Non-Conformiſts NEW-CHƲRCHES SINFUL.
CHAP. I.
The Introduction. The Anſwers Title and the Impertinency of it.
THe Confident Queſtionist, as his Anſwerer calls him, in this will yet be confident, that, not many will not take the task and burthen upon them to read the Anſwer; and that, but few of them that read it, will be able to underſtand it: and that few or none of that ſmall number, that ſhall think they underſtand it, will be able to ſee the Conſequence of it: or, laſtly, if any ſhall chance to2 be ſo lucky; they muſt be exceeding kind, as well as wiſe, if they can endure, without very much patience and ſome indignation, its Ʋndertaking, Method and Manner of Reaſoning: in all which, it pitties me to obſerve the Author ſo like himſelf; and ſo deſerving the Title, of the Epiſcopal Patron of Presbitery, and the Independent Catholick Prelate of NonConformity.
The modeſt dreſs of the Body of the Book may anſwer for it Selfe; but 'tis confeſt, the Mouth of it ſpeaks great Swelling Words: The Title is; Sacrilegious deſertion of the holy Miniſtry Rebuked, and Tolerated Preaching of the Goſpel Vindicated. What Conjuring is here? I am afraid the Spirits are diſturb'd! Sacrilegious deſertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked! The Holy Miniſtry Sacrilegiouſly deſerted? What impiety is this? a heinous Crime indeed, and worthy a very ſevere Rebuke. But where are the Criminals? who are they that have wrought this Abominable thing? Sure the Anſwerer himſelf, is in no wiſe guilty: no, he preſently aſſures you, that he is firmly reſolved to the contrary; and in this point, I believe, he will as eaſily anſwer for the Queſtionist. Who then doth he mean to Rebuke? not the Conformiſts; they have no liberty to be Silent though others have to Preach. Beſides, if they ſhould, eſpecially the3 Ʋſurpers among them; I preſume, if way might thus be made for the right Owners, our Author would not be much troubled. Without Controverſy, then, he means his Brethren the Non-Conformiſts: and have you, indeed, deſerted your holy Miniſtry? you are too too blame, and muſt be Rebuked: Or have you not already done it? yet, 'tis to be feared, you may chance to do it: Or, though at preſent you are every where found, rather too buſy in the exerciſes of your gifts; and are not unlikely ſo to continue, yet this Queſtionist hath ſaid ſomething, that in the Conſequence of it, ſeems to perſwade you to deſert your Office; or, at leaſt hereafter you may poſſibly be urged thereunto, by ſome ſilly reaſonings, either of this Queſtioniſt, or ſome other ſuch Pamphleteer. Now this Deſertion of the holy Miniſtry, is a thing of that dangerous Conſequence, eſpecially in You, and at ſuch a time as this; that, though it be but in potentia remotiſſima, and onely not impoſſible to come to paſs, it muſt be timely obſerved, by a wiſe Watchman; and as if it were already in Act, it muſt be Rebuked.
For this Deſertion of the holy Miniſtry is Sacrilegions: there is ſuch a thing, in our Authors Judgment, however ſome of his Brethren think as Sacriledge, under the Goſpel a Stealing ones Self, who is Conſestated to4 God in the Holy Miniſtry, from the exerciſe of it, is a plain robbing God himſelf of his Service and conſequently, Sacriledge: and I fear, this hint, eſpecially if practiſed upon, may bring to our minds and obſervations too, another kind of Sacriledge, that our Author was not well aware of: For are there not ſome People Separated, Dedicated, and in a ſence, Conſecrated to God; and as juſtly Sitled Gods-People, as the Preachers, Gods-Miniſters? And if theſe ſhould be ſtolen away from God, in his Churches and Miniſters, to whoſe care he hath committed them, is not God himſelf then robbed of them? and ought not this kind of Sacriledg alſo to be feared and Rebuked? A worthy Prebyterian once thought ſo and honeſtly gave the World warning of ſome ſmall effects of it in theſe words: This (ſaid he) brings Strife and Envyings among Miniſters, when others ſtealCawdry's Independency farther proved, &c. p. 84. away their Members; and bring Slightings and Contempt upon their Perſons and Miniſtry; and at laſt, a lamentable Separation, as we ſee at this day.
But the Anſwerer muſt crave your pardon; for indeed the exceſſive Fidelity of his Brethren to their Preaching-Office, leaves no room or occaſion for his Rebuking-Office. Beſides, Sacriledge has a tender Edge, and may5 chance to cut ones fingers, if not warily handled. Therefore, though perhaps he had thoughts when he wrote his Title-page, to have ſpoken ſomething upon this Subject; yet, his Mind it ſeems, is not priviledg'd from change; for, at preſent he hath wav'd that Argument, and Sacrilegious deſertion of the holy Miniſtry, ſhall eſcape his Severity till another opportunity.
Doubt it not, for if you turn over but one leafe, you are ſecur'd: he, there as the uſe is, preſents you again with the Title of his Book; but there you find nothing of Sacrilegious deſertion of the holy Miniſtry Rebuked: no, this first Menace is now wiſely omitted, either by the Author or the Printer: Wiſely, I ſay, for Deſertion of the holy Miniſtry, is ſcarcely any more heard of, much leſs Rebuked, throughout his whole Book. However, let not his Miniſtry be deſerted: the Sermon may be good, though both it and the Preacher forget the Text.
CHAP. II.
Of the Anſwerers diſcription of Himſelf: his Abuſive Terms touching Non-Conformity, and his miſtake of Armagh's Reduction: thoſe that offer'd it, 1660. were no leſs Preſbyterians: his change of the Queſtion.
HE worthily obſerves, the Queſtionists vanity in honouring himſelf with the Name, of a Lover of Peace and Truth: and indeed 'twas ſaucily done: the Anſwerer may promote the Truth by the liberty of Errours; and ſeek for Peace by pleading for, if not practiſing Diviſions: but who are you, Sir Confident, that you, ſhould ſo much as pretend to the love of either.
But, pray Mr. Anſwerer what is your Name? there are many that ſay they know you by your Reaſon and Paſſion, and by your Words and Works; but pray you let me know your Name. You have told me already; and I find it at large in your Title Page, attended before, with two great Titles to your Book, little to the purpoſe but for Ceremony: and followed after with the train of three pompous places of Scripture, to fill up the Page.
One that is Conſecrated to the ſacred Mininiſtry, and is reſolved not to be a wilful deſerter7 of it, in truſt that any Ʋndertakers can juſtifie him for ſuch Deſertion at the Judgment of God; till he know better how thoſe can come off themſelves, who are unfaithful Paſtors, or unjuſt Silencers of others.
And, is this your Name indeed? Certainly his Grace at Lambeth hath ſcarce a greater. Here is Conſecration, Reſolution, Condemnation, againſt the unfaithful of Paſtors, and the Injuſtice of the King and Parliament for Silencing better: But, as the Lion ſometimes, is not ſo fierce as he is Painted; ſo, I hope this is no Scripture Name, that indicates the Nature of the Perſon. But, ſo ſhall the Man be honored, that loves not Himſelf, or Party, above Truth and Peace.
Reader, here is nothing but meekneſs and gentleneſs and humility worthy of the Author, to be underſtood: however, the expreſſions ſound a little otherwiſe, 'tis the Queſtioniſt only is Confident and unintelligible, though one would think at the firſt hearing, that this long Name is Monſtrum, Horrendum, and I cannot but add, Ingens, cui lum•n Ademptum.
Now what dare not the Man of this great Name, ſay or do? he dare ſay, the Conformiſts are the Schiſmaticks; and that many of them, that now hold the places, that were formerly Non-conformiſts, are Ʋſurpers; and that it8 is faithfulneſs to the King to diſown ſuch kind of Ʋſurpers, though eſtabliſh'd in their Places and Power by the Laws of the Land. p. 39.
He dare ſay 'tis Impudence and Ignorance of the preſent State of England to call thoſe Presbyterians that did at the King's Return offer Arch-Biſhop Ʋſhers Form of Epiſcopal Government, as he calls it, for Concord: though Mr. Calamy was one of that Number, whoſe Name is found in Smectimnuus.
He dare call that book a Form of Epiſcopal Government, contrary to the Expreſs Title of it, which is a Reduction of Epiſcopacy to the Forme of Synodical Government. Which, as Dr. Bernard well obſerves, was only an expedient for the preſentClavi Trabales. p. 54. Neceſſity, occaſioned by the Tempeſtuous violence of that time; as an Accomodation, by way of prevention of a Total Shipwrack, threatned by the Adverſaries of Epiſcopacy, as appears ſufficiently by the Title of it.
It is, therefore ingeniouſly argued by our Author, thoſe that are called Presbyterians did deſire that Epiſcopacy might be reduced to the forme of Synodical Government, therefore they are no Presbyterians, they are not for Synodical Government.
The plain truth is, that Reduction propoſeth9 a way for Ʋnion and Conſolidation of the two Governments; but that, ſuch a Union, as ſhould contain both, without the loſs of either; and leaſt of all, as the neceſſity of that time required, of the Presbyterian: And conſequently, thoſe, that would ſubmit unto that Reduction, might ſtill be Presbyterians both in Name and Thing, however it fared with Epiſcopacy.
For, all men are not bound to ſubſcribe or ſwear unto the definition of a Presbyterian, which our Anſwerer impoſeth upon the World: or to believe, that the Divine Right of the Ruling Elder Ʋnordained is eſſential to the Presbyterial Government; (p. 5.) for the Government may be Synodical without it. And I need not give him Inſtances, that that kind of Government was endeavoured to be Erected, in the ſeveral parts of the Kingdome, by the Agreement of ſeveral Eminent Miniſters of that way, that yet denied the Juredivinity of meer Ruling-Elders; and admitted them only as Prudential: and I doubt not he very well knows it to be ſo.
But, as to that Application made in 1660. which he ſpeaks of; 'tis too well known, that in effect it rather propoſed for the Presbyterial, than for the Epiſcopal Government; and had it taken, the Biſhop, ſhould have had left him little more than the Name; who was10 rather, to have been a Moderator, or Chairman durante vitâ, than a Biſhop, in a common acceptation: or if a Biſhop, ſuch a one, as might well enough have conſiſted with Synodical Government, or the deſign had been loſt. But what need any more be ſaid? the Propoſers would not allow him a Negative voice; and conſequently, the Synod or Presbytery ſhould have Govern'd, either with or without his Conſent: and is not this a fair Apology, twice offered, by our Anſwerer; that therefore, becauſe they would have Admitted the Reduction of Epiſcopacy to their own Presbyterial Government, they are no Presbyterians.
Again; It is nothing for him to ſay, that the Reaſonings of the Queſtionist, are weak and ſilly over and over: that they are Confident to Admiration: full of Noiſe and Nonſence, Confuſed and Ʋnintelligible, and Schiſmatical too. (p. 29.) Theſe are his ſoft and gentle Strokes upon one that deſerves to be called Names, that would foul Paper, as he intimates more than once, as an Argument of his unwillingneſs to offend his Reader and Himſelf; though he have no foul mouth.
But he dare venture farther and ſay; that Mr. Fulwoods, Mr. Stilemans and Mr. Hinckleys Books for Conformity are ſuch Toyes — of factious Diſputers. He dare ſay; that his own fleſh diſputeth in him more Cunningly, than11 all the Durells, Fulwoods and Stilemans in England; and yet in one thing, methinks, his ſpirit fails him, and he appears too much unlike the valiant Heroe I ever took him for. He, in one place, ſaith, p. 32. Had he had leave to confute the Silly Reaſonings of Mr. Fulwood and other ſuch Pamphleteers, he had long ago done ſtrange things. And in another, p. 39. he would have me procure him leave to give his Reaſons of Non Conformity. Alas, good man! that he ſhould want Leave to do ſuch brave things; that he ſhould want Will or Zeal to do them without leave. He ſaith, p. 31. that I knew that he muſt not give his Reaſons againſt Conformity. But who gave him leave to Preach before the Indulgence? who gave him leave to Print this Anſwer? Or is it poſſible to ſpeak bolder things againſt Conformity if he had leave to do it, than he hath done here? The Conformiſts are Ʋſurpers and Schiſmaticks: thoſe that Silenced the Non-Conformiſts are Ʋnjust, Cruel and Sacrilegious: Conformity is guilty of Perfidiouſneſs, Perjury and Perſecution: Conformiſts are Proud, and contend who ſhall be Greatest; and Covenant never in certain points to obey Chriſt againſt the World and the Fleſh ▪ as he humbly inſinuates, p. 74.
