. (Though it will not allow him to set his Scholars to any Artifice or Manual Operation alien to his profession.) So if a Mini­ster determine of the variable Cir­cumstances [Page 197] of worship, as what place the people shall come to, and at what time, to be Catechized, examined, instructed, &c. what Translation or Version of Psalms to use, what Utensils to make use of about Gods service, or such like, he is warranted for this by his General Commission. And if he miss it in the manner, by choosing inconvenient circumstances, or by unnecessary determination of points that should rather be left unde­termined to liberty, though this be his own sin, it will not excuse the people from obedience; unless the error of his directions be so great as would frustrate the Ordinance it self, or do more harm than our disobedience would do; which in Circumstantials is rarely found.

By long experience I am assured, Freface to Christian Direct. ad finem. that practical religion, will afford both to Church, State, and Conscience more certain, and more solid peace, than contending disputers, with all their pretences of Orthodoxness, and zeal against errors, for the truth, will ever bring, or did ever attain to. [Page 198] Wherefore let us consider in the next place,

The Mischief of Separation.

The mischief of Separation lies not in the bare error of judgment, Epistle Dedicatory to Saints Rest. but in the unchristian and Church-dissolving division and alienation, which thence followeth; contrary to that humility and love, which is the visible cha­racter of Christians, and to that One­ness, which is still in Scripture ascribed to the visible Church. Alas, that pride and ignorance should have such power among believers, that men cannot be of several judgments in lesser points, but they must needs be of se­veral Churches. God will make us value peace and union a little more, before we shall taste of the perfect everlasting peace and union; yea be­fore we shall see the blessing of union in the Church. Wounding is a di­viding, healing is a re-uniting; a Building is of many stones or pieces orderly conjoyned; a Church is an aggregation of individuals, an asso­ciation [Page 199] of Believers: what then is it to demolish, but to separate and disjoyn? and what is it to dissolve Churches, but to break their association, to re­duce them to individuals, to cut them into shreds?

As for the differences in way of Go­vernment, between the moderate Presbyterians, Independants, Episcopal, and Erastian, I make no doubt, but if mens spirits stood not at a greater distance than their principles, they would quickly be united. But of all the four sorts there are some that run so high in their principles, that they run out of the hearing of peace or truth.—For Anabaptism and Antino­mianism God spake effectually against them, by those wondrous Monsters in New-England; but wonders are over-lookt, where the heart is hardned, and God intends to get his justice a name. The fearful dolusions, that God hath formerly given them over to, and the horrid confusion which they have introduced where they have sprung, hath spoken fully against both these later Sects. The weeping eyes, [Page 200] the bleeding sides, the lacerated mem­bers of these Churches, the reproach of the Gospel, the disappointed Re­formation, the hideous doctrines, and unheard of wickedness that hath fol­lowed them, the contemned ordinan­ces, the reproached, slandered, and ejected Ministers, the weak that are scandalized, the Professors apostatized, the wicked hardned, and the open enemies of the Gospel, that now in­sult; all these do describe them more plainly to England, than words can do, and cry loud in the ears of God, and man. What will be the Answer, time will shew: but from Rev. 2. 14, 15, 16, &c. we may probably con­jecture.

He that is not a Son of peace, is not a Son of God. All other sins de­stroy the Church consequentially, but division and Separation demolish it directly. Building the Church is but an orderly joyning of the materials, and what then is disjoyning but pulling down? Many doctrial differences must be tolerated in a Church, and why, but for unity and peace? there­fore [Page 201] disunion and separation is utterly intolerable. Believe not those to be the Churches friends, that would cure and reform her by cutting her throat. Those that say, no truth must be concealed for peace, have usually as little of the one as the other. Study Gal. 2. 22. Rom. 14. 1. Acts 21. 24, 26. 1 Tim. 1. 4. & 6. 4. Titus 3. 8, 9. I hope, sad experience speaks this lesson to your very hearts, if I should say no­thing. Do not your hearts bleed to look upon the State of England, and to think how few Towns, or Cities there be (where is any forwardness in Religion) that are not cut into shreds and crumbled as to dust, by separa­tions and divisions? to think what a wound we have hereby given to the very Christian name, how we have hardned the ignorant, confirmed the Papists, and are our selves become the scorn of our enemies, and the grief of our friends, and how many of our dearest best esteemed friends, have fallen to notorious pride or impiety, yea, some, to be worse than open In­fidels? These are pillars of Salt, see [Page 202] that you remember them. Though of your own selves, men should arise, speaking perverse things, to draw dis­ciples after them, Acts 20. 30. yea though an Angel from Heaven should draw you to divisions, see that you follow him not. If there be errone­ous practices in the Church, keep your selves innocent, with modera­tion, and peace. It must be no small error, that must force a Separation. Justin Martyr professed, that if a Jew should keep the ceremonial law, so he did not perswade the Gentiles to it, as necessary, yet if he acknowledged Christ, he judgeth that he might be saved, and he would imbrace him and have communion with him. Paul would have him received, that is weak in the faith, and not un-church whole parishes of those that we know not, nor were ever brought to a just trial. I ever loved a godly peaceable Conformist, better than a turbulent Nonconformist. I differ from many, in several things of considerable mo­ment, yet if I should zealously press my judgment on others, so as to disturb [Page 203] the peace of the Church, and sepa­rate from my brethren that are con­trary minded, I should fear, lest I should prove a fire-brand in hell, for being a fire-brand in the Church. And for all the interest I have in your judg­ments and affections, I here charge you, that if God should give me up, to any factious, Church-rending course, (against which I daily pray) that you forsake me, and follow me not a step. And for peace with one another, follow it with all your might, if it be possible, as much as in you lyeth, live peaceably with all men, Rom. 12. 18. (mark this.) When you feel any sparks of discontent in your breasts, take them as kindled by the Devil, from hell, and take heed you cherish them not. If the flames begin to break forth, in censoriousness, reproaches, and hard speeches of others, be as speedy and busie in quenching it, as if it were fire in the thatch of your houses. For why should your houses be dearer to you, than the Church, which is the house of God? or your Souls, which are the Temples of the Holy Ghost? [Page 204] Hath God spoke more against any sin than unpeaceableness? If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you: which Lodovicus Crocius says, is the mea­sure, and essential property of the least degree of true faith; if you love not one another, you are not disciples of Christ.

Publick wars and private quarrels usually pretend the Reformation of the Church, Saints Rest p. 551. the vindicating of the Truth, and the welfare of Souls; but they as usually prove in the issue, the greatest means to the overthrow of all. It is as natural for both wars and private contentions to produce errors, schisms, contempt of Magistracy, Mi­nistry, and Ordinances, as it is for a dead Carrion to breed worms and vermine. Believe it from one, that hath too many years experience of it; it is as hard a thing to maintain even in your people, a sound understanding, a tender Conscience, a lively, gracious, heavenly frame of spirit, and an up­right life in a way of war and conten­tion, as to keep your Candle lighted [Page 205] in the greatest storms, or under the waters. The like I may say of per­verse and fierce disputings about the circumstantials of discipline, or other questions, that are far from the foun­dation; they oftner lose the truth than find it. Wo to those Ministers, that make unnecessary divisions, and parties among the people, that so they may get themselves a name, and be cryed up by many followers. The way to prosper your labours is to quench all flames of contention, to your power. Study the peace and unity of your Congregations, keep out all occasions of divisions, especi­ally the doctrine of Separation, and popular Church-Government, the ap­parent Seminary of faction, and per­petual contentions. If once the peo­ple be taught, that it belongs to them to govern themselves, and those the Scripture calleth their Guides and Rulers, we shall have mad work. They that would pluck up the hedge of Go­vernment, as if the vineyard could not be fruitful, except it lay waste, to the pleasure of all the beasts of the [Page 206] forest, are like the pond, that grudg­ed at the banks and damm, and thought it injurious to be restrained of its liberty, and therefore com­bined with the winds, to raise a tem­pest, and so assault and beat down the banks in their rage; and now where is that peaceable association of waters? We feel now, how those are mistaken that thought the way for the Churches unity, was to dig up the banks and let all loose, that every man in Religion might do what he list.

They are, p. 666. usually, men least ac­quainted with a heavenly life, who are the violent disputers about the circumstantials of Religion. As the body doth languish in consuming Fe­vers, when the native heat abates within, and unnatural heat inflaming the external parts succeeds: so when the zeal of a Christian doth leave the internals of Religion, and fly to ceremonials, externals, or inferior things, the Soul must needs consume and languish.

Of Conformity.

For Conformity, p. 55. though to Ministers it be another thing, by reason of the new impositions, than it was to our Predecessors; yet to the People, Con­formity is the same, if not easier, (e­specially to them that I now speak to:) for it is the Liturgy, Ceremonies, and Ministry, that most alienate them. And the Liturgy is a little amended, as to them, by the change of the tran­slation, and some little words, and by some longer Prayers; and the Cere­monies are the same; and thirty years ago, there were many bare reading, not preaching Ministers, for one that is now. Therefore our case of Sepa­ration being the same as of old, I take it to be fully confuted, by the Ancient Non-conformists: and I have so great a veneration for the worthy Names, much more an estimation of the rea­sonings, of Mr. Cartwright, Egerton, Hildersham, Dod, Amesius, Parker, Baines, Brightman, Ball, Bradshaw, Paget, Lang­ley, Nicols, Herring, &c. that I shall not [Page 208] think, they knew not why they chose this subject, and wrote more against Separation, than the Conformists did. I am very glad that the pious Lectures of Mr. Hildersham, Mr. R. Rogers, and such old Non-conformists, are in so good esteem among good People, where they will read them, urging the People, not only against Separa­tion, but to come to the very begin­ning of the publick Worship, and pre­ferring it before their private duties.

When I think what holy Learned Men the old Conformists were, p. 57. my heart riseth against the thoughts of se­parating from them. If I had come to their Churches, when they used the Common Prayer, and administred the Sacrament, could I have departed and said, It is not lawful for any Chri­stian here to communicate with you? What! to such Men, as Mr. Bolton, Whateley, Fenner, Dent, Crook, Dike, Stock, Smith, Dr. Preston, Sibbs, Stough­ton, Taylor, and abundance other such? yea such as Bishop Jewel, Grindal, Hall, Potter, Davenant, Carleton, &c. Dr. Field, Smith, Jo. White, Willet, &c. yea [Page 209] and the Martyrs too? as Cranmer, Rid­ley, Hooper himself, Farrar, Bradford, Fillpot, Sanders, &c. Could I separate from all these on the Reasons now in question? Yea Calvin himself and the Churches of his way were all separa­ted from by the Separatists of their times.