But in Earneſt, can he that lets flie at this rate, perſwade us, that it is only want of leave, that hath hindered his Anſwering the12 Books aforeſaid? Can he perſwade us, that his Obedience to Man, can warrant his omiſſion of ſo great a Charity, as his effectual endeavor to reſcue Conformiſts from theſe deſparate enormities? or can he think ſo honorably of our Governours, as to fear that his ſtrong Reaſons would more offend and provoke them, if given without their Licence, than theſe hard uncharitable, unconſcionable inſinuations, and unjuſt accuſations, againſt themſelves, as well as us.
Away then with this childiſh paſſion of fear, 'tis altogether unbecoming our Goliah, that defies the whole Army of Iſrael. You have Troops of Propoſitions always at Command, and ſo many Yokes of Diſtinctions, that you doubtleſs are able to make good what ever you have ſaid, be it never ſo bad, if you durſt, or had leave. But what need of Leave? or why ſhould you Fear? what quidlibet or quodlibet can ſtand before you? p. 30. You are the Man of Art, that can doe and undoe, prove and diſprove the ſame thing; or elſe, many of your Friends as well as Enemies have done you wrong.
I am one of his Friends, and I dare affirm of him, to his deſerved honour; that he never yet wanted Matter of Argument, againſt the Cauſe, or of Rebuke againſt the Perſon of any Man that ever oppoſed him. He hath13 one very ſtrange and wonderful peice of Artifice; that, be the Controverſie what it will, he can make his Adverſary differ with him, about the Exiſtence of a God and Christ, an Heaven and Hell; that he may take occaſion to tell the World, that ſome Teachers need theſe plain Admonitions. p. 26.
But this ſubtil Anſwerer, hath a more powerful Stratagem, never to be eſcaped; for he can make his Adverſary ſay any thing, that he, himſelf thinks he can moſt eaſily oppoſe; or if he cannot make him ſay it, he can affirm and prove he ſaith it; and then, thunder out a Volume againſt him for ſaying ſo.
We have a very Notable Inſtance of his Skill this way in our hands. If the Queſtionist dare ſay, that Toleration ought not to be abuſed by Presbyterians, in gathering themſelves into diſtinct Churches in oppoſition to the Parochial, he will moſt ſtrenuouſly and pertinently confute him, with a Book, called by the hard Name above mentioned, Sacrilegious deſertion of the holy Miniſtry Rebuked: and Tolerated Preaching of the Goſpel Vindicated.
And if it be too palpable, that that Author ſaid nothing for the Sacrilegious deſertion of the holy Miniſtry fit to be Rebuked, he can, as we before obſerved, quickly deſert that part of his undertaking; but yet proceed to write his Book in the Vindication of Tolerated Preaching;14 and perſwade the World, with no mean Confidence, that the ſcope of the Book he pretends to Anſwer, is directly againſt ſuch Tolerated Preaching. Yea, in the very beginning of his Book, p. 2. And in another Character, on purpoſe to have the Reader note it; he expreſly affirms; that he finds — the Queſtioniſt hath the Face (though he hath not the mouth that ſpoke it, or the hand that wrote it) yet he hath the face to exhort them to deſert their Office. But with how much Ingenuity and Juſtice, God and his own Conſcience muſt needs know already; and he muſt give me leave to let the World know it alſo, in the Chapter following.
CHAP. III.
I did not exhort them to deſert their Office as he Affirmeth. His manner of Cenſuring leſs Errors. About Toleration. The Authors kindneſs to Non-Conformiſts.
SIR, I will take leave to ſay; you may bleſs your ſelf, that you have engaged an Adverſary that is a Friend; and hath neither Wit nor Will to practice upon you, as ſome have done upon leſs Provocation.
That you might have ground to run out15 upon me, as an Enemy to Tolerated Preaching; you expreſly affirme, p. 2. that you find I exhort you to deſert your Office: and that it ſeemeth, p. 60. that acknowledging us true Churches, will not ſatisfie us, without What? Actual hearing us. We would ſtroke you into ſilence and the neglect of your Office. p. 25. You ask, p. 58, 59. whether it be Sin in you to Preach; and labour much, in the proof of the Neceſſity of your Preaching. And you intimate, that if the Non Conformists ſhould not Preach, they ſhould be Idle, Cruel, Sacrilegious and Perfidious: as are your words, p. 27, 28.
Now, Sir, in my ſillie way of reaſoning, I muſt demand, whether you do indeed find, thoſe words, for which you perſecute me, throughout your Book, in my Book, or not.
If you ſhall ſay, you do find thoſe words, or words to that effect; I am not ſatisfied, unleſs you tell me where: for I ſolemnly proteſt, I know not. Why did you not name the page, where they were to be found, as in other caſes you generally do? eſpecially, this being the main matter of offence to you; that provoked you to ſo much ſeverity throughout your Book againſt me; for you begin your Book to this purpoſe: that if it had been all my endeavour that the Toleration ſhould not be abuſed, you ſhould earnestly have ſeconded me: but when you found - that I had the fa•e to exhort16 you to deſert your Office, &c. that I come to you in Gods Name, to charge you to forbear His work: then, you ſay, your Conſcience bad you help to ſave the weaker ſort that need, from ſuch Pernicious Fallacies
Sir, I do with all earneſtneſs, and yet meekneſs, let you know; that I expect you ſhould make good your charge: ſhew me theſe words, or words that carry the ſame ſence, in any place of my book, or confeſs you have wronged me, and I am ſatisfied.
But yet, turn the Tables, and ask your ſelf ſeriouſly, what laſhes you would have cenſured me worthy, ſhould I have dealt ſo with you. Take an Inſtance of your Spirit and Charity, upon a far leſs occaſion given you, as you conceive, in my Book; when, upon a Miſinformation at moſt, I only Asked a Queſtion, in a matter of no great moment, viz. Whether the Presbyterians did not heretofore refuſe the Comprehenſion, becauſe they could not have it without a general Toleration? See, how you flie upon me, with all fury, and ſay, p. 62, 63, 64. This hath no bounds, and it grieveth me to read it. O Poſterity! How will you know what to believe? you ſhould not by Question, have vented ſuch a falſhood. And yet, notwithſtanding all this vehemence, in the next pages, you ſeem your ſelf to intimate, in my weak opinion, grounds ſufficient for the Rumour17 and Suſpition, and conſequently the Queſtion: But I am not obſtinate in my own Defence, leaving my Queſtion and your Cenſure upon it, with your Diſcourſe and Conceſſion about it, to the mercy of the Reader, who will judge betwixt us, whether we will or not.
However, thanks be to God, (though by your charging me to have written things, that I have not written, contrary to plain Truth and Juſtice, you have given me far greater provocation) yet, I ſay, thanks be to God, you have not tempted me to turn your own words upon you, and to ſay to you, as you do to me, [Repent of ſuch Calumnies, and ſtudy not to aggravate your fault by excuſes — we lament his want of common ſence or modeſty — what dealing is to be expected from ſuch men — with what forehead — is this Humility or miniſterial Fidelity, to begin your Book with ſo direct an untruth, and to ſtand to it, and repeat it ſo often in the face of the World?
Lord! what have I ever ſaid or done in order to the ſilencing of Non conformiſts, as you frequently ſeem to charge me? yea, what have I not done or ſaid, as I was able and had any opportunity, that their mouths might be opened? the World knows my ſeveral publick endeavors to that purpoſe: I do not ſay18 my ſilly Arguments, (as you meekely call them) but, perhaps, my Mediation (as ſome perſons will more ingeniouſly acknowledge) for the peaceable Non-conformiſts, from the Kings Return to the day of the Indulgence, and ſince too, hath not been altogether ineffectual, and perhaps conſidering all that hath been too much, and my Superiors have been very candid if they have not thought it troubleſome.
I muſt take the boldneſs to add, that were I conſcious to my ſelf, that any thing I ever ſaid or did, hath been ſo great a Remora in the way of accommodation betwixt nonconformity and the Church of England, as the boiſterous reaſonings and deſires of ſome men, I fear I ſhould carry it with ſorrow to my grave: If I err in this cenſure, I beg the pardon both of God and them.
CHAP. IV.
'Tis not fair to charge Conſequences for Doctrines; much leſs to ſay, the Conſequence is aſſerted; let the Anſwerer be Judge. Mr. Baxter was not abuſed.
I Obſerved, that you charged me untruly with diſſwading you to deſert your Office, and have cauſe to fear, you will make excuſes your ſelf, although you will not allow it in others: and I cannot but expect you will ſay thus, or to this effect; That though I do not aſſert in plain terms, or in words tha•will admit or bear that ſence, yet the conſequence of my Diſcourſe, is to take you off from Preaching, while I would diſſwade you from Gathering-Churches.
For I find, after I have read long in your Book, and even towards the latter end of it, you have patience thus far to explain your ſelf. Becauſe, ſay you, p. 57. I would prove your ſeparation ſinful, I would therefore prove your preaching ſinful. Again, p. 59. if God ſay, preach, and the Law ſay, preach not in Temples; we may conclude, we must preach out of the Temples. And becauſe I ſpeak againſt erecting Separated Congregations to your ſelves, you ſay, p. 70. I mean it is ſin in you to exerciſe your Miniſtery: i. e. you20 mean, this is the conſequence of what I ſay againſt your ſeparation: For, can we preach, as you add, without Auditors? and can theſe Auditors be no Congregation?
Thus you do, (pardon me if) I think, not very accuratly mend the matter, nor very intelligibly explain your meaning. But, I remember, you told me, p 33. the Presbyterians do not love confuſion: And alſo p. 4. that you are no Presbyterian.
But, my Brother, I muſt needs mind you, that whether this conſequence be ſtrong or not, I am ſure the excuſe is weak, and unwarrantable by the Laws of all ſober diſputation.
1. For admit the conſequence to be fair and just, your dealing with me is neither, when you charge me with an aſſertion which only follows, or may be drawn from my propoſition. It is not allowable to ſay the conſequent of my opinion is my opinion, and that I hold it: much leſs hath it any colour of candor or juſtice, to ſay, I aſſert it, and maintain it. How then can you anſwer me, or give me ſatisfaction, for ſaying, first, that that which your ſelf hath argued from my propoſition, is my propoſition; and then write a book againſt me for it.
This is not too like a favorable Diſputant, were the conſequence most obvious and immediate;21 whereas in the caſe in hand, 'tis neither ſo, nor ſo; but contrarily, very doubtful, obſcure, and remote, your ſelf being Judge.
The Queſtion here is, Whether I cannot write againſt gathering Churches out of our Churches, and yet not exhort you to deſert your Miniſtery? You hold it in the Negative. Now, to fill up the va•ances of your former uneven Argument, to make it good, there is need of the skill of a learned Propoſitioniſt to work thus.
You muſt preach; you may not preach in the Temples, therefore you muſt preach ſomewhere elſe: Here's the place provided, but where are the People? Let's try again, if you must preach, you muſt have people to hear you: there are none to be had, but ſuch as belong to our Churches; therefore you muſt gather Churches out of our Churches; therefore I that exhort you not to gather Churches out of our Churches, exhort you to deſert your Office and Miniſtery; and therefore, by defending your Office, you anſwer my Book of Toleration not to be abuſed, by gathering Churches out of Churches.