And though ministerial Conformity is now much altered, p. 12, 13. (as to ingage­ments) many (of the Assembly of Di­vines) that are yet living, do conform again; nor would I shun communion with the Reverend members of that Assembly, Twiss, Gataker, Whitaker, and the rest, if again they used the Litur­gy among us. And if the old Con­formists, such as Bolton, &c. were alive, and used now the same Liturgy and Ceremonies as they did then, (which was worse than now) I could not think their communion in Prayer and Sacraments, unlawful, nor censure that man as injurious to the Church, who should write to perswade others, not to separate from them.

Read over some of the old Non-con­formists Books against Separation, Defense▪ p. 89. as [Page 210] Mr. Jacobs, the Independent, against Johnson, and Mr. Bradshaw, and Mr. Ga­taker's defence against Cann, Mr. Gifford, Darrell, Paget, &c. and fullest of all, (at the beginning of our troubles) Mr. John Ball in three Books: In these you will find the same objections answered, or more, and greater. And I profess my judgment, That our ordinary boast­ers, that think they know more in this controversie than the old Non-confor­mists did, as far as I am able to discern, are as far below them almost as they are below either Chamier, Sadeel, Whi­taker, or such other in dealing with a Papist.

Objections Answered.

But what if there be gross and scanda­lous sinners are members of the Church? Christian Directory, p. 747. Answ. If you be wanting in your duty to reform it, it is your sin; but if bare presence made their sin to be ours, it would also make all the sins of the As­sembly ours.

But what if they are sins committed in the open Assembly, even by the Minister [Page 211] himself in his praying, preaching, and o­ther administrations? Answ. 1. A Mi­nisters personal faults may damn him­self, and must be matter of lamentati­on to the Church, who ought to do their best to reform them, or get better, by any lawful means; But in case they cannot, his sin is none of theirs, nor doth it make his administration null, or ineffectual, nor will it allow you to separate from the Worship which he administreth.—You may not separate from him, unless you can prove him, or his ministry, utterly intolerable, by such faults as these: 1. An utter in­sufficiency in knowledge, or utterance, for the necessary parts of the ministe­rial work: As if he be not able to teach the necessary points of Christian Reli­gion, nor to administer the Sacraments, and other parts of publick Worship. 2. If he set himself to oppose the ends of his Ministry, and preach down god­liness, or any part of it, that is necessary to Salvation: Or be a Preacher of he­resie, preaching up any damning error, or preaching down any necessary, sa­ving truth. 3. If he so deprave the [Page 212] publick Worship, as to destroy the sub­stance of it, as in putting up blasphemy for prayer or praise, or commit idola­try, or set up new Sacraments, or im­pose any actual sin on the People.

But there are other ministerial faults, See Christ. Direct. p. 606. which warrant not our Separation; as 1. Some tolerable errors of judgment, or envy, and pettish opposition to o­thers, Phil. 1. 15. 2. It is not unlaw­ful to join with a Minister, that hath many defects in his ministration, or manner of Worship; as if he preach with some ignorance, disorder, unfit expressions, or gestures, and the like in Prayer and Sacraments. 3. It is not unlawful to join with a Minister, that hath some material error or untruth in preaching or praying, so be it we be not called to approve it, and so it be not pernicious and destructive to the ends of his ministry. If we run away from all that vent any untruth or mistake in publick or private worship, we shall scarce know, what Church or Person we may hold communion with. For 1. A small sin may no more be done or owned, than a greater. 2. And then [Page 213] another man's weakness, may disob­lige me, and discharge me from my duty.

Of Subscription with Assent and consent, particularly concerning Infants bapti­zed.

Q. 152. Is it lawful to subscribe or pro­fess full assent and consent to any religious books, Christ. Di­rect. p. 902. beside the Bible, seeing all are fal­lible? 3. Answ. It is lawful to profess or subscribe our assent and consent to any humane writing, which we judge to be true and good, according to the measure of its truth and goodness. As if Church-confessions, that are sound, be offered us, for our consent, we may say, or subscribe, I hold all the Doctrine in this book to be true and good.

Q. 35. Is it certain by the Word of God, p. 807. that all Infants baptized, and dy­ing before actual sin, are undoubtedly sa­ved? Answ. I think that all the chil­dren of true Christians do by baptism receive a publick investiture, p. 810. by God's appointment, into a state of remission, adoption, and right to salvation, at pre­sent; [Page 214] sent; though I dare not say, I am un­doubtedly certain of it.—But I say, as the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. That be­lieving Parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children, that dye in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble them­selves with fears about it. For if such Infants were admitted to outward pri­viledges only, Ibid. then (which is my 2d. Reason) we have no promise, or cer­tainty or ground of Faith for the par­don and salvation of any individual Infants in the World: and if there be no promise, there is no faith of it, nor no baptism to seal it, and so we make Antipaedobaptism unavoidable.

Whereas some mis-interpret the words of the old Rubrick of Confir­mation in the English Liturgy, p. 812. as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they have right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectifie that mistake: [And that no man shall think any detriment shall come to children by de­ferring of their confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by Gods word, that children being baptized have all [Page 215] things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.] where it is plain, they mean, they have all things necessary ex parte Ecclesiae, or all Gods applying Ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, suppo­sing, they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part: which is but what the Ancients were wont to say of the baptized adult; but they never meant, that the infidel and impenitent were in a state of life, because he was baptized, but that all that truly consent to the Covenant, and signifie this by being baptized are saved. So the Church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying confirmation; but it never said, that they received no detriment by their Parents or Responses infideli­ty or Hypocrisie, or by their want of true right, coram Deo, to be baptized.

Q. 39. What is the true meaning of Sponsors or Godfathers, P. 814. and is it law­ful to make use of them? Answ. My Opinion is, that they did both wit­ness the probability of the Parents fi­delity, and also promised, that if they [Page 216] should either Apostatize, or dye, they would see, p. 815. that the children were piously educated. If you take them, but as the ancient Churches did, for such as do attest the Parents fidelity, (in their perswasion) and do promise, first, to mind you of your duty, and next to take care of their pious educa­tion, if you die; I know no reason you have to scruple this much; yea more, it is in your power to agree with the Godfathers, that they shall represent your own persons, and speak and promise what they do, as your deputies, only in your names: and what have you against this? Object. When the Churchmen mean another thing, this is but to juggle with the world. Answ. How can you prove, that the authority, that made, or imposed the Liturgy, meant any other thing? 2. If the Imposers had meant ill, in a thing that may be done well, you may discharge your Conscience, by doing it well, and making a sufficient profession of your better sense.

Q. 42. How is the Holy Ghost given to Infants in Baptism? whether all the [Page 217] children of true Christians have inward sanctifying grace, [...]. &c. Ans. My judgment agreeth more in this with Davenant's, than any others; saving that he doth not appropriate the benefits of Bap­tism to the children of true Believers, so much as I do. And though, by a Letter impleading Davenant's cause, I was the occasion of printing good Mr. Gataker's Answer to him; yet I am still most inclined to his judgment, Not, that all the baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true Christi­ans are pardoned, justifyed, adopted, and have a title to the spirit, and Sal­vation. And we must choose great inconveniences, if this opinion be for­saken, viz. that all infants must be taken to be out of Covenant with God, and to have no promise of Sal­vation; whereas, surely, the law of Grace, as well as the Covenant of works included all the seed in their capacity.

Of the Responses.

Q. 83. May the people bear a vocal part in Worship, and do any more than say Amen? P. 856. Answ. The people bear an equal part in singing the Psalms, which are prayer, and praise, and instructi­on: if they may do so in the Psalms in metre, there can be no reason given, but they may lawfully do so in Psalms in Prose; for saying them, and singing them, are but modes of utterance, and the Ancient singing was liker our Saying, than our tunes. The Primitive Christians were so full of zeal, and love to Christ, that they would have taken it for an injury, and a quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly restrained from bearing their part in the praises of the Church. The use of the tongue keepeth awake the mind, and stirreth up God's gra­ces, in his servants. It was the decay of zeal in the people, that first shut out the Responses: while they kept up the ancient zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Wor­ship. [Page 219] And this was seconded by the pride and usurpation of the Priests thereupon; who thought the people of God too prophane to speak in the Assemblies, and meddle so much with holy things. Yet the very remem­brance of former zeal caused most Churches to retain many of the words of their predecessors, even when they lost the life and spirit which should animate them; and so the same words came into the Liturgies, and were used by too many, customarily, and in formality, which their Ancestors had used in the fervour of their Souls. And if it were not, that a dead-hearted, formal people, by speaking the Respon­ses carelesly and hypocritically, do bring them into disgrace with many, that see the necessity of seriousness, I think, few good people would be against them now.—It is here the duty of every Christian, to labour to restore the life and spirit to the words, that they may again be used in a se­rious and holy manner, as heretofore. Exod. 19. 8. In as solemn an Assembly as any of ours, when God gave Moses [Page 220] a form of words to preach to the peo­ple, all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do. So Exod. 24. 3. and Deuter. 5. 27. which God approved of, v. 28, 29. See Levit. 9. 24. 2 Kings 23. 2, 3. 1 Chron. 1. 35, 36. P. 857. It is a command, Ps. 67. 3, 5. Let all the people praise thee, O God, &c. And he that will limit this to single persons, or say that it must not be, vocally, in the Church, or, it must be in metre only, and never in prose, must prove it, lest he be proved one, that addeth to Gods word.

Q. 84. Is it not a Sin for our Clerks, to make themselves the mouth of the people? P. 857. Answ. The Clerks are not appointed to be the mouth of the peo­ple, but each Clerk is one of the peo­ple, commanded to do that which all should do, lest it should be wholly left undone. If all the congregation will speak all that the Clerk doth, it will answer the primary desire of the Church Governors who bid the people do it.

Of Bowing at the name Jesus—And of Priests, Altars, &c.

Q. 86. Is it lawful to bow at the name of Jesus? P. 85 [...]. Answ. That we may law­fully express our reverence, when the names ( God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, &c.) are uttered, I have met with few Christians who deny; nor know I any reason to deny it. If I live and joyn in a Church where it is com­manded, and peremptorily urged, to bow at the name of Jesus, and where my not doing it, would be divisive, scandalous, or offensive; I will bow at the name of God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, Lord, &c. My judgment of standing at the Gospel, and kneeling at the Decalogue, 859. (when it is com­manded) is the same.

Q. 122. May the name, Priests, Sa­crifice and Altars, be lawfully used? Answ. 882. The New Testament useth all the Greek names, which we translate Priests, Sacrifice and Altars; and our translation is not intolerable, if Priest come from Presbyter (I need not [Page 222] prove that) if it do not, yet all Mini­sters are subordinate to Christ in his Priestly office. And the word Sacri­fice is used of us, and our offered Wor­ship, 1 Pet. 2. 5. Hebr. 13. 15, 16. Phil. 4. 18. Eph. 5. 2. Ro. 12. 1. And Hebr. 13. 10. saith we have an Altar, which word is frequently used in the Revelations, in relation to Gospel­times. We must not therefore be quarrelsome against the bare names, unless they be abused to some ill use. The Ancient Fathers and Churches did ever use all these words so fami­liarly, without any question or scruple raised by the Orthodox, or Hereticks about them, that we should be wary, how we condemn these words, lest we give advantage to the Papists to tell their followers, that all antiquity is on their side. The Lords Supper is by Protestants truly called a Comme­morative Sacrifice.

Of the Communion table, &c.

Qu. 123. May the Communion Tables be turned Altarwise? P. 882. and railed in? and [Page 223] is it lawful to come up to the rails to com­municate? Answ. 1. God hath not given a particular command, or pro­hibition about these circumstances, but only general rules for edification, unity, decency and order. 2. They that do it out of a design to draw men to Popery, or to incourage men in it, do sin. 3. So do they, that rail in the Table, to signifie, that Lay-Christians must not come to it, but be kept at a distance. 4. But where there are no such ends, but only to imitate the An­cients, that did thus, and to shew re­verence to the Table on the account of the Sacrament, by keeping away dogs, keeping boys from sitting on it; and the professed doctrine of the Church condemneth Transubstantia­tion, the real corporal-presence, &c. in this case Christians should take these, for such as they are, indifferent things, and not censure or condemn each other for them. 5. And to com­municate, is not only lawful in this case, where we cannot prove, that the Minister sinneth, but even, when we suspect an ill design in him, which [Page 224] we cannot prove, yea, or when we can prove that his personal interpreta­tion of the place, name, scituation; and rail, is unsound; for we assemble there to communicate in, and accord­ing to the professed doctrine of Christi­anity, and the Churches, and our own open profession, and not after every private opinion, and error of the Minister.

Of the Creed.

Qu. 139. What is the use and autho­rity of the Creed? is it of the Apostles framing or not? P. 896. Answ. Its use is, to be a plain explication of the Faith professed in the baptismal covenant; And for the satisfaction of the Church, that men indeed understand what they did in Baptism, and professed to believe. 2. It is the Word of God, as to the matter of it, whatever it be as to the order, or composition of the words. 3. It is not to be doubted, but the Apostles did use a Creed com­monly in their days, which was the same with that, now called the [Page 225] Apostles, and the Nicene, in the main. 4. And it is easily probable, that Christ composed a Creed, when he made his Covenant, and instituted baptism, Matth. 28. 19. 5. That the Apostles did cause the baptizable; to understand the three Articles of Christs own Creed and Covenant, and used many explicatory words to make them understand it. 6. It is more than probable, that the matter opened by them, was still the same when the words were not the same. 7. And it is also more than probable, that they did not needlesly vary the words, lest it should teach men to vary the matter. And lastly, no doubt but this practice of the Apostles was imi­tated by the Churches, and that thus the essentials of Religion were by the tradition of the Creed, and Baptism, delivered by themselves, as far as Christianity went, long before any book of the New Testament was written. And the following Churches, using the same Creed; might so far well call it the Apostles Creed.

Of the Apocrypha.

Qu. 150. Is it lawful to read the Apocrypha or Homilies? P. 901. Answ. It is lawful, so be it they be sound doctrine, and fitted to the peoples edification. 2. So be it they be not read scanda­lously, without sufficient differencing them from God's book. 3. So they be not read to exclude, or hinder the reading of the Scriptures, or other necessary Church duty. 4. So they be not read to keep up an ignorant, lazy Ministry, that can, or will do no better. 5. And especially, if Au­thority command it, and the Churches agreement require it.

Of the Oath of Canonical Obedience.

Qu. 153. May we lawfully swear obedience, in all things lawful and honest, either to Usurpers, or to our lawful Pastors? 902. Answ. If the King shall command us, it is lawful. So the old Nonconformists, who thought the English Prelacy an unlawful office, [Page 227] yet maintained that it is lawful to take the Oath of Canonical obedience, because they thought it was imposed by the King, and Laws, and that we swear to them, not as Officers claim­ing a divine right in the spiritual Go­vernment, but as Ordinaries or Offi­cers, made by the King, according to the Oath of Supremacy.

Of the Holiness of Churches.

Qu. 170. Are Temples, Fonts, Utensils, Church-lands, much more Ministers holy? and what reverence is due to them, as Holy? P. 915. Answ. Temples, Utensils, Lands, &c. devoted, and lawfully se­parated by man, for holy uses, are holy, as justly related to God by that lawful separation. Ministers are more holy than Temples, Lands, or Utensils, as being nearlier related to holy things; and things separated by God, are more holy than those justly separated by man. And so of Days, every thing should be reverenced according to the measure of its holiness: And this ex­pressed by such signs, gestures, actions, [Page 228] as are fittest to honour God, to whom they are related. And so to be unco­vered in Church, and use reverent carriage and gestures there, doth tend to preserve due reverence to God, and to his Worship, 1 Cor. 16. 20.

Of the power of the Magistrate in Cir­cumstantials.

Those modes or circumstances of Worship, Five Disp. p. 361. which are necessary in ge­nere, but left undetermined by God, in specie, are left by God to humane, prudential determination, (else an im­possibility should be necessary.) It is left to humane determination what Place the publick Assemblies shall be held in. p. 401. And to determine of the time, except where God hath determined al­ready, and what Utensils to imploy a­bout the publick Worship. Some de­cent Habit is necessary; p. 409. either the Ma­gistrate, or the Minister, or associated Pastors must determine what. I think, neither Magistrate, nor Synod, should do more than hinder indecency; if they do, and tye all to one habit (and [Page 229] suppose it were an indecent habit) yet this is but an imprudent use of power, it is a thing within the Magistrates reach, he doth not an aliene work, but his own work amiss, and therefore the thing in it self being lawful, I would obey him, and use that garment, if I could not be dispensed with. Yea though, secondarily, the whiteness be to signifie purity, and so it be made a teaching sign, yet would I obey. And I see no reason to scruple the lawful­ness of the Ring in marriage; p. 411. for, though the Papists make a Sacrament of marriage, yet we have no reason to take it for any Ordinance of Divine Worship, more than the solemnizing a contract between a Prince and People. All things are sanctified and pure to the pure. And, for Organs or other Instruments of musick in God's wor­ship, 412. they being a help, partly natural, and partly artificial to the exhilarating the Spirits, for the praise of God, I know no argument to prove them sim­ply unlawful, but what would prove a Cup of Wine unlawful, or the tune and metre and melody of singing un­lawful. Christian Direct. p. 884.

Of Holy-days.

Nor do I scruple to keep a day in re­membrance of any eminent Servant of Christ, Five Disp. p. 412. or Martyr, to praise God for their Doctrine or Example, and honor their memorial. I am resolved, if I live where such Holy-days, 416. (Christ's Nativity, Circumcision, Fasting, Trans­figuration, ascension, and such like) are observed, to censure no man for obser­ving them. p. 117. But, if I lived under a go­vernment, that peremptorily comman­ded it, See Chri­stian Di­rectory. p. 885. I would observe the outward rest of such a Holy-day, and I would preach on it, and join with the Assem­blies in God's Worship, yea I would thus observe the day, rather than of­fend a weak Brother, or hinder any man's salvation; much more rather than I would make any division in the Church.

Of the Cross in Baptism.

I dare not peremptorily say, p. 418. that the Cross in Baptism is unlawful; nor will [Page 231] I condemn Ancients or Moderns that use it, nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it, more than my own forbearance will make. I pre­sume not to censure them that judge it lawful, but only give the reasons that make me doubt, and rather think it to be unlawful, though still with a suspi­cion of my own understanding.

Of Ceremonies.

Certain things commonly called Ce­remonies, p. 398. may lawfully be used in the Church, upon Humane imposition; and when it is not against the Law of God, no Person should disobey the com­mands of their lawful Governors in such things. It may be very sinful to command some Ceremonies, which may lawfully, yea must in duty be used, by the Subject, when they are commanded.

Mr. Baxter's judgment concerning Confirmation agreeable to the practice of the Church of England, Of Confir­mation, p. 207, 220, 230. may be seen in a particular Treatise on that Sub­ject.

Of Conventicles.

Q. 172. Are all religious and private Meetings forbidden by Rulers, Christ. Direct. p. 916. unlawful Coventicles? Answ. 1. It is more to the Honor of the Church, and of Reli­gion, and of God, and more to our safe­ty and edification, to have God's wor­ship performed solemnly, publickly, and in great Assemblies, than in a corner, secretly and with few. 2. It is a great mercy, where Rulers allow the Church such publick Worship. 3. Caeteris pa­ribus, all Christians should prefer such publick Worship before private, and no private Meetings should be kept up, which are opposite, or prejudicial to such publick Meetings. And therefore, if such Meetings, (or any that are un­necessary, to the ends of the Ministry, the service of God, and good of Souls) be forbidden by lawful Rulers, they must be forborn. And it must be re­membred, that Rulers, that are Infidels, Papists, Hereticks, or Persecutors, that restrain Church meetings, to the inju­ry of mens Souls, must be distinguish­ed [Page 233] from pious Princes, that only re­strain Hereticks, and real Schismaticks, for the Churches good. 2. And that times of heresie and schism may make private meetings more dangerous, than quiet times. And so even the Scottish Church forbad private meetings, in the Separatists days of late. And when they do more hurt than good, and are justly forbidden, no doubt, in that case, it is a duty to obey, and to for­bear them.

It is a dangerous thing, Christ. Direct. p. 49. to be insna­red in a Sect, it will, before you are aware, possess you with a seaverish, sinful zeal for the Opinions, and inter­est of that Sect; it will make you bold, in bitter invectives and censures, a­gainst those that differ from you; it will corrupt your Church-communion, and fill your very Prayers with parti­ality, and humane passions; it will se­cretly bring malice, under the name of Zeal, into your minds and words. In a word, it is a secret, but deadly enemy to Christian love and peace. Let them that are wiser, and more Orthodox, and godly than others, shew (as the Holy [Page 234] Ghost directeth them, James 3. 13, 14, &c.) out of a good conversation their works with meekness of wisdom: But if ye have bitter envying, (or zeal) and strife in your hearts, Glory not, and lye not a­gainst the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, De­vilish.

Of Communion in the Lords Supper.