Thus ſtrangers greet, and both ends are at length brought together; but their firm friendſhip depends upon the ſtrength of this golden Chain, or Rope of Sand, which may come to be tried anon.
22In the mean time let us change the Scene, and then make judgement of this way of arguing, your ſelf.
Suppoſe I ſhould write a Book, and intitle it, Sedition Rebuked; and call this a Reply to your Anſwer: taking it for granted, that every one would ſee the conſequence as well as my ſelf; and thereupon, at every turn, I ſhould charge you with the Defence of Sedition, and labor againſt you to prove Sedition a ſin; meaning all this while, (though never obſerving any ſuch thing, when I purpoſely and largely, with about threeſcore Propoſitions endeavor de induſtria to ſtate the Queſtion) that Sedition lies at the bottom, and in the conſequence and tail of your Diſcourſe thus; in many places you intimate, the Priest is intollerable; and there, whether the People will endeavor regularly to remove him or not, you exhort them to diſown and forſake him, and the place by Law appointed for Publick Worſhip, and to gather themſelves into another Church, under another (Non-conforming) Miniſter: This is to exhort the People to begin a publick Reformation without their Governors; this is Sedition, or the way to Sedition, to ſay no worſe; and this will therefore juſtifie my manner of writing againſt you, and my frequent charging ſedition, and the defence of ſedition upon you.
23Pray be ingenuous, how would you like this way of arguing? Whether the conſequence be true or falſe, you will not ſay this is fair dealing; you would ſay you were highly injured, I am ſure you would.
And now I am come ſo near it, I will preſent you with ſuch an inſtance in your Book; that will to the purpoſe convince you at once, both of your Ingenuity in this way of arguing, and of the cenſure you give me, upon a falſe ſuppoſition, that I had abuſed my worthy Friend Dr. Baxter, in affirming, that he had ſaid ſomething that he never ſaid. 'Tis thus:
You tell me, p. 48. that Baxter (as you familiarly call him) taketh himſelf to be abuſed by my Allegations, & provoketh me to cite any of his words which are against Non-conformiſts preaching as they have opportunity; and ſomewhat ſharply mind me, that he and Mr. Ball underſtand themſelves better then I do them.
Now, who would not hence conclude, that I had ſaid, that that reverend Perſon had written againſt Non-conformiſts preaching, as they have opportunity. But where have I ſaid ſo, or any thing to that purpoſe? I know your civility and veracity will engage you to ſhew it; therefore you refer your Reader to p 16. of my Book: There, indeed, I find the place which you mean, but not one tittle of24 the words or thing you ſay. My words there are theſe; Particularly the Arguments of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Crofton, for communion with our Parochial Congregations are ſtill the ſame, and ought to be anſwered, before you begin your work of Separation, and think of building new any Synagogues.
But is this to ſay, that Mr. Baxter hath written against Non-conformiſts preaching as they have opportunity? Yet if Mr. Baxter hath writ nothing againſt Non-Conformiſts Preaching,Cure of Church-Diviſions, and Defence of againſt Bagſhaw. which I never ſaid; Mr. Baxter hath written Arguments for Communion with our Parochial Congregations, which I did ſay, and ſtill maintain; and neither Mr. Baxter no your ſelf will deny it, except in Drollery.
And pray tell me, what reaſon hath that learned and peaceable man to hold himſelf abuſed by me, for commending his Arguments, to be conſidered by ſuch as he intended them for? did he not publiſh them that they might be conſidered? or hath he chang'd his mind, and thinks them now inconſiderable himſelf? or more unſeaſonable now, then when he wrote them?
I think worthily of that reverend Author, but, Sir, what you can ſay for your ſelf, I know not: You ought, if I might be Judge,25 first ſatisfie the World that I have not abuſed Mr. Baxter; and then, to acknowledge the Abuſe you have put upon your ſelf and Mr. Baxter, upon me and the Reader, and the plain truth.
If the cenſure ſeem rigorous, judge your ſelf, and mittigate it, if you find cauſe; but conſider, that you your ſelf intimate, that Mr. Baxter never wrote any thing againſt their preaching; and yet you know, that he hath written much, and that lately too, for communion with our Parochial Congregations: the thing I affirmed. But this way of Reaſoning, and undue accuſation, is ſo familiar a thing in the Book before me, that, I fear, I have abuſed my Readers ſtomach, by ſtaying himſelf ſo long upon one or two particulars of ſo groſs a nature.
I confeſs, it is as lawful as 'tis uſual, to confute a propoſition from the ill conſequences and inconveniences of it; but this is one thing: and to ſet up the ill conſequence as the Doctrine of the Adverſary, and under that form to diſpute and write a Book agrinſt it, eſpecially without ſhewing the neceſſity, if not the obviouſneſs and immediateneſs of ſuch conſequence, in the ſtating of the Queſtion; all which you very skilfully think not fit to do: this I am bold to ſay, is another thing; and ſuch a thing as ought never to plead Indulgence26 or Toleration, eſpecially in a grave and grown, and practiſed Diſputant.
However, two things ought always to be remembred, that incommodum non ſolvit Argumentum; and if any good may come out of evil, yet we muſt not do evil that ſuch good may come. 'Tis a good thing for any one to provide for his Family, yet I may not ſteal that I may provide for my Family: nor thus argue, I must provide for my Family, I cannot do it except I ſteal; therefore I must ſteal, or thus I muſt preach; I cannot preach but I muſt gather a Church out of my Neighbors Congregation; therefore I muſt gather a Church, &c. though I before obſerved, there are ſome that call that ſtealing; and that not only from my Neighbor, but God himſelf.
But more of this anon; in the mean time let it only remembred, that if you may not preach in the Temples, as you acknowledg; and if you cannot preach in other places, as you more then intimate, without gathering Churches, &c. and if this be found ſtealing and unlawful, and therefore it follow, that without conforming you cannot lawfully exerciſe your gift of preaching, I cannot help it.
However, at preſent, I have a mind to relieve you, by doing you the kindneſs to queſtion the conſequence of your Argument;27 and that I may alſo relieve the Reader, and give him ſpace to breathe a little, this ſhall be the matter of another Chapter.
CHAP. V.
The conſequence of deſerting their Office from their not gathering, diſproved as not good either according to the Authors Principles, or the Anſwerers, or the nature of thing it ſelf.
J Hope, by this time, you perceive you have not dealt like a very fair Diſputant, in framing a propoſition your ſelf, and then publiſhing it to the World as mine, and as aſſerted and defended by my Book; and accordingly laboring to demoliſh it in the deſign and ſcope of your Anſwer, although that propoſition had been the neceſſary, plain, and immediate conſequence of what I had affirmed or denied.
But what ſhall I ſay if it indeed appear otherwiſe, and if that which you impoſe upon me, and ſo zealouſly oppoſe in me; be not, in any ſenſe, the conſequence of what I had ſaid, either immediately or remotely, plainly or obſcurely, or any way neceſſarily. And that though I do aſſert, that it is unlawful for you28 to gather new Churches, it will not follow, either from my principles, or from the nature and truth of the thing, or from your own principles, that I muſt needs hold it to be unlawful for you to exerciſe your Miniſtery; or would perſwade you to deſert your Office, let each be examined.
1. To make your charge againſt me any way tolerable, you ſhould make it appear at leaſt, from my principles, which is not poſſible for you to do: for, though I judge it unlawful for you to gather new Churches to preach unto, I hold it equally unlawful for you to deſert your Office: 'Tis my plain opinion, you ought rather then either of theſe, to attend upon the Miniſtery of the Temples; and in order thereunto to conform: and be it known unto you, if you knew it not before, that I am much of Mr. Fulwood's mind, who in three Books, publiſhed by him to that purpoſe, hath endeavored to convince you, that this is his judgement, and that your duty.
Now, unleſs an endeavor to perſwade you not to deſert your Office, be to exhort you to deſert your Office; yea, unleſs I had declared, that I believe there is no better, or no other way, for you to ſerve your Miniſtery, then by gathering Churches, how can you affirm with honour to your wit and ingenuity, p. 57. that by diſſwading you from29 the latter, I exhort to deſert the former.
2. Neither doth it follow from the nature and truth of the thing; there is no ſuch indiſſoluble connexion betwixt theſe two Propoſitions, that from my aſſerting one of them, you ſhould boldly charge me with the other.
I do ſay, you may not gather Churches; I do not therefore ſay, you may not preach: or, if I did ſay that in ſtatu quo you may not preach; I do not ſay, you may not change your ſtate, as before, and then preach; I do not ſay, the King may not open the door of the Temple to you, that you might preach there; or if I had ſaid all this, yet I had not ſaid, you ſhould deſert your Office; for not to preach is one thing, and to deſert your Office is another.
For no man may ſay, that a Miniſter deſerts his Office, who living in a place of Chriſtian Government, and hath no title, but ſincerely deſires it, though he do actually preach, without publick licence, or the leave of a particular Paſtor; and he that acknowledgeth any thing of Government, cannot be ſober and believe that his Office obligeth him to go into Houſes for want of a Temple; and there endeavor to draw the people from the publick worſhip, without the leave of their faithful Paſtor; and that too, juſt at the times30 appointed for the publick worſhip, as the cuſtome generally is, notwithſtanding your example and Edicts to the contrary, and this, forſooth, becauſe he muſt preach.
Yea, once more, admit that a lawfully ordained Miniſter rightfully inducted into his cure, ſhould be ſuſpended, juſtly or unjuſtly, by a lawful Authority; (and I think this may venture to comprehend ſomething of our preſent caſe:) will any rule of good Policy, or regular Reaſon, allow this Miniſter to preach within the bounds of that Authority that ſilenc'd him, before ſuch Authority is ſatisfied, either for the offence, or of the innocency of the Perſon, and the unwarrantableneſs ▪ of the ſentence.
Neither can I ſee (pardon my dulneſs) how any Government can be ſecured from the danger of General Confuſion, that ſhall ſuffer this Principle [we must preach] to bear it down. I wiſh heartily I may be found miſtaken in this at laſt; however, I am ſure, if perſons thus ſuſpended ſhall (during their ſuſpenſion) forbear to preach, at leaſt till the innocency of their Cauſe, and the unjuſtneſs of their ſilencing be very clear and undoubted, generally to perſons unconcerned, they do not by their obedience and unvoluntary ſilence deſert their Office, though they be yet in the poſſeſſion of their Cures: their31 non-actual preaching in obedience to Authority, deſerves a better name then a ſacrilegious deſertion of the Holy Miniſtery; much leſs if Miniſters have no Cures of their own, may they be charged with deſerting their Office, becauſe they gather not our people from our Temple-worſhip, that they may have Auditors to preach unto, though without ſo doing they could not preach.
3. Let us now, laſtly, try the ſtrength of this conſequence by your own principle diſcovered to us by your conceſſions and purpoſes in your Book; but more eſpecially, in your advice given to the Non-conformiſts.
In p. 92. you ſay, In Pariſhes where all may hear the Pariſh-Miniſter, I would not have you (Non-conformiſts) without neceſſity 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. I do acknowledge that in other places, though you omit it here, you provide that the Miniſter of the Pariſh be faithful, truly endeavoring the ſalvation of his flock.
I am not here to urge, or inſiſt upon the inconveniencies of ſuch a practice; and if the Non-conformiſt be an humble, diſcreet, and good man, for my part I ſhould not much32 fear them; but my buſineſs is to collect from this Advice of yours, that you your ſelf can hardly believe, that deſerting your Office, doth neceſſarily follow the not gathering of Churches; and that not only in mine, but in the common and uſual underſtanding of the terms.