Qu. 2. May we communicate with unworthy persons? Christian Director. p. 616. Answ. It is your duty to communicate with that Church which hath a true Pastor, and where the denominating part of the members are capable of Church-com­munion, though there may some In­fidels, or Heathen, or uncapable Per­sons violently intrude, or scandalous Persons are admitted, through the neglect of Discipline, in case you have not your choice to hold personal com­munion with a better Church, and in case also you be not guilty of the cor­ruption, but by seasonable and modest professing your dissent, do clear your self of the guilt of such intrusion and corruption.

[Page 235] Qu. 3. But what if I cannot commu­nicate, unless I conform to an imposed ge­sture, as kneeling? Answ. I never yet heard any thing to prove kneeling un­lawful; there is no Word of God, for, or against, any gesture. Christ's ex­ample cannot be proved to oblige us in this, and his gesture was not such a sitting as ours. The nature of the Or­dinance is mixt. And if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees, I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Sealed Pardon from Christ, by his Ambassador, upon our Knees. Five Disp. p. 411. As for this Ceremony of kneeling at the Sacrament especially, since the Rubrick is inserted, which disclaimeth, both all Bread-worship, and the bodily real-presence, my judg­ment was ever for it. God having made some gesture necessary, and con­fined us to none, but left it to humane determination, I shall submit to Magi­strates, in their proper work. I am not sure, that Christ intended the ex­ample of himself in this as obligatory; but I am sure, Defense, p. 177. he hath commanded me obedience, and peace. Mr. Perkins was [Page 236] for kneeling, and Mr. Baines in his Let­ters writes for it, and answers obje­ctions against it.

Qu. 4. But what if I cannot commu­nicate, Christ. Direct. p. 607. but according to the administration of the Common-prayer book? Answ. 1. That it is not unlawful to receive ac­cording to the administration of the Common-prayer book, because it is a form, needs no proof to any, that is ju­dicious. 2. Nor yet, for any evil in this particular form, for in this part the Common-prayer is generally ap­proved. 3. Nor yet, because it is im­posed; for a command maketh not that unlawful to us, which is lawful before, but it maketh many things lawful, and duties, that else would have been un­lawful accidentally. 4. And the inten­tions of the Commanders we have lit­tle to do with. And for the conse­quents, they must be weighed on both sides, and the consequents of our refu­sal will not be found light. In general, I must here tell the People of God, in the bitter sorrow of my Soul, that at last it is time for them to discern that temptation, that hath in all ages of the [Page 237] Church almost, made this Sacrament of our union, to be the grand occasion or instrument of our divisions. And that, true humility, and acquaintance with our selves, and love to Christ, and one another, would shew some men that it was but their pride and preju­dice, and ignorance, that made them think so heinously of other mens man­ner of worship. And that, on all sides, among true Christians, the manner of their worship is not so odious, as preju­dice, and faction, and partiality repre­senteth it. And that God accepteth that, which they reject. And they should see, how the Devil hath un­done the common People, by this means, by teaching them every one to expect salvation for being of that Party which he taketh to be the right Church, and for worshipping in that manner which he, and his Party, think­eth best. And so wonderful a thing is prejudice, that every Party, by this, is brought to think that ridiculous and vile, which the other party accounteth best. Christian Direct. p. 48. But to magnifie any one Church or Party, so as to deny due love and [Page 238] communion to the rest, is Schism. To limit all the Church to your party, and deny all, or any of the rest, to be Chri­stians, and parts of the Universal Church, is Schism, by a dangerous breach of Charity. It is Schism also, to condemn unjustly any particular Church, as no Church. And it is Schism, to withdraw your bodily com­munion from a Church that you were bound to hold communion with, upon a false supposition that it is no Church, or is not lawfully to be communicated with. And it is Schism, to make Di­visions or Parties in a Church, though you divide not from that Church. The holiness of the Party that men adhere to, p. 49. is made a pretence to ex­cuse Schism; but this must make but a gradual difference in our esteem and love to some Christians above others. If really they are most holy, I must love them most, and labour to be as holy as they: But I must not there­fore, unjustly deny communion, or due respect to other Christians, that are less holy, nor cleave to them as a Sect, or divided Party, whom I esteem [Page 239] most holy. For the holiest are most Charitable, and most against the divi­sions among Christians, and tenderest of their unity and peace. Own the best, as best, but none, as a di­vided Sect; espouse not their divi­ding interest; confine not your espe­cial love to a party, but extend it to all the members of Christ. Deny not local communion when there is occa­sion for it, to any Church, that hath the Substance of true worship, and forceth you not to sin. Love them as true Christians, and Churches, even when they drive you from their Com­munion. Baxter of Confirma­tion, p. 3. I have found that Refor­mation is to be accomplished more by restoration of Ordinances and admini­strations to their primitive nature and use, than by utter abolition.

Of the Liturgy.

My Opinion as to Liturgy in gene­ral, Dispute the 4th. of Church Govern­ment. p. 358. is, 1. That a stinted Liturgy is in it self lawful. 2. That a stinted Liturgy in some parts of Publick Ser­vice is necessary. 3. In the parts [Page 240] where it is not necessary, it may not only be submitted to, but desired, when the peace of the Church re­quireth it. p. 359. 4. It is not of such ne­cessity to take the matter, and words out of the Holy Scriptures, but that we may joyn in a Liturgy, See Christi­an Direct. p. 847. or use it, if the form of words be not from Scri­pture. This is thus proved: 1. That which is not directly, or consequen­tially forbidden by God, remaineth lawful. A stinted Liturgy is not di­rectly, or consequentially forbidden of God: Therefore it remaineth law­ful. The major is undoubted, because nothing but a prohibition can make a thing unlawful; where there is no Law, there is no transgression. Yet I have heard very reverend men answer this, That it is enough that it is not commanded, though not forbidden, which is plainly to deny both Scri­pture and Civil principles. Now for the Minor, That a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden, we need no other proof, than that no prohibition can be pro­duced. p. 36 [...].

[Page 241] If it be lawful for the people to use a stinted form of words, p. 364. in Publick prayer, then is it in it self lawful for the Pastors: But it is lawful for the people, &c. for the Pastors prayer (which they must pray over with him, and not only hear it) is a stinted form to them, even as much as if he had learnt it out of a book.

It is lawful to use a form in preach­ing, therefore a stinted Liturgy is lawful. 1. Because preaching is a part of that Liturgy. 2. Because the reason is the same for prayer as for that in the main.

That which hath been the practice of the Church in Scripture times and down to this day, and is yet the practice of almost all the Churches of Christ on earth, is not like to be un­lawful: But such is the use of some stinted forms, &c.

I have shewed, that it is was so in the Jewish Church. That it hath been of ancient use in the Church, since Christ, and at this day in Africk, Asia, Europe, and the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Geneva, &c. is so [Page 242] well known that I need not stand to prove it: and those few that seem to disuse it, do yet use it in Psalms and other parts of worship. As for the Common-prayer it self, I never re­jected it, because it was a form; or thought it simply unlawful, because it was such a form; but have made use of it, and would do again in the like case.

Object. But if a faulty manner of praying be prescribed, Christian Directory, p. 748. and imposed by a law, I know it before-hand and am guilty of it. Answ. If the thing be sinful, either it is, 1. because the prayers are defective and faulty; or, 2. because they are imposed, or, 3. because you knew the fault before-hand: but none of these can prove your joyning with them sinful. 1. Not because they are faulty; for you may joyn with as faulty prayers (you confess) if not imposed. 2. Not because imposed, for that is an extenuation, and not an ag­gravation. See Christi­an Direct. p. 848. For (1.) it proveth the Minister less voluntary of the two, than those are that do it without any command, through the error of their [Page 243] own judgments. (2.) Because (though lawful things oft become un­lawful when Superiors forbid them, yet) no reason can be given, why a lawful thing should become unlawful, because a lawful Superior doth com­mand it; else Superiors might take away all our Christian liberty, and make all things unlawful to us, by commanding them. You would take it for a wild conceit in your children or servants, if they say, when you bid them learn a Catechism, or use a form of prayer, It was lawful for us to do it till you commanded us, but because you bid us do it, it is unlaw­ful. If it be a duty to obey Gover­nors in all lawful things, then it is not a sin to obey them. 3. It is not your knowing before hand, that makes it unlawful: for 1. I know in gene­ral before-hand, that all imperfect men will do imperfectly: and though I know not the particular, that maketh it never the lawfuller, if foreknow­ledge it self did make it unlawful. 2. If you know that ( e.g.) an An­tinomian, or some mistaken Preacher, [Page 244] would constantly drop some words for his error, in praying or preaching, that will not make it unlawful in your own judgment, for you to joyn (if it be not a flat heresie.) 3. It is another mans error or fault that you foreknow, and not your own. 4. God himself doth as an universal cause of nature concur with men in those acts which he foreknoweth they will sin­fully do, yet is not the Author or ap­prover of the sin.

We (the Commissioners 1663.) all thought a Liturgy lawful, Defence, p. 38. and divers learned and reverend Nonconformists of London met to consider how far it was their duty or lawful to communi­cate with the Parish Churches, where they lived, in the Liturgy and Sacra­ment, and I proved four propositions: 1. That it is lawful to use a form; 2. That it is lawful to joyn with some Parish Churches in the use of the Li­turgy; 3. That it is lawful to joyn with some Parish Churches in the Lords Supper; 4. That it is to some a duty to joyn with some Parish Churches three times a year in the [Page 245] Lords Supper: and none of the Bre­thren seemed to dissent, but took the reasons to be valid.

Were I in Armenia, p. 176. Abassia, or among the Greeks, I would joyn in a much more defective form than our Liturgy, rather than none. And this is the judgment of many New-Eng­land Ministers, conform to the old Non-conformists, who did some of them read the Common-Prayer, and the most of them judged it law­ful to joyn in it, or else Mr. Hilder­sham, Mr. Rich. Rogers, &c. would not write so earnestly for coming to the beginning, and preferring it be­fore all private duties. p. 54. And truly I am not able to bear the thoughts of separating from almost all Christs Churches upon earth; but he that se­parates from one, or many, upon a reason common to almost all, doth virtually separate from almost all; and he that separates from all among us upon the account of the unlawful­ness of our Liturgy, and the badness of our Ministry, doth separate from them upon a reason common to almost [Page 246] all, or the far greatest part, as I con­ceive.

Those forms of Liturgy which now are most distasted, Cure of Divisions, p 200. were brought in by the most zealous religious people at the first: the many short invoca­tions, versicles and responses, which the people use, were brought in when the Souls of the faithful did abound with zeal▪ and in holy fervors break out in such expressions, and could not well endure to be bare Auditors & not vocally to bear their part in the praises of God and prayers of the Church.