For thus, as you well obſerve, the Non-conformiſt would but hold a Chappel meeting under, and be ſubſervient in his work to the Pariſh-Miniſter; and ſuch preaching would in no ordinary conſtruction be termed Schiſm, or a gathering a Church out of, or diſtinct, much leſs in oppoſition to the Pariſh-Church, but a furtherance, if well managed, to the common intereſt and concern of it; as the office of a School-maſter in Catechiſing the yonger ſort upon the week-days.
And could we find that this cauſe had been indeed taken upon the foreſaid conditions, as you adviſe, we ſhould not have thought we had not had much reaſon to endeavour to prevent the Abuſe of Toleration by the Preſbyterians, or to complain as we do.
But 'tis ſad to obſerve their practice quite contrary, generally ſo far as we can learn, and particularly in the populous City where I dwell, that are moſt conveniently ordered into Pariſhes, and the beſt provided of faithful Miniſters, for to ſuch places the Non conformiſts33 generally reſort, and ſet up their meetings in direct oppoſition to the Parochial Churches, at the ſame time with the publick Worſhip; not endeavoring, in the leaſt, any communion with it, or the Pariſh-Miniſter; but to as much diſcouragement of him as poſſibly they can.
And in thoſe other places, where they have ſet up their Meetings, (there are but few that think it convenient to venture in the Country Pariſhes) they take the ſame courſe, without any regard to the diſtinction of faithful and unfaithful Miniſters; and this is the thing we call Schiſm and ſinful ſeparation, and unlawful gathering of Churches out of Churches, and cannot ſee how you can believe that the neceſſity of your Office can juſtifie ſuch dividing practices, who ſeem to deteſt them.
Yea, if ſuch as bear the name and licence of Presbyterian-Miniſters, would follow your advice, and only gather temporary Aſſemblies (waiting for a fixed better ſtate, as you ſpeak) in London, and in ſome Country Pariſhes, where the Miniſters are intollerable, till they are better provided for, though perhaps we juſtly differ from you about the number of intollerable Miniſters, and muſt in reaſon judge, that your firſt endeavors ſhould try to have ſuch Miniſters remov'd;34 yet, I conceive, we ſhould not have ſo great cauſe of lamentation, as now is too too notoriouſly given us, by the unreaſonable cauſers of our Diviſions.
Sir, give me leave to ſay and believe, upon the obſervation of the peaceable Principles, I find now and then hinted, even in the midſt of your heat againſt me, in your Book, that did you rightly apprehend how matters are carried by theſe Church-gatherers for the dividing, diſſipating, and as much as in them lies, deſtroying our Parochial Churches, you would return to your firſt thoughts, and no longer oppoſe, but ſecond me.
CHAP. VI.
The Question is firſt ſtated, not unintellgible. Now again clear'd and free'd from his Exceptions.
YOu now perceive that the main of your Book is anſwered, by demonſtrating how little it is to the purpoſe, to ſay no worſe: and thus you ſee, what trouble you put me to, to anſwer Nothing. p. 40.
But Soft, Sir, What if enough be found beſides, and, on the by, to Confute you? perhaps, there is nothing in your Book, at leaſt, your Anſwerer might think ſo, ſufficient to provoke ſo great a Man, to ſet his wit directly againſt you. If it be ſo, I accept his mercy; for then, the Match being the more equal, I do the better conceive a Confidence to defend my ſelf: and, at laſt, to the point.
In the State of my Queſtion, I firſt ſuppoſed, that the Presbyterians would not joyn with the Independents: but, therein, my Anſwerer intimates, p. 28. I was miſtaken; for it is an Article of his Faith (ſo far as faith is concerned in the point) that the Presbyterian•will joyn with (their now friends) the Independents, not as a Sect, &c. Yea, p. 29. that they will joyn with the Sect (as he is pleaſed to honour36 us) of the Dioceſan Prelatists, in the Pariſh Churches alſo. O the Charity of Preſbyterians! and the length of their Armes, that can embrace perſons at ſo great a diſtance! But pray, Sir, what do you mean, by joyning with the Independents? Will you, indeed, joyn with them in their Congregations? If this be not your meaning, you are again upon the point of little to the purpoſe. But if it be, and yet you will joyn with them as a Sect, your Judgment is as deep, as your affection is broad.
But to proceed, upon that miſtake, my Queſtion was ſhortned to this purpoſe; Whether the Presbyterians, as things now ſtand, ought in Conſcience or Prudence, to Set up for Themſelves, or to Worſhip God with the reſt of their Neighbours, in their ſeveral, proper Parochial-Congregations?
What I meant by their Setting up for themſelves, was plained in the very Queſtion, as was Juſt before propoſed: viz. A refuſing our Communion and a gathering themſelves into diſtinct and ſeparate Churches.
Now, rather, than I will run in a Maze, or venture my ſelf in an Ocean of Tempeſtuous Propoſitions, my Anſwerer ſhall pardon me, if I appeal to the Reader, whether my Queſtion was not intelligible without them.
For what man is ſo ignorant (unleſs his37 Knowledg hath confounded and Shipwrack'd his Reaſon) as not to know, who I mean by Presbyterians? p. 45. Yea, who would not ſuſpect the perſon guilty ▪ that, when he is Indited flies, and plaies leaſt in ſight, or ſo diſguiſeth him, as he cannot be known: or when his friends return (as our Author for the Presbyterians) a Non inventus. But he and the world muſt know, that the Presbyterians like non of his excuſes or ſubterfuges. They cannot ſo eaſily deny themſelves; and methinks, he ſhould not deny his Brethren: they apply themſelves under that Name to the King for Licences, as our Author acknowledgeth; and yet he more then Intimates they are not, at leaſt moſt of them, are not, what they tell the King they are. And then what doth he make them, if they are not Presbyterians? But let him be anſwered, that ſuch as deny themſelves to be Independents, or Anabaptiſts, or Quakers, or Papiſts, and ſcruple and mince their Conformity with us; whether they be Laity or Clergy, will be called Presbyterians whether he will or no: and ſuch, he could not but know, I, eſpecially meant.
2. Who knows not what I mean, by our Parochial Churches or Congregations? and who knows not, too well, what is to be underſtood by Gathering-Churches; by the former practices38 of the Independents; but more eſpecially, by theſe Presbyterians, ſince the Indulgence?
But, to talk of gathering Churches, and yet, of holding Communion with us, is a Juggle, unworthy our Author: who either doth, or ſhould know; that it is proteſtatio contra factum & queſtionem. I mean, 'tis generally ſo.
I have, as you cannot but ſee, both in the Queſtion as propoſed, and as ſtated, and as proſecuted, ſet gathering of Churches in oppoſition to our Parochial Congregations. And what you ſay to any thing elſe, is not to the point. And the general practice of Church-gatherers, too well ſatisfies the world what they intend; and alſo that the Queſtion was rightly propounded, and clearly ſtated to any unbyaſſed and unprejudiced Reader, what ever you ſay to confound it, and with your wonted Elaborateneſs to render it unintelligible, p. 40. and then complain that it is ſo.
But the Learning of ſome men, is not ill compared to a Pedlars Pack; though, not ſo much, for that there are many things that are difficult to be found; but rather, becauſe, if they look for any thing, every thing comes to hand.
But this be far from our Author; to whom we muſt now hearken dilligently. He firſt ſets down my Queſtion verey honeſtly and intirely; p. 26, 27. then he nibles a little at it,39 and at length, bites: and tells the World, that I joyn two queſtions in one, which we muſt look to have diſtinctly Anſwered.
But what thoſe two queſtions are, and where they are diſtinctly anſwered I have look't, and find not. Would he not ſpeak diſtinctly to them becauſe he hates Diviſions? or was it his prudence to leave out Conſcience? for he hath told us, p. 21. that to decide this caſe is a work of meer Chriſtian Prudence: but where is Conſcience then? Excluded? by what Law? that ſhall be tried anon.
For I ſhall now addreſs my ſelf in earnest to review the whole Queſtion: not in two only, but in the ſeveral Caſes depending upon it. A juſt examin whereof, will give me occaſion ſufficient to conſider, all that he hath ſaid to the purpoſe againſt me, as I find it ſcattered up and down his Book.
CHAP. VII.
Gathering-Churches charged with Schiſm from the Church of England, and proved to be ſo from the Definition of this Church. Wherein he is told what the Church of England, and Schiſm from it is.
THe General Queſtion betwixt us is this; Whether it be Lawful for the Presbyterians40 to refuſe Communion with our Pariſh Churches, and to gather themſelves into Diſtinct and Separate Churches.
And upon a Serious review of it, and Conſideration of all that the Anſwerer hath ſaid againſt me, and my Diſcourſ upon it; I do renew my Charge; and poſſitively affirm, that it is Ʋnlawful; and as it is generally practiſed, 'tis a great and dangerous Schiſm both againſt the Church of England, and Particular Churches: 'tis a Schiſm in its own nature, and ſinful in it Self. 'Tis a Schiſm in the Judgment of the old Nonconformiſts called Puritans; and alſo in the Judgment of the Presbyterians before 1660. and laſtly, that both in Conſcience and Prudence it ought at preſent to be avoided, or deſerted, by all ſuch, eſpecially, as are called Presbyterians. And all this, in in its ſeveral parts, and in their order, as here ſet down, I undertake to make good.
1. Thus to Separate and to Gather Churches is a Schiſm, with reſpect to the Church of England. Now, as Divines ſpeak of a Schiſm in a Church, and a Shiſm from a Church; ſo in a diverſe reſpect, this practice is guilty of both. For if you conſider the Church of England, as particular Organized Church, 'tis a Schiſm from: but if, as part of the Ʋniverſal Viſibe Church only, as the Nonconformists uſe to term it, then 'tis Schiſm in it.
41It is a Shiſm from the Church of England as ſuch; by dividing from its Governours, Members, Worſhip and Aſſemblies: as I more than Intimated in my Book, p. 8. and this ought to have been diſtinctly obſerved at leaſt, by my Anſwerer: but inſtead thereof, how he ſtumbles and blunders! looking carefully and making great Outcries after that, which I laid juſt before him.
You charge us, ſaith he, p. 37. with Schiſm from the Church of England. Again; p. 38. Tell us what you mean by Schiſm from the Church of England. Again; p. 35. We are told of Schiſm from the Church of England; as if it were a Monſtrous and unheard of thing: and then puzzles, pittyfully puzzles himſelf and his Reader, in an impertinent purſuit of the Head of the Church of England: as if without a certain and infallible knowledge of that, there could be no ſuch thing as a Church of England, or Schiſm from it. Wearying himſelf, for five or ſix pages, at his old game, of nothing to the purpoſe.
But, methinks, he labours with a very vehement deſire after this great truth; and could he be ſure to have it, he will not ſay how much Money, as well as Pains, he would give for it: yea he roundly offers me (how conſiſtent with his gravity I do not obſerve) but he roundly offers me all the Money in his Purſe42 to make him underſtand but what the Church of England is, p. 35.
Well, if you will promiſe me to be humble and teachable, and that you are not too old to learn; though I have no mind to your money, I will ſhew my readineſs, and charity at leaſt, to relieve you in ſo great a Streight, though my Judgment may fail, and my Definition be as deſpicable as my ſilly Arguments.
The Church of England, is a Community, Conſiſting of profeſſed Chriſtians, Ʋnited in the ſame Government, Doctrine and Worſhip: according to the 39. Articles, and Homilies; Her Liturgy, and Canons and Laws; and divided into Parochial Aſſemblies, for the more convenient Worſhipping of God.
Might ſuch a Notion of the Church of England have ſuperceded all his Fineſſes of Wit and Diſtinctions about the Conſtitutive Eccleſiaſtical Head, as he ſpeaks, (how learnedly I leave to his Friend Mr. Bagſhaw) I think his labour might have been well enough ſpared: For he may Conſider we are Ʋnited in the ſame Government, and the Pars Regens; is the only part he himſelf requires to be added to the Pars Subdita to Conſtitute a Church Organiz'd, in a proper political ſence. p. 38. Now you will not deny, either of theſe parts; and conſequently, you have found the whole of the Church of England, as you43 ſay, Organiz'd in a proper political Sence.