I have shewed at large, p. 174. How far God hath given men power to pre­scribe, and impose forms for others, and commanded others to obey them: when Christ said, When ye pray, say, Our Father, p. 179. &c. he bound the Disci­ples in duty to do as he bid them: How forms may be imposed publickly on the congregations of Believers, p. 185. and on the Ministers, yea though the forms imposed be worse than the exer­cise of their own gifts, (though among us no man be forbidden to use his own gifts in the Pulpit.) The Pharisees [Page 247] long Liturgy (it is like) was in many things worse than ours; yet Christ and his Apostles often joyned with them, and never condemned them. I shall now only add that the Lord's prayer is a form directed to God as in the third person, Five Dis­put p. 363. and not to man only as a directory for prayer in the Second Person: it is not, Pray to God your Fa­ther in heaven that his name may be Hallowed, his Kingdom come, &c. But, Our Father which art in heaven, hallow­ed be thy name, &c. And it seems by the disciples words that thus John taught his disciples to pray, Luke 11. 1. and we have in the Scripture the men­tion of many Set forms of Service to God, which therefore we may well use. And I desire the Reader again to Note, that though Prayer was cor­rupted by the Pharisees, yet Christ usually joyned in their Synagogues, Luke 14. 17. and never medled with our controversie about the lawfulness of Set forms. [This Mr. Baxter infers from Calvins note on Matth. 6. before the Preface to the Defence.]

Of Obedience to our Pastors.

We are indangered by divisions, principally because the self-conceited part of Religious people will not be ruled by their Pastors, Sacrileg. Deserting, p. 103. but must have their way, and will needs be rulers of the Church and them. But pleasing the ignorant Professors humors, is a sin that shews us to be too humane and carnal, and hath always sad effects at last. It is a high degree of pride for persons of ( ordinary) under­standings, p 101, 102. to conclude, that almost all Christs Chruches in the world for thirteen hundred years at least, have offered such worship to God, as that you are obliged to avoid it, and all their communion in it; and that almost all the Catholick Church on earth at this day is below your com­munion, for using forms. Mark, Is it not more of the women and appren­tices that are of this mind, than of old experienced Christians?

I think till we have better taught, Baxter against Crandon, p. 83. even our godly people, what credit [Page 249] and obedience is due to their teachers, and spiritual guides, the Church of England shall never have peace, or any good or established order. Cure of Divis. p. 393. We are broken for want of the knowledge of this truth; till this be known we shall never be well bound up and healed. The people of the new separation, so much rule their Ministers, that many of them have been forced to forsake their own judgments to comply with the violent.

Labour to maintain the Ordinances and Ministry in esteem. Saints Rest, p. 519.

The Church is bound to take many a man, Church Go­vernment, p. 131. as a true Minister to them, and receive the Ordinances from him, in faith and expectation of blessing, upon promise, who yet before God is a sin­ful invader and usurper of the Ministry, and shall be condemned for it. (How much more then to respect their law­ful Bishops and Pastors?)

For Lay-Elders, 5. Disput. Preface, p. 4. As far as I under­stand, the greatest part, if not three for one of the English Ministers, are of this mind, That unordained Elders wanting power to preach or admini­ster [Page 250] Sacraments, are not Officers in the Church of God's appointment: of this number I am one, and Mr. Vines was another.

Of Bishops.

As for Bishops ( viz.) a Diocesan, Five Disp. p. 20. ru­ling all the Presbyters, but leaving the Presbyters to rule the People, and con­sequently taking to himself the sole, or chief power of Ordination, but leaving censures and absolution to them, ex­cept in case of Appeal to himself; I must needs say that this sort of Episco­pacy is very ancient, and hath been for many Ages of very common re­ception through a great part of the Church—And if I lived in a place, where this government were establish­ed, and managed for God, I would submit thereto, and live peaceably un­der it, and do nothing to the distur­bance, disgrace or discouragement of it. (You may see how far Mr. Vines and Mr. Baxter did agree in the notion of a Bishop over many Presbyters.) p. 352. Of which Grotius in his Commentary on [Page 251] the Acts, and particularly, chap. 17. saith, that as in every particular Syna­gogue, many of which were in some one City (in Jerusalem 480.) there was [...], Sigonius de Repub. Heb. l. 2. c. 8. such was the Pri­mitive Bishop. And doubtless the first Bishops were over the community of Presbyters, as Presbyters, in joynt re­lation to one Church or region; which region being upon the increase of be­lievers divided into more Churches, and in after-times, those Churches as­signed to particular men; yet he the Bishop, continued Bishop over them still. For that Mr. Bax­ter. you say, he had a ne­gative voice, that is more than ever I saw proved, or I think ever shall, for the first 200. Years; and yet I have laboured to enquire into it. That makes him Angelus Princeps, not Ange­lus Praeses, as Dr. Reinolds saith. Cal­vin denies that, and makes him Consul in Senatu, or as the Speaker in the House of Parliament, which, as I have heard that D. B. did say, was but to make him foreman of the Jury. As touching the introduction of ruling Elders, such as are modelled out by [Page 252] Parliament, my judgment is sufficient­ly known. I am of your judgment in the point, There should be such Elders, as have power to preach as well as rule. On this Mr. Baxter reflects, p. 353. Though Mr. Vines here yield not the negative voice to have been de fa­cto, in the first or second age, nor to be de Jure; yet he without any que­stion yielded to the stating of a Presi­dent, durante vitâ, if he prove not un­worthy, which was one point that I propounded to him; and I make no doubt, but he would have yielded to a voluntary consent of Presbyters, de facto, not to ordain without the Presi­dent. And the difficulties that are be­fore us, de facto, in setting up a Paro­chial Episcopacy, which he mention­eth, I have cleared already in these Pa­pers, shewing partly, that the thing is already existent, and partly how more fully to accomplish it.

The Instances which he gives, are in the Episcopacy of the Protestant Churches in Poland, from Adrian Re­genvolscius, Hist. Eccles. Sclavon. l. 3. p. 424. N. B. Whereas from the first re­formation [Page 253] of the Churches in the Pro­vince of the lesser Polonia, it hath been received by use and custome, that out of the Elders of all those ( Districtus) Divisions, which are 36. in Number, one Primate, or Chief, in Order, who is commonly called Superintendent of the Churches of lesser Poland, and doth preside over the Provincial Sy­nods, be chosen by the Authority, con­sent, and suffrage of the Provincial Sy­nod, and that he be inaugurated, and declared, (not by imposition of hands, to avoid the suspicion of Primacy, and the appearance of authority and po­wer over the other Elders) only by benediction, and fraternal Prayers, and by reading over the offices, which con­cern this function, and the prayers of the whole Synod, for the sake of govern­ment and good order in the Church of God, &c.

The other instance is of the Church­es of the Bohemian Confession, who have among the Pastors of the Chur­ches, their Conseniors and Seniors, and one President over all, related by the same Regenvolscius, p. 315. The El­ders [Page 254] or the Superintendents of the Bo­hemian and Moravian Churches, &c. are for the most part, chosen out of their Fellow-Elders, and are ordained and consecrated to the office of Seigniory by imposition of hands, and publick inau­guration, &c.

Those that treated with the Bishops, 1660. did yield to such an Episcopacy, Defence, p. 65. as the old Non-conformists would scarce generally have consented to, i. e. to Bishop Usher's model.

Episcopacy is not such an upstart thing, nor defended by such contem­ptible reasons, as that the controversie is like to dye with this age; undoubt­edly there will be a godly and learned Party for it, while the World endureth. And it is a numerous party: all the Greek Church, the Armenian, Syrian, Abassine, and all others, but a few of the Reformed. For Denmark, Sweden, part of Germany, and Transylvania have a Superintendency, as high as that I plead for. p. 11. If you know no god­ly persons of the Episcopal way, I do, and as my acquaintance increaseth, I know more and more, and some I take [Page 255] to be much better than my self, I will say a greater word, that I know those of them, whom I think as godly, hum­ble Ministers, as most of the Non-con­formists, whom I know. p. 12. and I believe, there are many hundred godly Ministers in the Church of England, and that their Churches are true Chur­ches. And I am confident, most of the Ministers in England would be content to yield to such an Episcopacy, as you may find in the published judgments of Bish. Hall, Usher, Dr. Forbes, Hods­worth, and others. Preface to the Five Disputations, p. 9.

Of Sacriledge.

Qu. 171. What is Sacriledge? Christ. Di­rect p. 916. Ans. It is a robbing God by the unjust alie­nation of Holy things. As deposing Kings, silencing true Ministers, the unjust alienating of Temples, Utensils, Lands, Days separated by God himself and justly consecrated by Man.

Mr. Vines his Letter to Mr. Baxter, p. 35. of the 5. Disput. concerning Sacriledge.

As for your Question about Sacri­ledge, I am very near you in the pre­sent Opinion. The point was never stated nor debated in the Isle of Wight; I did for my part decline the dispute, for I could not maintain the cause as on the Parliament side; And because, both I and others were unwilling, it was never brought to open debate. The Commissioners did argue it with the King, but they went upon grounds of Law and Polity, and it was only about Bishops Lands; for they then averred the continuance of Dean and Chapter Lands to the use of the Church. Some deny that there is any sin of Sacriledge under the Go­spel, and if there be any, they agree not in the definition. Some hold an Alienation of Church-goods, in case of Necessity, and then make the necessity, what, and as extensive, as they please. The most are of Opinion, that while [Page 257] the Church lyes so unprovided for, the donations are not alienable, sine Sacri­legio. If there were a Surplusage above the competent maintenance, it were another matter. It is clear enough, the Donors wills are frustrated, and that their general intention, and the general use ( viz. the maintenance of God's Worship, and Ministers) should stand, though the particular use might be superstitious. I cited in my last Ser­mon before the Parliament a place out of Mr. Hildersham, on Psal. 51. touch­ing Sacriledge. It did not please. If his description of it be true, then you will still be of your own mind. I dare encourage no Purchasers, &c.

Mr. Baxter's advice to separating Bre­thren.

As to separation: Cure of Divis. p. 80. Be the backward­est to divide and separate, and do it not without a certain warrant, and extreme necessity; resolve with Augustine, I will not be the Chaff, and yet I will not go out of the Floor, though the Chaff be there. Never give over your [Page 258] just desire and endeavour for Reforma­tion, and yet as long as you can possi­bly avoid it. Forsake not the Church that you desire to reform; as Paul said to them, that were to forsake a ship­wrackt Vessel, If these abide not in the Ship, ye cannot be saved. Many a one, by unlawful flying and shifting for his own greater peace and safety, doth much more hazard his own and o­thers.

Of Raising Churches against Churches.

The interest of the Christian Prote­stant Religion in England, Defence, p. 36. must be much kept up by keeping up as much of truth, piety and reputation as is possible in the Parish-Churches. There­fore, —In Parishes where all may hear the Parish-Minister, Sacrilegi­ous desert­ing, p. 92. I would not have you, without necessity, to preach at the same hour of the day, but at some middle time, that you may not seem to vie with him for Auditors, nor to draw the People from him; but let them go with you to hear him, and af­ter come and hear you.

[Page 259] Do not meet together in opposition to the publick meeting, Saints Rest, p. 518. nor at the time of publick worship, nor yet to make a groundless schism, or to separate from the Church, whereof you are Mem­bers, nor to destroy the old, that you may gather a new Church out of its ruines, as long as it hath the Essenti­als, and there is hope of reforming it; nor yet would I have you forward to vent your own supposed gifts and parts in teaching, where there is no necessi­ty of it; nor as a separated Church, but as a part of the Church more diligent than the rest in redeeming time. Let all your private meet­ings be in subordination to the publick, and by the approbation and consent of your spiritual guides, remembring them which have the rule over you, Heb. 13. 7, 8, 9. And I beseech you Brethren, mark them which cause divisions and of­fences, contrary to the Doctrine which you have learned and avoid them, &c. Rom. 16. 17, 18. I would you would ponder every one of these words, for they are the precious advice of the Spirit of God, and necessary now as well as then.

[Page 260] The great advantages that Satan hath got upon the Church through the sin of the Pastors, Preface to Confess. in these later dayes, is by division. By this he hath promoted all the rest of his designs. Our division gratifieth the Papist, and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Re­ligion, Defence, p. 17. more than most of you seem to believe or regard. It advantageth profaneness, and greatly hindereth the success of the Ministers; it pleaseth Satan and builds up his kingdom.

The hand of God is apparently gone out against the Separatists; Epistle to separate congrega­tions. you see you do but prepare persons for a fur­ther progress; Seekers, Ranters, Qua­kers and too many professed Infidels, do spring up from among you, as if this were the journeys end and per­fection of your revolt. By such fear­ful desertions did God formerly wit­ness his detestation of those that with­drew from the unity of the Church. And separation will ruine the separa­ted Churches themselves; Defence, p. 50. it will ad­mit of no consistency. Parties will arise in the separated Churches, and separate again from them till they are [Page 261] dissolved. I beseech my Brethren to open their eyes so far, as to regard experience. How few separated Churches do now exist, that were in being an hundred years ago, can you name any? and would you have all the Churches of Christ to be dis­solved?

In the year 1634. Roger Williams of New-England, Answ. to Exceptions p. 170. an Assistant to Mr. Ralph Smith Pastor at Plymouth, where, having vented divers singular opini­ons, he was dismissed, went to Salem, which place in a years time he filled with principles of rigid Separation, tending to Anabaptistry, as, That it is not lawful for an unregenerate man to pray, or take an Oath, in special not the Oath of fidelity to the Ma­gistrate. He forbad any of his Church-members to hear the godly Ministers of England when occasionally they went thither. He taught that the Magistrate had nothing to do in mat­ters of the first Table; that there should be an unlimited toleration of all Religions; that to punish any man for his Conscience was Persecution. He [Page 262] separated not only from the Churches of Old, but of New-England also, as Antichristian. After that, he would not pray, or give thanks with his own wife or family, because they went to the Church-assemblies. He kept pri­vate meetings by way of separation from, and opposition to the Church-assembly; and being banished as a disturber of the peace, he sate down at a place called Providence, and there fell to Anabaptistry, renouncing Infant baptism. And after a while he told his people, that he was out of the way himself, and had misled them, for he could not find that any on earth had power to administer baptism, and therefore their last baptism was a nullity as well as the first, and that they must wait for the coming of new Apostles; and so they dissolved and turned Seekers.

The case of the Summer Islands as related by Mr. Vaughan, a worthy Minister come from thence upon dis­couragement, would make a Chri­stian heart to bleed. To hear how strict and regular, and hopeful that Planta­tion [Page 263] once was, and how one godly Minister by Separation, selecting a few to be his Church, rejecting all the rest from the Sacrament, the re­jected party were dolefully estranged from Religion, and the selected party turned Quakers. But our own case is yet a more lamentable proof, what Separation hath done against Religion; so that it is my wonder that any good man can over-look it.

Above all things I intreat the di­viding Brethren, Defence, p. 68. if they can so long lay aside partiality, to judge of the reasons of their separation. The de­fects of the Liturgy, and the faults of those by whom we suffer, are easily heightned even beyond desert. But when many of us vent untruths, and slanders against our Brethren, and multiply publick untruths, we never make scruple of communion with such. Suppose one should say, that a people guilty of such sins, as are con­demned, Exod. 23. 1, 2. Ps. 15. 3. Rom. 1. 30, &c. (i. e. raising false reports, reproaching our neighbours, strife and debates) should not be commu­nicated [Page 264] with, especially when not one of these offenders is called to repen­tance for it, what answer will you give to this which will not confute your own objections against commu­nion with many parish Churches in this land?

As to Popery; Defence, p. 21. The interest of the Protestant Religion must be much kept up, by the means of the Parish Ministers, and by the doctrine and worship there performed; and they that think and endeavour contrary to this, (of which side soever) shall have the hearty thanks and concur­rence of the Papists. p. 52. Nor am I cause­lesly afraid, that if we suffer the prin­ciples and practices, which I write against, to proceed without our con­tradiction, Popery will get by it so great advantage as may hazard us all, and we may lose that which the seve­ral parties do contend about.

Three ways especially Popery will grow out of our divisions, 1. By the odium and scorn of our disagreements, inconsistency, and multiplied Sects, they will perswade people, that we [Page 265] must either come for unity to them, or else all run mad, and crumble into dust and individuals. Thousands have been drawn to Popery, or con­firmed in it, by this argument alrea­dy: And I am perswaded, that all the Arguments else in Bellarmine, and all other books that ever were writ­ten, have not done so much to make Papists in England, as the multitude of Sects among our selves. Some Pro­fessors of Religious strictness and great esteem for Godliness, having run from Sect to Sect, and finding no consisten­cy turned Papists themselves.

2. Who knows not how fair a game the Papists have to play by our divi­sions? Methinks I hear them hissing on both parties, saying to one side, Lay more upon them, and abate them nothing: And to the other, Stand it out, and yield to nothing: hoping that our divisions will carry us to such practices, as shall make us accounted seditious, rebellious, and dangerous to publick peace, and so they may pass for better subjects than we, or else, that they may get a toleration [Page 266] together with us. And shall they use our hands to do their work? We have already served them unspeakably, both in this, and in abating the odium of the Gunpowder plot, and other Trea­sons.

3. It is not the least of our danger, lest by our follies, extremities and rigors we so exasperate the common people, as to make them readier to joyn with the Papists, than with us, in case of competitions, invasions or insurrecti­ons against the King and kingdoms peace.

The Papists account, that if the Puritans get the day, Key for Cathol. they shall make great advantage of it; for they will be unsetled, and all in pieces, and not know how to settle the government. Factions and distractions (say they) give us footing for continual attempts. To make all sure, we will secretly have our party among Puritans also, that we may be sure to maintain our interest.

Let the Magistrate cherish the dis­putations of the Teachers, Baxter's Holy Com­mon-wealth and let him procure them often to debate to­gether, [Page 267] and reprove one another; for so, when all men see, that there is no­thing certain among them, they will easily yield, (saith Contzen the Je­suit.)

Of Spiritual Pride.

Proud men will not grow in the same field, Epistle to Separate Congreg. or Church, where tares do grow, but will transplant them­selves, because God will not pluck up the tares, especially if any ministe­rial neglect of discipline be conjoyned; and instead of blaming their own pride, lay the blame on the corrupti­ons of the Church.—The Pharisees Liturgy is frequent in separate Assem­blies, God I thank thee, I am not as other men. But this is very remarkable, that it is a pretence of our impurity, and a greater purity with you that is pleaded by such as first turn over to you; and that this height of all im­pieties should be the usual issue of a way, pretended so exact and clean, doubtless it is not Gods mind, by this to discourage any from purity and [Page 268] true reformation, but to shew his de­testation of that spiritual pride, which maketh men to have too high thoughts of themselves, and too much to con­temn others, and to desire to be fur­ther separated from them, than God in the day of grace doth allow of. Consider this, it is the judgment of some, that thousands are gone to hell, and ten thousands on their march thi­ther, that in all probability had never come there, if they had not been tempted from the Parish Churches, for injoyment of communion in a purer Church.

He that causeth differences of judg­ment and practice, Christian Direct. p. 733. & contendings in the Church, doth cause divisions, though none separate from the Church. If you may not divide in the Church, nor from it, then you may not causelesly divide from it your selves.

And commonly appearance, Cure of Divisions, p. 359. advan­tage, interest, and a taking tone and voice do more with the most, than so­lid evidence of truth. But they who desire to have a party follow them, and are busie in perswading others to [Page 269] be of their mind, and speak perverse things, &c. are guilty of Church di­visions.

Do not you condemn a carnal state? Defence, p. 3. Remember they are carnal, who are contentious dividers in the Churches, 1 Cor. 3. 1. You will disallow a fleshly mind and life; Remember then, that the works of the flesh are these, As adul­tery, fornication, &c. so hatred, or en­mity, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, Cure of Divis. p. 77. seditions, [...], dividings into parties.—When once parties are ingaged by their opinions in Anti-Churches, and fierce disputings, the flesh and Satan will be working in them against all that is holy, sweet, and safe.

Of Superstition.

Do you not hate Superstition? p. 282. Con­sider then, what superstition is; it is the making of any new parts of Re­ligion to our selves, and fathering them upon God. Of this there are two sorts, positive, and negative. When we falsely say, This is a duty [Page 270] commanded by God, or when we falsely say, This is a sin forbidden by God, take heed of both. For instance, The Scripture telleth us of no Church-Elders, p. 288. but what were ordained, and of none but such as were of the same office with the preaching Pastors or Elders, of none that had not autho­rity to baptize and administer the Lords Supper; nor doth Church-History tell us of any other, as a di­vine office. But now we have con­cluded, that there is a distinct office of Ruling Elders, who need not be ordained, and who have no power to baptize, or to administer the Lords Supper. This I think is Super­stition, for we feign God to have made a Church-office which he never made.—That it is simply unlawful to use a form of prayer, 290. or to read a prayer on a book; That if a School-master impose a form upon a Scholar, or a Parent on a child, it maketh it be­come unlawful; That our presence maketh us guilty of all the errors, or unmeet expressions of the Minister, in publick worship, at least if we be­fore [Page 271] know of them, and therefore that we must joyn with none, whose er­rors or mis-expression we know of before;—That we are guilty of the sins of all unworthy or scandalous Communicants, if we communicate with them, though their admission is not by our fault; That he whose judgment is against a Diocesan-Church may not lawfully joyn with a Parish-Church, if the Minister be but subject to the Diocesan; That whatsoever is unlawfully commanded, is not lawful to be obeyed; That it is unlawful to do any thing in the Worship of God, which is imposed by men, and is not commanded in the Scripture: These and more such as these are Supersti­tions, which some Religious people have brought in. p. 292. And by all such in­ventions fathered upon God, and made a part of Religion, the minds of men are corrupted, and disquieted, and the Churches disturbed and di­vided.