And, it hence follows, that 'tis material to our point, to determine certainly, what is the Eccleſiaſtical Head of this Church: whether, we that are Members of it, are all united in the King as Perſona mixta cum Sacerdote, and not meerly a Civil head as you inſinuate; he being Supream in all Cauſes and over all Perſons as well Eccleſiaſtical as Civil. Or whether, any think it more proper to Radicate this Ʋnion in his Grace of Canterbury, as Primate over all England: or whether in both the Arch-Biſhops who hold Communion in the ſame Doctrine, Worſhip and Laws: and in whom, both the Provinces are Ʋnited: or laſtly, whether we are not rather United in all the Biſhops and Paſtors of the Church of England, as the Pars Regens; and our Government in the Church, conſidered purely and abſtractly from the Civil Government, be not rather an Ariſtocracy than a Monarchy. Whether this, or the other be the true; to know it is not neceſſary, nor of any uſe, that I can perceive in the preſent Controverſy.
But it is a certain Vanity, to ſay; becauſe I cannot find the Head, I will deny the Body, though I muſt withal deny my own Senſes. Becauſe you cannot know certainly, who was your Father, will you deny your Mother which is the ſurer ſide?
44There is a Church of Engl•nd, and what it is I have endeavoured to ſhew: and by the Nature of it, we may more eaſily conclude what Schiſm from it, is; and who are guilty of this; whether ſuch as Separate and Gather Churches or not.
CHAP. VIII.
What Schiſm from the Church of England is, and whether gathering of Churches, a•now is practiſed, be not guilty of it.
1. WHat is Schiſm from the Church of England? ſure it is not a denying its Doctrine, or holding any thing contrary thereunto; he that holdeth perverſum Dogma only, is anAd Tit. cap. 3. Heretick, no Schiſmatick, as St. Hierom teacheth.
Mr. Newcomen, a learned Presbyterian, as I obſerved in my laſt, lets the Separatiſts know, that their agreeing with us and the Reformed Churches in Doctrines that are Fundamental, their holding one Head and one Faith, doth not excuſe them from being guilty of breach of unity, ſo long as they hold not one Body, one Baptiſm. For he cites Beza, another learnedAnnotat. in 1 Cor. 1. 10. Presbyterian. So that you may45 be willing to ſubſcribe to the 39. Articles, and yet be Schiſmaticks from the Church of England.
It remains therefore, that ſuch Schiſm relates to the other Bands of our union and fellowſhip with this Church; to wit, her Government and Worſhip, and conſequent to the latter, her Members and Aſſemblies.
Thus you ſee we muſt return to our firſt determination; that Schiſm from the Church of England, is a ſinful dividing from, or a diſſolving our union and communion with her in her Governors and Members, Worſhip or Aſſemblies. This is the leaſt that we mean by Schiſm from the Church of England; and is called Separation or Schiſm negative; which is made poſitive, and more formally ſuch, when thoſe that have ſo ſeparated, ſet up their Altar againſt hers, and erect other Congregations in oppoſition to hers.
The Schiſmatick by Dr. HamondOf Schiſm. Epiſt. 40. out of Ignatius, is deſcribed to be Filius impius, &c. An impious Son, which having contemned the Biſhops, and forſaken the Prieſts of God, dares conſtitute another Altar. And again Epiſt. 57. the Schiſmaticks are they, that having left their Biſhop, ſet up for themſelves abroad another falſe Biſhop; and all their adherents are involved in the ſame guilt, who joyn with the Schiſmaticks againſt their Biſhops.
46Two things here muſt be ſuppoſed, 1. That we are the pars ſubdita, and do ow this communion and obedience to theſe Governors of the Church. 2. That they impoſe no unlawful conditions of this communion upon us; though if they ſhould, how far we may ſeparate muſt take its meaſure from ſuch impoſitions, which is another Queſtion to be diſcuſſed anon in another place; and at preſent I ſhall only add, that ſo far as I underſtand my Anſwerer, ſo far as the people are concerned in the conditions of our communion, we are not likely to differ much in this point. But for the first of theſe ſuppoſitions, if there be any force in Scripture ▪ precepts, requiring obedience to our ſpiritual Guides, or in Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Laws, which are very ſevere to that purpoſe, nothing can be more evident, than that all Engliſh Chriſtians do owe communion and obedience to the Governors of the Church of England, whoſe Government ſtands eſtabliſhed by both ſorts of Laws, and is ſo acknowledged by the Declaration it ſelf.
And your Friend Mr. Baxter isDefence of his Cure, p. 76. not obſcure in this point; We muſt own, ſaith he, a National Church, as it is improperly ſo denominated from the King, that is the Civil Head — and as it is a community of Chriſtians, and a47 part of the Univerſal Church, Ʋnited by the Concord of Her Pastors; who in Synods may repreſent the whole Miniſtry, and be the means of their Agreement.
He ſaith; we muſt own the National Church: I ſay, then we muſt not diſown Her. And muſt we not likewiſe own the King, as the Head thereof? and all the Biſhops and Paſtors and Governors under Him? And then, what liberty is left us to diſown, deny, or renounce their Perſons or Authority?
Let ſuch eſpecially, as have taken the Oath of Supremacy, and received Ordination from Epiſcopal hands, yet better conſider, thoſe ſolemn Obligations upon them, added to the Laws; and take heed, in earneſt, of Perfidiouſneſs and Perjury.
Let them conſider, what is to renounce all foraign Juriſdiction: and to their power to aſſiſt and defend all Juriſdiction (Spiritual as well as Temporal) granted or belonging to the Kings Highneſs: and how well a renouncing Obedience to the Government of the Church, conſiſts with that which we have ſworn therein.
It is true, all are not called actually to take this Oath; yet it is as true, that the Miniſters and Officers of all Sorts, generally, are; and all Graduates in the Ʋniverſity: and for others, as they are the Kings Subjects, they are48 unqueſtionably taken to be, under the ſame Obligation, as to the matter of it; and are born to the Duty as well as the Priviledge of Subjects of this Realm: and therefore, we find, that this Oath is Adminiſtred; not only to Oblige, but rather, as a Teſt to trie, and alſo to ſecure the fidelity of ſuch, as take it, as is evident in the Statute.
Again, let all Miniſters Ordained by Biſhops (I hope I have now to do with one) in the Name of God, ſeriouſly conſider, what they promiſed to do at their Ordination; being moſt ſolemnly interogated by the Biſhop in the Name of God and of his Church, as the words are.
More particularly: the Biſhop demands; Will you then give your faithful diligence always for to Miniſter the Doctrine and Sacraments and Diſcipline of Chriſt, as the Lord hath Commanded; and as This Church and Realm hath received the Same, according to Commandments of God, ſo that you may teach the People committed to your Cure and Charge, with all diligence, to keep and obſerve the Same.
What Anſwer did you make hereunto? I will do ſo by the help of the Lord. And thus, you, at once acknowledge that the Doctrine, Sacraments and Diſcipline of Chriſt as received by this Church, are according to Gods Commandments; and that you would give49 your faithful diligence always, ſo to Miniſter them, as this Church hath received them: and laſtly, that with all diligence you would teach your People to obſerve the Same.
Again, the Biſhop demands; Will yoll reverently Obey your Ordinary, and other chief Miniſters, unto whom is committed the Charge and Government over you: following with a glad Mind and Will their Godly Admonitions, and ſubmitting your ſelves to their Godly Judgment.
What did you Anſwer to this? I will do ſo, the Lord being my Helper. Wherein you both acknowledge the Government of the Church over you, and promiſe Obedience thereunto.
And, it is no pleaſure to me, to obſerve; that one, that I dare not ſuſpect, not to be thus Ordained, ſhould notwithſtanding theſe ſacred Obligations, ſeem, even to Print, to Glory, that he never took the Oath of Canonical Obedience; which is, to obey his Ordinary in all honeſt and lawful things.
Thus for the Ministers: and for the People, were they not generally Baptized by the Ministers, and according to the Order, and in the Publick places of the Church of England? Have they not ſince, given their Conſent, as Members, by their publick attendance upon the Worſhip of the Church of England? Have they not generally owned,50 for a conſiderable time together, ſome many years, that relation to their particular Churches and Paſtors? Is all this nothing to ſignifie their Ʋnion with our Church, and Obligation to her Government? Is it nothing in our Authors Judgement? I cannot believe it; I am ſure 'tis ſomething in Mr. Baxters Opinion, as I ſhall ſhew anon.
But wherein are we obliged to obey our Governours as we are Members of the Church of England? The meaſure of this Obedience, are the Laws and Canons and the Rubrick in the Liturgy: and the main Scope and intention of all theſe, is to direct you how you are to Worſhip God in our Parochial Aſſemblies; as alſo, to demean your ſelves in all due Reverence to your Superiours, and Brotherly love and fellowſhip together, as Members of the ſame Body, the Church of England.
And to diſſolve or renounce this our Communion with our Brethren (as well as with Governours) in thoſe Aſſemblies, and in that Worſhip, is ſo far to renounce that Communion which we ow, and is due from us all to the Church of England; and is that thing, which is deſervedly branded with the black Name of Schiſme from the Church of England: (which is the other Branch of that Schiſme before mentioned) eſpecially, if the Deriders proceed to the Erecting of Anti Churches,51 as Mr. Baxter properly calls them.
For our ſeveral Parochial Aſſemblies, are Parts and Members of the Great Body of our Church, into which, the Church is divided for our Convenient Worſhiping of God, (as you heard in the Definition) wherein, all individual perſons are bound to attend upon Gods Worſhip according to the foreſaid Rules, quatenus Members of this Church of England.
But I ſhall have an occaſion to ſpeak largly, of Schiſme from particular Congregations, in another place; and at preſent, would fain hope, that ſome thing hath been ſaid to ſhew what Schiſme from the Church of England is.
This is the Sum. Schiſme from the Church of England is a ſinful dividing from Her, in Her Governours, Members, Worſhip or Aſſemblies. Which, and much more is done by thoſe that diſpiſe her Government, renounce her Worſhip and Communion with Her Mombers in the Publick places of it; and Erect New Congregations for a new manner of Worſhip and Diſcipline, under other Governours, in oppoſition thereunto; according to the Laudable practiſes now on foot.
By this time, I hope, my Anſwerer ſees, after his long and ranging Scrutiny for the diſcovery of this Schiſm, and all in vain,52 how pertinently he demands, p. 38. Is every difference, in things unneceſſary, from the Major part, a Schiſm from them?
Again, p. 39. 'Tis our diſobedience to the Church that is our Schiſm. This he ſaies, and then quickly wipes it off, with his own pleaſant Anſwer; But Fidelity to our King commandeth the diſowning of Ʋſurpers. But I might ſpoil his Mirth, ſhould I examine his meani•g.
Again, p. 40. he cries out; Whoever took any Act of Diſobedience in a Circumſtance to be a Schiſm?
But, in earneſt, had not theſe little frisks and extravagancies been happily prevented, had he heeded me at firſt? is a ſinful dividing from the Church, in Her Government and Worſhip, and ſetting up Churches in oppoſition to Her, in both, is this no more than a difference in things unneceſſary from the Major part, or than a bare Act of Diſobedience in a Circumſtance? I know you will not ſay it: and 'tis vain to ſay, that you intend no more: I wrote againſt thoſe that do.
What has he more to Anſwer? Why, the Schiſm I mention, p. 39. is not ſuch as Martin and Gildas made? what then? if it be worſe, it is not ſuch. You ſhould rather have compar'd your Brethren in this new Worke, to the other Martin, called Mar-Prelate.
53But this Martin, you ſay, Renounced Communion with the Biſhops and their Synods (all his life) who had proſecuted the Priſſillianiſts with the Secular Sword: and Gildas pronounced him no excellent Chriſtian that called the Brittiſh Clergy in his time, Prieſts or Miniſters, and not Traitors, as he did himſelf: yet neither of theſe holy men are called Seperatiſts or Schiſmaticks.
What follows? might they not be Schiſmatick•, though they were not called ſo? You will find ſome advantage by the Argument, for I have not called you ſo, yet. Perhaps Gildas might be bold with his Brethren, and call them Traitors; but if unjuſtly, 'twas ill done, though no Schiſme. If justly; there may be Proditores found of your acquaintance too, I make no doubt; though, if you do not urge me much, I ſhall not call them ſo. You do not think that time is returned upon us, and that he hath not the Character of an excellent Chriſtian, that hath not the gift, of calling the Prieſts Traitors.
So much for Gildas: But for his Companion Martin, I might have given him Courſer Entertainment, had it not been for the kindneſs of Another Gildas, that not long ſince, ſpake more in his favour, than you do now.
His words, on his behalf, are theſe; I have told you in the ſtory of Martin, how he ſeperated54 from the Synods of thoſe IndividualBaxters Defence, p. 76. Biſhops; and from their Local Communion without Seperation from the Office, the Churches, or any other Biſhop: And then for ought I know Martin might be a good honeſt fellow. Do you all the rest, that he did, and by my conſent, you ſhould be excuſed from ſitting in Synods.
For Martin it ſeems denied not Communion with the Churches; much leſs ſet up an Altar and Church of his own in oppoſition to them: If he had done ſo, I would have ſaid he had been a Rank Schiſmatick, though I ſpare you.
It is confeſt that the Presbyterians do generally agree, that the Diſciplinary part, or Form of Government,Vid. Cawdry Ind•pend. Schiſme, page 172, 173. is not Eſſential to a National Church; yet they affirm, that the Verity of a Natioanal Church, conſiſts in its Agreement in the ſame Doctrine and Worſhip: and conſequently, though differences in Doctrine are not, yet a breach of its Ʋnity, and making diviſions in a point of Worſhip, is a plain Schiſme from a National Church acording to the Principles of the Preſbyterians. Mr. Cawdrey ſpake not his own peculiar opinion, when he ſaid, p. 178. I believe thoſe men, that raiſe differences in a Reforming Church, he meant this National Church, and55 perſiſt in keeping open thoſe Diviſions, Seperating alſo into other new Churches; doe as well deſerve the name of Schiſmaticks, as thoſe that make differences, in one Particular Church.
Upon the whole, then, you perceive how aptly you ask, p. 42. Whether a Miniſter may not remove from one Pariſh to another; or any man remove his dwelling into another Pariſh, &c. and be no Schiſmatick? an old objection of Dr. Owens, and anſwered by Mr. Cawdrey: that they remove to Churches of the ſame Conſtitution; a thing never queſtioned, but alwaies allowed, both by the Ʋnion and Cuſtome of this National Church.
Again, and alike pertinently you ask, Whether a Seperation of one Pariſh from another be Schiſm? or whether I mean by it, a Local Seperation only, as you gravely enquire, p. 33. Or, whether little differences in the modes of Worſhip, particularly, in the manner of the Miniſters Prayer (and he ſhould have added, in dividing his Text) be Schiſm? but he prevents my Anſwer, by denying theſe himſelf. Thoſe that differ thus, he ſaith, and thereby doubtleſs very wiſely and to general Satisfaction determineth; theſe, ſaith he, p. 34. are not Seperated Churches, any otherwiſe than Local, and in ſuch Modal Differences.
Thus, what the Church of England, and56 what Schiſm from it, is. But at the beginning of the diſcourſe, 'twas hinted; that if we would conſider the Church of England, not organice but entitative, as ſome ſpeak; that is, as it is a part or member of the Ʋniverſal viſible Church; even in this conſideration of it, Separation and the preſent practice of gathering Churches, is a Schiſm in the Church of England, if not ſo from it. And by thoſe intestine Ruptures and rents it is cauſing in the midſt of her, gives her too much cauſe to complain; O my Bowels, my Bowels! While it tears in pieces her Old and Stated Congregations; tramples upon her Liturgy; defies her Worſhip; renounceth her Paſtors; throws down all her ancient Land-marks and laudable bounds of her particular Churches; and endeavours every where to Erect new Altars and Seperate Churches that were never before heard of in the Chriſtian world, but amongſt wild and deſperate and Schiſmatical Sectaries.
But, this will meet us in the next Chapter, when we ſpeak of Schiſm from particular Congregations.
CHAP. IX.
Gathering Churches, a Schiſme from particular Parochial Churches. The general Nature of Schiſm.
THe preſent practice of Gathering Churches, is not only a Schiſm from the Church of England, but a Schiſm alſo from our particular Parochial Congregations.
This comes now to be evinc'd; and I ſhall take my advantage for the doing of it, from an Obſervation of Mr. Cawdrey againſt Dr. Owen, and theIndepend. great Schiſ. p. 177. Independents. There was, ſaith he, and is, another Church-State in England in our particular Churches: from theſe, alſo, they have moſt of them, as once of them, (or, they had been once of them) Palpably Separated.
I am now to charge the preſent practice, of our New Church gatherers, and their Ne•Churches, with the like Schiſm, from particular Parochial Churches, whereof they are, or lately were, Members, and ought ſo to have continued.
To cut our work as ſhort as may be; I ſhall confine my ſtrength within one Argument; which I conceive the cleereſt, and58 moſt likely to put an end to the matter in debate; and 'tis taken from the nature and definition of Schiſm: wherein we ſhall ſhew, what we are to underſtand by Schiſm; and how the preſent gathering of Churches out of our Churches agrees with it; not doubting, but then, the concluſion will find its own way well enough.
What is Schiſm then? I ſhall give you the eaſiest and the leaſt controverted definition of it; and ſuch, as was never excepted againſt by any Presbyterian that I ever heard of: 'Tis this; Schiſm is a cauſleſs, or as others, a voluntary, unwarrantable ſeparation from a true Church.
Here are two parts to be conſidered in the general; ſeparation from a true Church; and the formal, ſpecial and diſtinguiſhing part of it, coucht in the words cauſleſs, or unwarrantable and voluntary.
1. Schiſm is a ſeparation from a true Church; it is ſo, in the proper and peculiar notation of it: the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Schiſm,Cameron. cap. de Schiſ. is a ſtranger to prophane Authors, and the Old Teſtament, and is only to be found in the New Teſtament; ſo that it only intends ſomething about the Chriſtian Church; and what that is, muſt be underſtood by the New Teſtament, and Eccleſiaſtical59 Writers, who have taken it thence.
It is commonly affirmed, that in the Scripture-uſe of it, it ſometimes ſignifies diviſion among Chriſtians in opinion only: but I have obſerved, that uſually thoſe opinions, were ſuch as had a tendency to diviſions in practice, as I am of Paul, &c. but 'tis generally acknowledged that differences in practice, eſpecially touching Divine Worſhip (whether from the ſignification of the word, which is properly a rent or diviſion, or whether from the more frequent uſe of it that way in Scripture, or for ſome other reaſon) I ſay, difference in practice about Divine Worſhip, hath long ſince obtained and appropriated to it ſelf the name of Schiſm.
Sometimes ſuch diviſion in the Church, when there hath been no actual ſeparation from the Church, is conceived to be called Schiſm in Scripture. 1 Cor. 1. 10.
And this notion excluſive of all other kind of Schiſm in Scripture, Dr. Owen eſpouſed, contrary both to Scripture reaſon, and the general apprehenſion of the Ancient and Modern Divines, as Mr. Cawdrey hath ſufficiently argued.
Separation from a Church is a more obvious diviſion, and conſequently a more notorious kind of Schiſm; and it ſeems more reaſonable60 to argue, if the Holy Ghoſt called the first buds and beginnings of ſeperation, by the name of Schiſm, it was to deter the dividers from the ſin in its ripeneſs and accuſed fruits, which more hainouſly m•rited that black title; as our Saviour calls lust, adultery. Schiſma ſeperat ab Eccleſia; Schiſm ſeperates from the Church, ſaith St. Hierom.
To proceed, this ſeparation from the Church, as a learned Presbyterian aſſerteth, is from the Church as Catholick, which he calls Donatiſm, or from a particular Church; and that, faith he, is properly Seperatiſm.
Laſtly, this Schiſmatical ſeperation is negative or poſitive; the former is onlyCameron. de Schiſ. ſimplex ſeceſſio, when men do peaceably and quietly withdraw their communion from the Church, in part or in whole, to enjoy their conſciences in a private way. The other, called poſitive ſeperation, is when perſons thus withdrawn, do gather into a diſtinct and oppoſite body, ſetting up a Church againſt a Church, to worſhip God in a ſeperated way themſelves; which St. Auguſtine calls, a ſetting up Altar againſt Altar; alluding to that act of King2 King. 16. Ahaz, in ſetting up an Altar of his own making, after the faſhion of that which he ſaw at Damaſcus, beſides the Lord's Altar. 61And this is it, ſaith Cameron, and moſt that write upon the point, which in a peculiar manner, and by way of eminency is, and deſerves to be called by the name of Schiſm.
Thus we ſee, that gathering our ſelves into new Churches, is the complement and perfection of Schiſm; the very Apex & extrema Schiſmatis linea, as Cameron. ſpeaks.
This evil, as I lately hinted, hath its beginnings, and uſually goes on by degrees to this perfection. In the Church of Corinth, it firſt began with a factious eſteeming of one Miniſter above another: One ſaith, IHis Def. of Prin•. of Con. p. 2. am of Paul, &c. at length it came to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which Mr. Baxter renders emulation, ſtrife and ſeparation, or factions, or dividing into ſeveral parties. This appeared ſomewhat higher, Chap. 11. for they would not eat their Love-Feaſts, and Pareus thinks, they would not eat the Lord's Supper together; but thoſe that were for Paul would communicate among themſelves; ſo thoſe that were for Apollos, and thoſe that were for Peter.
And though they did not gather themſelves into ſtated Congregations, or abſolutely ſeperate into ſeveral Churches, (for they came together, though to littleChap. 11. purpoſe) yet their diviſions are not62 only called Schiſm, but a deſpiſing the Church of God.
But if this progreſs of Schiſm was ſo ſmartly rebuked, we may the leſs wonder to find the Apoſtles ſo very ſevere againſt the Gnoſticks, and thoſe more perfected Schiſmaticks, that afterwards drew Diſciples after them wholly from the Church, and made falſe Apoſtles and Anti-Churches. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉extra terminos Eccleſiae educentes,Oecumenius. ſegregantes fideles a fidelibus, andClem. Alex. making diſtinct and ſeperate, and oppoſite parties and meetings for the worſhip of God. Mr. Hale obſerves theſe two things make Schiſm compleat, the chuſing of a Biſhop in oppoſition to theTract of Schiſm, p. 3. former, a thing very frequent among the Ancients, and which many times was the cauſe and effect of Schiſm; and then the erecting of a new Church for the dividing parts to meet in publickly, and this he calls Eccleſiaſtical ſedition; and Ames, peccatum graviſſimum; a moſt grievous ſin, both in its nature and effects: For Diviſion, ſo far as it proceeds, whether in Natural, Civil, or Eccleſiaſtical Bodies, is the diſſolution and deſtruction of it.
CHAP. X.
The differencing Nature of Schiſm. The Anſwerers Objections anſwered; eſpecially the Preaching of the ejected Miniſters.
I Will ſuppoſe, we are agreed that the general nature of Schiſm is ſuch a ſeperation from a true Church as we have ſhew'd; but to make it unlawful, and to merit the evil and uſual ſence of the word, it muſt be cauſleſs, unwarrantable, and as Mr. Hales term is, unneceſſary; when it is ſo, is to be carefully ſtated: for this indeed is the punctum difficultatis, and the very hinge upon which this controverſie turns.