Of Censoriousness.

Is not censoriousness and rash judg­ing a sin? Preface to Cure of Divisions. Yet one congregation of the division labours to make others odious and contemptible, and that is called the preaching of truth and purer worshipping of God. I have seen this grow up to the height of Ranters, in horrid blasphemies; and then of Quakers, in disdainful pride and surliness, and into Seekers, that were to seek for a Ministry, a Church, a Scripture, and consequently a Christ. I have lived to see it put to the Que­stion (in the little Parliament) whe­ther all the Ministers of the Parishes of England should be put down at once. I have seen how confidently the killing of the King, the rebellious demolishing of the Government of the Land, the killing of many thousands of their Brethren, the turnings and overturn­ings of all kind of rule, even that which themselves set up, have been committed, and justified, and pro­fanely fathered upon God; these with [Page 273] much more such fruits of love-killing principles I have seen.

If you converse with censorious Se­paratists, Cure. p. 152. you shall hear so many inve­ctives against them that are truly Ca­tholick and sober, as will make you think, that love and peace and Catho­lick communion are some sinful and mischievous things.

The experience of 26. Years in this Kingdom may convince the World, p. 24. what crimes may stand with high pro­fessions; such as the generation spring­ing up will scarce believe. What high Professors were the proudest over­turners of all Government, and resist­ers and despisers of Ministry and holy order in the Churches? The most rail­ing Quakers, and most filthy blasphe­ming Ranters, to warn the World to take heed of being proud of superficial gifts, and high profession, and that he that stands in his own conceit should take heed lest he fall.

I have much ado to forbear naming some high Professors known lately at Worcester, p. 268. Exeter, and other places, who dyed Apostate-Infidels, deriding Chri­stianity, [Page 274] and the Immortality of the Soul, who once were Separatists. And I have heard of some Separatists, p. 188. who when others of a contrary judgment were going to the Churches at London, looked in at the Doors, saying, The Devil choak thee, art thou not out of thy pottage yet?

I commend to all that of the Apostle, p. 22. Phil. 2. 3. Let nothing be done through strife and vain glory, but in bowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves. Read this Verse over on your Knees, and beg of God to write it on your Hearts. And I would wish all Assemblies of dividers and unwar­rantable Separtists, to write it over the Doors of their Meeting-places, and join with it Rom. 12. 10. but especi­ally study James 3. In a word, if God would cure the Church of religious pride, the pride of wisdom, and the pride of piety and goodness, the Church would have fewer heresies and conten­tions, and much more peace, true wis­dome and goodness.

The forwardness of many to keep open divisions, Preface to Confess. and to affect communi­on [Page 275] with none, but such as say as they do, is a down-right mark of a Schis­matick. And I know that dividing principles and dispositions do tend di­rectly to the ruine and damnation of those in whom they do prevail.

When Men fall into several Parties, Christian Director. p. 734. burning in zeal against each other, abating charity, censuring and condem­ning one another, backbiting and re­viling each other, through envy and strife; when they look strangely on each other, as being of several sides, as if they were not children of the same Father, nor members of the same Body, or as if Christ were divided, one being of Paul, and another of A­pollo, &c. and every one of a Faction, letting out their thoughts in jealousies and evil surmises of each other, per­verting the words and actions of each to an ugly sense; and snatching occasi­ons to present one another as fools, or odious to the hearers (as if you should plainly say, I pray you hate, or despise these People, whom I hate and despise:) This is the core of the Plague sore, it is schism in the bud. S. 16. When People [Page 276] in the same Church do gather into private Meetings, not under the gui­dance of their Pastors, to edifie one another in holy exercises, in love and peace, but in opposition to their law­ful Pastors, or to one another, to pro­pagate their single opinions, and in­crease their Parties, and speak against those that are not on their side, Schism is then ready to increase and multiply, and the Swarm is ready to come forth, and be gone. S. 17. When these Peo­ple actually depart, and renounce or forsake the communion of the Church, and cast off their faithful Pastors, and draw into a separated Body by them­selves, and choose them Pastors, and call themselves a Church, and all with­out any just, sufficient cause; when thus Churches are gathered out of Churches, before the old ones are dis­solved, or they have any warrant to depart; when thus Pastor is set up against Pastor, Church against Church, and Altar against Altar, this is Schism ripe and fruitful, the Swarm is gone and hived in another place. S. 19. If they shall also judge that Church to be [Page 277] no Church from which they separated, and so cut off a part of the body of Christ by an unrighteous censure, and condemn the innocent, and usurp au­thority over their guides; this is dis­obedience and uncharitableness, with schism. A true Christian that hateth Fornication, Drunkenness, Lying, Per­jury, because forbidden in the Word of God, will hate Divisions also, which are so frequently and vehemently for­bidden, Jo. 17. 21, 22. Ro. 14. through­out. Ro. 15. 12. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Eph. 4. 1, 2, &c. 1 Cor. 12. Phil. 3. 15. Ro. 16. 17, 18. 1 Tim. 1. 4. James 3. The mis­chief of Divisions may be seen at large, p. 739.

Q. May, Christian Direct. p. 854. or must a Minister, silenced, or forbid to preach the Gospel, go on still to preach it against the Law? Answ. He that is silenced by just power, though unjustly, in a Country, that needeth not his preaching, must forbear there, and if he can, must go into another Country, where he may be more ser­viceable. We must do any lawful thing to procure the Magistrates li­cence to preach in his Dominions.

How Humane Laws bind the Conscience.

Q. Whether the Laws of men do bind the Conscience? p. 36. part the 4th. Answ. p. 37. Taking conscience in a stricter sense, as inclu­ding essentially, a relation to God's ob­ligation, the full sense of the question is this, Whether it be a sin against God to break the laws of man? Answ. It is a sin against God to break such Laws, as Rulers are authorized by God to make: First, because God command­eth us to obey our Rulers. God com­mandeth us to obey in general, and their Law determineth of the particu­lar matter, therefore God obligeth us (in conscience of his Law) to obey them in that particular. 2. Because by making them his Officers, by his commission, he hath given them a cer­tain beam of authority, which is Di­vine, as derived from God; therefore they can command us by a power deri­ved from God: therefore to disobey is to sin against a power derived from God. Man being God's officer, first his own Law layeth on us an obligati­on [Page 279] on derivatively Divine, (for it is no Law, which hath no obligation, and it is no authoritative obligation, which is not derived from God.) 2. God's own Law bindeth us to obey Man's Laws, Romans 13.

And it may be a good reason to per­swade obedience to our Ecclesiastical Governours, [...] because Preaching is a cheap and easie work, in comparison of Church-government.

Take heed of engaging your selves in a Sect, Christ. Direct. part 4th. p. 73. or Faction; a narrow Secta­rian separating mind will make all the truths of God give place to the opini­ons of his Party, and measure the pro­sperity of the Gospel, by the prosperi­ty of his Party; he will not stick to persecute all the rest of the Church of Christ, if the interest of his Sect re­quire it. Overvalue not any private or singular opinions of your own, or others; for, if once spiritual pride and ignorance of your own weakness make you espouse particular opinions, as pe­culiarly your own, you will think your conceits more illuminating and neces­sary, than they are, as if Mens sinceri­ty [Page 280] lay in the imbracing of them, and their Salvation on the receiving of them; and think all that are against your opinion, deserve to be cast out as enemies to Reformation; and perhaps, Twenty Years after, experience may bring you to your wits, and make you see the falshood, or smalness of all those points, which you made so great a mat­ter of, and then what comfort will you have of your persecutions?

O the deceitfulness of the heart of man! Cure of Divisions, p. 254. Little do the many real Separa­tists, who cry out against Persecution, suspect, that the same spirit is in them. Whence is Persecution, but from think­ing ill of others, and abhorring or not loving them? and do not you do so by those whom you causlesly separate from? It is one and the same sin in the Persecutor and Divider, 261. or Separatist, which causeth the one to smite their Brethren, and the other to excommu­nicate them; the one to cast them into Prison as Schismaticks, and the other to cast them out of the Church as pro­fane; the one to account them intole­rable in the Land, and the other to ac­count [Page 281] them intolerable in the Church: the inward thoughts of both are the same, that those whom they smite or separate from, are bad and unlovely, and unfit for better usage.

But I have observed that Professors of Religion did oppose and deride al­most all that worship of God out of (pretended) conscience, which others did out of profaness. Saints Rest, part 1. c. 7. Sect. 14.

It was none of the old cause, H. Com­mon-wealth: Addit. to Pref. Prop. that the People should have liberty, and the Magistrate should have no power, in all matters of God's worship, faith and conscience: And as it is not the old cause, so it is not the good cause. For first, it contradicteth the express revelation of the will of God in the Holy Scripture. Moses, as a Magi­strate, had to do in matters of Reli­gion, and so had the Kings of Israel, and Judah.—Law, and providence, are both quite changed, if toleration of false worship, and other abuses of Re­ligion tend not to the ruine of the Common-wealth. If Magistrates must give liberty for all to propagate a false [Page 282] religion, then so must Parents and Ma­sters also, which would be a crime so horrid in the nature and effects of it, as I am loth to name with its proper titles.

The Magistrates will quickly find that the distractions of the Church will breed and feed such distractions in the Common-wealth, Of confir. p. 309. as may make them wish they had quenched the fire, while it was yet quenchable.—Our unity is not only our strength, but their strength; and the fire that begun in the Church, may, if let alone, reach the Court.

Pag. 423. of his 5. Disputations, he lays down this as the summ of what he had said, That Man may determine of modes and circumstances of Wor­ship, necessary and commanded in ge­nere, but not determined by God in specie, Sect. 65. and then infers, Sect. 67. If the mischoosing of such circum­stances by Church-governors be but an inconvenience, and do not destroy the Ordinance it self, or frustrate the ends of it, we are to obey. 1. For he is the Judge in his own work, and not [Page 283] we. 2. The thing is not sinful though inconvenient. 3. Obedience is com­manded to our lawful Governors. Sect. 70. And when we do obey in a case of miscommanding, it is not a doing evil that good may come of it, as some do misconceive; but it is only a sub­mitting to that which is ill-command­ed, but not evil in him that doth sub­mit. It is the determiner that is the cause of the inconvenience, and not the obeyer. Nor is it inconvenient for me to obey, though it be worse per­haps to him that commandeth: while he sinneth in commanding, he may make it my duty to obey, p. 461. Sect. 6. The reasons of this are obvious and clear, even because it is the office of the Governors to determine of such circumstances: It is the Pastor's office to guide and over-see the Flock, and when he determineth these, he is but in his own way, and doth but his own work; and therefore he is therein the Judge, if the case be controvertible. If none shall obey a Magistrate or Pa­stor in the works of their own office, as long as they think he did them not [Page 284] the best way, all Governours then would be presently overthrown, and obedience denyed. We are sure that God hath commanded us to obey them that are ever us in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12. Hebr. 13. 7. 17, &c. And there­fore a certain duty may not be forborn on uncertain conjectures, or upon eve­ry miscarriage of them that we owe it to. This would un-church all Church­es (as they are Political Societies:) for if Pastors be taken down, and the work of Pastors, the Church is taken down. S. 7. And the things in which the Pastor is now supposed to err, are not of themselves unlawful, but only by such an accident as being over­weighed by another accident shall cease to make them unlawful. For instance, p. 461. Sect. 4. If of two Translations of Scripture or two Versions of the Psalms the Pastor use the worser, (so it be tolerable) we must obey. And Sect. 7. If the Pastor appoint a more imperfect Version of the Psalms to be sung in the Church (as is commonly used in England) the obeying of him in the use of this will not bring so [Page 285] much hurt to the Church, as the diso­beying on that account would do. For besides the sin of disobedience it self, the Church would be in a confusion if they forsake his conduct that pre­serves the union; and some will be for this and some for that, and so the Worship it self will be overthrown. And let it still be remembred, that we allow both Magistrates and Pastors to see to the execution of God's Laws, and to determine of circumstances in order thereto that are necessary in ge­nere, p. 482. Sect. 35. but not deter­mined of God in specie, p. 422. §. 65. It may be very sinful to command some ceremonies which may lawfully, yea must in duty be used by the sub­ject when they are commanded, p. 398. Certain things commonly called cere­monies may lawfully be used in the Church upon humane imposition, and when it is not against the Law of God; no person should disobey the Laws of their lawful Governors in such things.

If there should be any Pastors of the Churches who instead of concurring Cure of Divisions, p. 253. [Page 286] to heal the flock of these dividing principles, shall rather joyn with backbiters and incourage them in their misreports and slanders, because it tends to the supposed interest of their party or themselves; Let them pre­pare to Answer such unfaithfulness to their Consciences, which will be shortly awakened; And to the great Shepherd of the flock, who is at the door, and who told even the Devils Agents that, A house or kingdom divided against it self cannot stand, but is brought to nought.

POSTSCRIPT.

I Have proposed such Arguments for Conformity as I occasionally met with in such books of Mr. Baxter's as came to my hands. If I had consult­ed others, I doubt not but I might have found many more as cogent as [Page 287] these: but these being satisfactory and of eternal verity, I humbly desire Mr. Baxter and others of his perswa­sion to consider them, nor can I doubt but Mr. Baxter will charitably accept of these my endeavours for peace, upon his own weighty arguments; and the rather because I believe him by his writings to be a man of a great expe­rience in the temper of the people, of a quick and discerning judgment, that can look through causes into the con­sequences and effects that will natu­rally result from them, and moreover a person of so great sincerity that he will by no means stray from, but readi­ly defend his own principles, which are sound and pacificatory. And see­ing he hath done as St. Paul did, (of whom Tertullian notes he did perswade to peace, totis spiritûs sancti viribus) I believe he is one that long­eth to see the healing of our Churches, and that tendered his Arguments to all sorts, charging them to do so much as appears to be necessary, as they are true to Christ, to his Church and Gospel, to their own and others Souls, [Page 288] and to the peace and welfare of the nations; And as they will Answer the neglect to Christ at their peril. (In the Title of a Treatise of Con­firmation.) And in his Answer to Dr. Tully (title page) A Compassio­nate Lamenter of the Churches wounds caused by hasty judging and undi­gested conceptions, and by the Theo­logical wars which are hereby raised, and managed, by perswading the world that meer verbal, or notional differences are material, and such as our love, concord and communion must be measured by, for want of an equal discussion of the Ambiguity of words. One who (in the Epistle to the Reader for Confirmation) exhorts to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, (be­cause) they shall prosper that love it, and to seek it of God and man, which was his own daily though too defective practice, as a servant of the King of peace: To him and all others as such I propose the following concessions, and the conclusions inferred from them.

In his Christian Directory, p. 854.

1. He that is silenced by just power [Page 289] though unjustly (in a Country that needeth not his preaching) must for­bear there. And p. 560. of the Saints Rest, he tells us as to his particular, If God would dispense with me for my ministerial services without any loss to his people, I should leap as lightly as Bishop Ridley when he was stript of his Pontificalia; and say as Paedaretus the Laconian when he was not chosen into the number of the three hundred men, I thank thee O God that thou hast bestowed on this City so many men better than my self.

2. That it is lawful to hold com­munion with our Churches having but tolerable Pastors, notwithstand­ing the Parochial Order, and the Ministers conformity and use of the Common-prayer book; And that we ought to do so when some special rea­sons (as from Authority, scandal, &c.) do require it. Second Admonition to Bagshaw, p. 78.

3. That when men are carried to separate on such (pretended) grounds, they will be no where fixt, but may still be subdividing and separating [Page 290] from one another till they are resolved into Individuals, and have left no such thing as a Church among them, p. 486. Of the five disputations: and p. 487. By disobedience in lawful things, the members of the Church will be involved in Contentions, and so ingaged in bitter uncharitableness, censures, persecutions, and reproaches of one another.

4. Though Ministerial conformity is now much altered (as to ingage­ments) many of the Assembly of Di­vines yet living do conform again, nor would I shun communion with the reverend Members of that Assem­bly, Twiss, Gataker, Whitaker, and the rest, if again they used the Litur­gy among us. And if the old Non-Conformists, such as Bolton, &c. were alive, and used now the same Liturgy and Ceremonies as they did then (which was worse than now) I could not think their Communion in prayer and Sacraments unlawful, nor censure that man as injurious to the Church who should write to perswade others not to separate from them. Defence of [Page 291] principles of Love, p. 12, 13. And Mr. Baxter's practice in receiving the Sacrament confirmeth the same.

5. If any Pastor instead of concur­ring to heal the flocks of dividing principles shall rather joyn with back­biters and incourage them in their misreports and slanders, because it tends to the supposed interest of their party or themselves, let them prepare to Answer such unfaithfulness to their Consciences which will be shortly awakened; and to the great Shepherd of the flock who is at the door, and who told even the Devils Agents that a house or kingdom divided cannot stand, &c. p. 253. H. C.

6. The Magistrate will quickly find that the distractions of the Church will quickly breed and feed such di­stractions in the Common-wealth, as may make them wish they had quen­ched the fire while it was yet quencha­ble. Our unity is not only our strength but their strength, and the fire that begun in the Church, may, if let alone, reach the Court. Of Confirma­tion, p. 309.

[Page 292] Now from these premises I suppose the conclusions following may be truly inferred, a Conformity to which would be a great means to destroy Nonconformity to the Church and publick Worship, both in Ministers and people.

1. Those that are silenced by a just power (or rather have silenced them­selves and uncharitably deserted the established Worship of God) ought not to gather congregations in place and manner distinct from the publick Worship. By the first proposition.

2. Communion with our Parish Churches being lawful, and the peoples duty by the second proposition, They who by such dividing practices as tend to undermine and deprave the reputa­tion, and dissolve the very constitu­tion of the Parochial Worship, and to encourage and harden known Schis­maticks in their separation, (for if the like should be generally practised through the nation, it would inevi­tably scandalize the established Mini­stry, alienate the affections of their people, and renew divisions among [Page 293] them) do act very irregularly and un­lawfully.

3. Such practices do unfix the peo­ple and cause them to run into divisions and subdivisions, reproaches and per­secutions of one another, proposition 3. And who knows into what confu­sions such practices may carry us?

4. Ministerial conformity being sub­mitted to by many of the Assembly of Divines, and no sinful act required to make it unlawful (which if there had been, they or some others would and ought to have discovered it, and then I doubt not it would by Autho­rity have been taken away, but that being not done) the Ministers ought to conform by the same rules as the people ought, which is granted by proposition 4. and confirmed by Mr. Baxters practice in receiving the Sa­crament, &c. Such Pastors as instead of concurring to heal the flock of di­viding principles, do rather joyn with backbiters and incourage them in their misreports and slanders, because it tends to the supposed interest of their party or themselves, cannot Answer [Page 294] it to their Conscience nor to the great Shepherd of the flock. Propos. 5.

5. If such Minister or people do continue the distractions of the Church, it is the Magistrates duty and interest speedily to quench the fire which they are kindling, or if may ruine both Church and State. By Propos. 6.

And let Ministers see that no Sedu­cers creep in among the people, or it they do, be diligent to countermine them and preserve their people from the insection of heresies and schisms. Saints Rest. p. 543.

6. Let such men consider, whether any sober, rational or good men, that have loved and followed them, can heartily respect them, or make them their spiritual Guides, when it appears that they do ordinarily and considerately act and practise contrary to their own irrefragable arguments, protestations and perswasions.

And lastly, if such Ministers cannot fully conform themselves (which would be an acceptable service to God and the Church, (they having oppor­tunities▪ [Page 295] and advantages to add many thousands to the publick Assem­blies and to confirm others that are wavering through their examples) yet that they would conform in what they may, and continue to teach by example as well as precept what may help to repair our breaches, lest we be exposed again to a common ruine and confusion.

And now methinks that Summons which troubled Quintilius Varus, should alway run in the minds of such men: Quintili Vare, redde Legiones: you that have intruded upon the cure of Souls committed to others, restore those Legions which are withdrawn from Christ's fold, and remember, (what Mr. Baxter says as to his own reputation, in a Preface to Mr. Caryl) Non remittitur peccatum, nisi restitua­tur ablatum.

Calvin's Epistle before the Geneva Catechism: Ubi ad summum illud tribu­nal ventum fuerit, &c. When we shall come to that great tribunal where we are to render an account of our Mini­stry, [Page 296] there shall be no question con­cerning Ceremonies, neither shall this conformity in outward things be brought to examination, but the lawful use of our liberty, and that shall be adjudged lawful that con­duceth most to edification.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.