Herein, that I may prepare to argue with due cloſeneſs, I ſhall continue to aim at the ſence of Presbyterians: And as I have before I ſhall here alſo follow the ſteps of Mr. Brinſley, late Miniſter of Yarmouth, not only becauſe his Book of Schiſm ſeems to me judicious, and exact as to our point: and he therein follow ſo excellent a perſon as Cameron. but likewiſe for that he was an eminent Non-conformist (as a Miniſter only) for I have been well informed, that though he ceaſed preaching at Bartholomew, 1662.64 yet he kept no private meetings, but ordinarily attended on the publick worſhip, in the place where he lived: beſides, his Book was licenſed by Mr. Cranford, with a ſufficient commendation; and was Preacht and Printed in the Presbyterian Service againſt the Sectaries; and no doubt, his Brethren of that perſwaſion did then heartily concur with him in the point.
This Mr. Brinſley, p. 34, 35. ſtates the matter thus; Seperation is unwarrantable, either for the ground or manner; the former an unjust, the latter a raſh ſeperation, each a Schiſm; wherein he follows Cameron.
I ſhall vary his method a little, but keep cloſe to his ſenſe; and then an unjust ſeparation is two-fold; either when there is no cauſe, and it is abſolutely cauſleſs; or when the cauſe is light, and not ſufficient to warrant it. Seperation is raſh, when there being cauſe ſuppoſed ſufficient, yet it is done in an undue manner.
1. Separation is unjust, when it is without cauſe given by the Church; and as he enlargeth,When there is no Perſecution, no ſpreading Error or Hereſie, no Idolatry, no Superſtition maintained or practiſed, but the Church is peaceable and pure, and that both for Doctrine and Worſhip; and in a65 good meaſure free from ſcandals (which no Church ever wholly was) now in ſuch a caſe to ſeperate, is an unjuſt ſeperation, and Schiſm.
If this be indeed the ſtate of the caſe, whether the parties think they have cauſe to ſeperate or not, I think it is not much material, except to aggravate their crime: For, if they think they have cauſe, they are plain Seperatiſts; and if they do not think ſo, and yet divide the Church by a ſeperation cauſeleſs, in their own opinion as well as truth, they are far worſe. Neither will any wantonneſs of ſpirit of this kind, though boy'd up by a diſtaſte taken at our Guides, or an higher eſteem of other Teachers, or pretences of greater purity, much leſs an ill will to the ſtate of the Church from which we ſhall thus ſeperate, admit an excuſe from any ſober and wiſe man.
2. There may be ſome cauſes of offence given us by our Church, but they ſuch, as may by no meanes warrant a ſeperation: cauſe of offence is not always cauſe of ſeperation; which our Author calls a light cauſe. He enlargeth;Poſſibly ſome ſleight oppoſition, or perſecution, it may be, by ſome ſmall pecuniary Mulcts; ſome leſſer errors in Doctrine, not fundamental, nor near the foundation; ſome corruptions in or about66 the worſhip of God, but thoſe not deſtructive to the Ordinances; being not in ſubſtance, but in ceremony; and thoſe ſuch as the perſon offended is not enforced to be active in; ſcandals few, and thoſe only tolerated, not allowed. All tolerable evils, ſuch as charity may well bear with; this ground is not ſufficient to bear a ſeperation.You ſee he is full and particular; and in all this, I believe he referred in his thoughts to the ſtate of our Church heretofore, as in the former he ſtruck at the Popiſh.
The learned Ameſius, whoſe Principles were ſomewhat Congregational, hath ſaid much to the ſame purpoſe in a few words. Separation from a true ChurchCaſ. d•Schiſm. is ſometimes lawful, if one cannot remain in its communion, ſine communicatione in peccatis, without communicating in her ſins: if there be manifeſt danger of ſeduction, and if we are compell'd to depart by oppreſſion and perſecution. Thus he. And we may ſuppoſe he thought he made a full enumeration of all the just cauſes of departing from a true Church; and that in any other caſe ſeperation was unlawful.
Others indeed have more compendiouſly and fully drawn all the rules in this caſe into one point, Seperation is unwarrantable, if communion with the Church may be without67 ſin. And indeed what can juſtifie a practice ſo contrary to love and peace, and of ſo dangerous conſequence, but the avoiding of ſin? Our general Anſwer to the charge of Schiſm by the Papiſts is, we muſt not partake with your ſins; and I think all parties conſent in this common propoſition, where the conditions of communion with a Church are ſinful, we are not bound to that communion, for we muſt obey God rather then man.
I am ſure this was current Doctrine with the Non-conformiſts,His••fence, 2. Par. 22. called Puritans heretofore, in the defence of communion with the Church of England. Let the abuſes (ſaith Mr. Ball) be many or great, yet if I may be preſent at the true worſhip of God without ſin, (conſent unto, or approbation of ſuch abuſes or corruptions) in voluntary ſeperation, I ſin againſt God, his Church, and mine own ſoul.
This was alſo undoubted by the late Preſbyterians; in ſtead of many, let Mr. Cawdrey againſt Dr. OwenIndepend. a great Schiſm. be heard, for methinks he ſpeaks to the purpoſe. It is (ſaith he) no duty of Chriſts impoſing, no priviledg of his purchaſing, either to deprive a mans ſelf of his Ordinances for other mens ſins; or to ſet up a new Church in oppoſition to a true68 Church, as no Church rightly conſtituted for want of ſome reformation in leſſer matters. And Mr. Corbet, and the Author of Evangelical Peace and Ʋnity, if I underſtand him, puts the whole debate upon the ſame iſſue with us. So Bagſhaw alſo, &c.
Among theſe light cauſes, which will by no means warrant a ſeperation, Mr. Baxter hath laboured toCure of Church Diviſions, 291. throw down theſe four Superſtitious, as he calls them, which ſome religious people have brought up.
1. That we are guilty of the ſins of all unworthy communicants, if we communicate with them, though their admiſſion is not by our fault.
2. That he whoſe judgement is againſt a Dioceſan Church, may not lawfully join with a Pariſh Church, if the Miniſter be but ſubject to the Dioceſan.
3. That whatſoever is unlawfully commanded, isSee Cure of Church Diviſions, p. 194. not lawful to be obeyed.
4. That it is unlawful to do any thing in the Worſhip of God which is impoſed by men, and is not commanded it ſelf in the Scripture.
But enough of the falſe grounds of ſeperation that render it cauſleſs; for that they are either really none, or elſe light or inſufficient.
69The Second Exception againſt Seperation was taken from the undue manner of proceeding in it, for which it is termed Raſh; and therefore Schiſmatical; though the ground be Just. That is, as Mr. Brinſly explaineth himſelf, p 25. When it is ſudden and heady: without due endeavour and expectance of Reformation in the Church: it is then Raſh, and conſequently an unwarrantable Separation, in as much as it is oppoſite to Charity.
Mr. Baxters Advice is excellent here:If Corruptions blemiſh and diſhonor the Congregation; doe notCure of Church Div. p. 80. ſay (let ſin alone; I muſt not oppoſe it for fear of Diviſion) but be the forwardeſt to reduce all to the will of God. And yet, if you cannot prevail, as you deſire; be the backwardeſt to Divide and Seperate; and do it not, without a certain Warrant, and extream neceſſity. Reſolve with Auſtine, 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 juſt deſire and endeavour of Reformation; and yet as long as you can poſſible avoid it, forſake not the Church, which you deſire to Reform. As Paul ſaid, to them that were to forſake a Sea-wrack'd Veſſel, If theſe abide not in the Ship, ye cannot be ſaved. Many a one, by unlawful flying, and ſhifting for his70 own greater Peace and Safety, doth much more hazard his own and others.
3. Ames gives me occaſion to hint one thing more: Seceſſio vero Totalis, &c. A Total Seceſſion or Seperation with abſolute renouncing or rejecting all Communion, cannot be lawfully practiced towards a True Church: but partial only, quatenus Communio, ſo far as Communion cannot be exerciſed without ſin. Caſ. de Schiſ. 307.
I Wiſh heartily, my Brethren would conſider, whether not only renouncing all Communion with, but ſetting up other Churches againſt our Churches, be not, in his ſence, a Total Seperation; and conſequently Sinful. Or whether you, that ſo uſe us, do yet retain Communion with our Pariſh-Churches ſo far as you know you may without ſin. But this by the way:
The Summe is, when the Church gives no ſuch cauſe of offence, as may juſtifie Seperation; when the Conditions of her Communion require nothing of her Members, whereby if they Communicate, they ſhall be Actual Sinners; when perſons, let the cauſe be never ſo juſt, ſhall unadviſedly, without due endeavours and patient expectance of a Reformation: laſtly, when they ſhall for ſome few things, at which they take offence, totally forſake Communion with a True Church, and gather71 themſelves into Anti-Churches; they are, in all theſe Caſes, guilty of Schiſme, in the judgment of the moſt Non-Conformiſts, of all ſorts; and, indeed, of all men, that have conſidered the Point and the Nature of Schiſm. The Aſſumption, we ſhall make hereafter — and at preſent, only take notice of what the Anſwerer hath ſaid to prevent it.
He gives us, p. 16, 17. eight Differences, betwixt the Old Seperatiſts and the Preſent Non-Conformiſts; and then concludes in all theſe, they differ from Seperatiſts, though they gather Churches. Theſe differences are particularly conſidered hereafter. The first three of theſe Differences, are a Complement to us and our Pariſhes: the four next, are a Complement to themſelves: in the last, I think, he is in earneſt for himſelf, but he hath to do with a headſtrong party, that will not obey, either his Word or Example, in deſiring nothing more, than with Love and Concord, to carry on with us the ſame work of Chriſt. But what is all this, to excuſe them from being Seperatiſts, that run away from us, and draw Deſciples after them: that refuſe (I am ſure in fact, what ever ſome may ſay) the leaſt Communion with us, in our publick Aſſemblies, and gather New Churches for themſelves out of them.
This they do, though you know we, generally, have not given them Cauſe to do it: And72 they do it Raſhly, and Totally, and all your little devices, will never alter the Nature of things, or excuſe it from groſs Schiſm in the Judgment of all that were not Seperatiſts, and ſpake their mind, before the preſent Temptation dazled mens eyes.
'Tis in vain to flie to your Common Refuge; the ſtrength of this Argument will not ſuffer you to be quiet in it; who ever before you made this a warrantable ground of Seperation, that they might Serve God better? if finding poſitive faults in our worſhip, would not excuſe them heretofore; much leſs will negative ones excuſe you from Seperation. But they thought thoſe were faults and Just Cauſes of Seperation which were not; true, and they were miſtaken: but yet, they had more to ſay for themſelves, it ſeems, than you have, who do the ſame things, without alledging ſo much ground, and think to be wholly free, from the ſame charge.
Sir, Schiſm conſiſts in practice; and whatever you think on't, or, however you would palliate the matter, where that practice that truly anſwers the definition of Schiſm is found, it will be Schiſm do what you can. Is there any Inſtitution of Chriſt, that they muſt gather Churches out of true Churches, to make a purer Church? Anſ. Mr. Cawdrey Indep. p. 198.
But I prevent my deſign: Shiſm, we have73 ſhewed is a cauſeleſs unwarrantable Seperation, and 'tis true; and ſo my Anſwerer might have underſtood me, and his Brethren, in my laſt: I ſpake in the language of the Presbyterians, and a little Candour, would have ſuppoſed that both, I and they, intended by gathering Churches out of Churches, ſuch as was cauſeleſs, unwarrantable and unneceſſary; for that, they were ſtill ready, if need required, to prove the Independant Separation ſuch; as I ſhall be, anon, to do yours.
It is, therefore, ſome trouble to me to hear you ask, as if ſomthing of Argument were lodg'd in it; Whether a perſons removal from one Pariſh to another to inhabit there, were Schiſm? p. 48. and yet I conceive, you have it more than twice over in your book. You ask again, muſt no Churches be gathered out of Rome? I fear not many for you: but for a full and plain anſwer to this, I remit you to Mr. Baxters Cure of Church Diviſions, p. 81, 82, 83. Which if it ſeem not plain and full to you, it is becauſe you underſtand not Chriſtian Senſe and Reaſon.
Again, p. 44. did not the Parliament take a Church out of a Church when they ſeperated Covent-Garden from Martins Pariſh? doubtleſs, 'twas either with cauſe or not; 'twas warrantable or not; 'twas neceſſary or not: but the jeſt is ſpoiled, if it were a Church of the ſame Conſtitution, with conſent of the perſons concern'd & by lawful Authority.
74Had you no place to argue Schiſmatical but Covent-garden; I would adviſe you, as a friend, to take a little more heed what you ſay about that place, for fear of one of thoſe Schiſmaticks which in other places, you honor, as Ʋſurpers, concern'd in your next Section.
But behold the Man at Arms fully Accoutred, without all fear, but a great deal of wit and courage makes a challenge to the factions Diſputers, as his Catholick language is: and 'tis this, as you may read it under his own hand.
Obj. I undertake, ſaith he, to prove, that Dr. Manton Dr. Seaman, &c. with the People ſubject to them, as Paſtors, were true Churches. Prove you, if you can, that on Aug. 24 62. they were degraded, and theſe Churches were diſſolved in any reaſon, which any Churches for 600. years after Chriſt, would. If not, you ſeem your ſelf to accuſe their Succeſſors of Schiſm, for drawing part of the people from them meerly by the Advantage of having the Temples and Tythes, and ſo gathering Churches out of true Churches.
Anſ. A Marvellous Undertaker! he will undertake to prove one Propoſition, and let the reſt ſhift for them ſelves.
Dr. Manton and Dr. Seaman, and their People were true Churches: and this he will prove: but what if a man ſhould venture to diſappoint him, and not deny it?
75Again; prove if you can, that theſe Paſtors were degraded, and theſe Churches diſsolved Aug. 24. 62.
But what if a man has a mind to be friends with him here too? and ſhould grant that thoſe Miniſters were not degraded then, but only ejected and inhibited the exerciſe of their Miniſtry within the Church of England: and that thoſe Churches were not diſſolv'd by having New Paſtors; no more, than the Kingdom when the King dies. And yet, certainly the King and People, are as much the Conſtitutive parts of a Kingdom; as Paſtor and People of a Church.
Who will ſay, that conſiders what he ſaith, that a particular Church is diſſolved by the death or removal of the Paſtor. The River is the Same, though the Lands on each ſide, change their Proprietors.
But what then? Suppoſe all this be quietly granted him, what then? then, thoſe that ſucceeded them are Schiſmaticks; or you ſeem to accuſe them of Schiſm: how ſo? for drawing away part of the people from them. Whither? to another manner of Worſhip which the Laws required; and which, the Ejected refuſed.
But how did they draw the People? by doing their duty in the Temples, as by good Authority Inſtituted and Inducted thereunto. Inſtituted76 as Paſtors to have the Cure of Souls; and Inducted into the Temples and Tythes.
But laſtly, why do you ſay they drew a part of the people onely, and not the whole?
Ought not the whole, worſhip God undivided, and with one accord in the Temples? or muſt the place be removed with the Paſtor? I quire not who made the difference, but I know who makes the Diviſion, let them anſwer it how they can, to God and the King, the Church and their Succeſſors.
Thoſe Paſtors were Ejected out of the Temples by lawful Authority: the People are bound to worſhip God in the Temple, as they have opportunity; and no where elſe, in oppoſition to the publick Worſhip: (the Conſequence here, I think may vie with yours above) therefore, theſe Pastors had no opportunity to exerciſe their Paſtoral Office to thoſe People; and where there is no opportunity, there is no duty; in Mr. Baxters Divinity, Second Admon. to Bagſh. 96.
But you ſay, you muſt Preach, the Reverend Dr. Gouge ſaith, No. The Inhibition of Idolators and Infidels made ſimply againſt preaching of the Goſpel, becauſe theyWhole Armour of God. 570. would have it utterly Suppreſſed in this caſe, he ſaith, no ſufficient inhibition to bind the Conſcience; it is directly and apparently77 contrary to Gods Word. But when Chriſtian Magiſtrates inhibite Miniſters to Preach, it is becauſe they think them unfit and unmeet, either for ſome notorious Crimes, or for ſome Erronious Opinions, to exerciſe their Miniſterial Functions. In theſe Caſes, Such as are ſo inhibited, ſo far forth as they are inhibited, Ought not to Preach. Neither are particular and private men (much leſs the parties inhibited) to Judge of the Cauſe of the inhibition, whether it be juſt or unjuſt: but as they who are appointed by the preſent Government, to Ordain Miniſters, are to judg of their fitneſs thereunto; ſo likewiſe, of their unfitneſs.
I have thought hitherto, that diſtinction of the Office, and of the exerciſe of that Office, had gone uncontroled among Presbyterians: and that, though the Miniſters of Chriſt depend not, even upon the Chriſtian Magiſtrate for their Office, and he cannot degrade them: yet quoad Exercitium, as to the Exerciſe of it, within his Dominions, they did; and that he had power to Silence ſuch as he Judged unmeet to Preach.
Mr. Baxter doth much encourage me to perſiſt in the ſame Opinion, more than once. The Authority of the King and lawful2d Admon. to Bag. 117 Magiſtrates, ſaith Mr. Baxter, is more about the Circumſtantials of8 Worſhip (as whether Abiathar ſhall be High Prieſt, &c.) then the Falſe Teachers were about that Doctrine.
He, more than Intimates, that the Magiſtrates Power extends to the Appointing who ſhall be High Prieſt; and who doubt, but that he hath equal power to appoint who ſhall be Paſtor of Covent-Garden.
Again, hear Mr. Baxter what he ſaith, more largly upon the Point. Diſput. 223. Doubtleſs the Magiſtrate himſelf hath ſo much Authority in Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, that if he Command a qualified perſon to Preach the Goſpel, and Command the People to receive him; I ſee not, how either of them can be allowed to diſobey him; (though yet the Party ought to have recourſe alſo to Paſtors for Ordination, and People for Conſent where it may be done) And Grotius commendeth the ſaying of Muſculus, That, he would have no Miniſter queſtion his Call, that being quallified, hath the Chriſtian Magistrates Commiſſion. And though this Aſſertion need ſome limitation; yet it is apparent, that the Magiſtrates Power is great about the Offices of the Church.
And indeed I durſt almoſt challenge this Anſwerer, or any man, to prove; that ever any learned Proteſtant in this Church, whether Epiſcopal or Presbyterian, did make it a queſtion, (I mean before the Kings happy Return) whether Solomon had not ſufficient Authority to put out Abiathar from the Prieſt-hood, and put Zadock in his place. Or whether any might modeſtly ſay ſuch must Preach, and that thoſe were Schiſmaticks and Ʋſurpers that did exerciſe their Offices according to Law, in the places of ſuch as were removed, by the Vertue of an Act of Parliament of unqueſtionable Authority, and we muſt Preach though the Law forbids us.
As for Dr. Gunnings, Dr. Wilds preaching fourteen or fifteen years ago, which you80 ſo often hint at, it is ſufficiently known, it was in ſuch a time, when the Caſe was far otherwiſe, both with the Church and State, in many Notorious Circumſtances: both as to Perſons, Law, Government and Worſhip; and they could eaſily anſwer their ſo doing, if it be not a matter too much below the Eminency both of their Perſons and Places. We muſt proceed:
CHAP. XI.
Proviſion for the proof of the Aſſumption, by four Propoſitions.
THat Schiſm is a Cauſeleſs Seperation from a True Church: and what Seperation from a True Church is, and when it is Cauſeleſs, hath at large appeared. And there ſeems nothing left to prevent or remove the charge of Schiſm from the Practices we oppoſe; but to plead, either that our Churches are no true Churches; or that you are not of them, and ow them no Communion; or that you do not Seperate from them: or if you do, you have Cauſe ſufficient, and your Seperation is not Raſh or Groundleſs.
That the Contrary to all theſe, is the very Truth, I am now to manifeſt. The Propoſitions accordingly, are theſe four.
81Pro. 1. That our Parochial Congregations are true Churches.
2. That the people of England are, or ought to be, members of our Parochial Congregations.
3. That the preſent practice of gathering Churches out of them, is Seperation.
4. That ſuch Seperation is Raſh, and without juſt grounds.
And all theſe ſhall be proved, not only from the Nature of the things, and the judgment or others: but from the Publique judgement of the former Non-Conformiſts and Presbyterians; and then I hope my bold undertaking will be found excuſable.
CHAP. XII.
Parochial Congregations true Churches. His Exceptions, eſp•cially about pariſh bounds, examined.
FIrſt, I affirm that our Parochial Congregations are true Churches.
They have the matter of true Churches. Profeſſed Chriſtians, Baptized. They have the f•rm of true Churches, being Societies of ſuch, as Ames ſaith, in order to the worſhip of God: and theſe fix'd and Stated, and ordinarily aſſembling actually together for that end.
82According to our Author, they have; generally, both the Eſſential, and conſtituent parts of true Churches; Paſtors to govern, and people to be govern'd by them, in order to Gods glory, and their Salvation.
And as their end, ſo the means, and their work in their publick Aſſemblies, is ſuch as is proper and peculiar unto, and true, and undoubted indications and notes of true Churches; the Ordinances of God, and their ordinary attendance thereupon, in known, publique, and fixed places, conſecrated, and ſet a part for that end. Wherein, alſo, there is nothing practic'd, much leſs allow'd, that is contrary to theſe means, or doth pervert that end; or with any pretence, or colour of reaſon, can be thought to deſtroy their being, or their truth, as Churches of God.
For this we have abundant Suffrage voluntarily given by Non-Conformity it ſelf, from time to time, and that not only in the acknowledgement, but even in the defence of them againſt their enemies of the Separation: and what need more. If Mr. Ball, Mr. Hilderſham of old, and Mr. Bagſhaw, and his friend, the Anſwerer, be heard for the reſt.
Mr. Ball is expreſs for himſelf, and his Brethren:The Non-Conformiſts, ſaith he, can not only acknowledg, but prove the83 Religion and worſhip of the Church of England to be of God; not by petty reaſons, and colourableAnſ. to Can. part. 2. p 3. ſhews, (which they leave to them which maintain a bad Cauſe) but by pregnant evidence from the word of Truth, even by plain Texts of Scripture, and ſound re•ſon deduced therefrom, againſt which the Gates of Hell ſhall never prevail.
Mr. Hilderſham comes not a whit behind him:There is nothing done, ſaith he, in Gods publickOn John 4. p. 3 warſhip among us, but it is done by the Inſt•tution, and Ordinance, and Commandment of the Lord, as he very induſtriouſly and learnedly proves, by an enumeration of the particulars of our worſhip, and thence preſſeth the people, not only to attend it, but to come to the beginning of it.
Mr. Bagſhaw himſelf acknowledgeth the ſame: And therefore pleads, that they do not ſeperate, but forbearAntidote p. 6. Communion, becauſe of ſome conditims required; and ſo indeed doth Doctor Owen, and all ſober Independents; and therefore I need not obſerve, that thoſe eminent Presbyterians, that wrote the Epiſtle before Mr. Balls Anſwer to Cann, did own; or, that Mr. Cawdry, and other Presbyterians, have84 made it the foundation of all their Arguments againſt Independent gathering Churches, that our Churches, were true Churches.
Our Author doth not ſo much as queſtion the truth of our Churches in General: what exceptions notwithſtanding he hath ſcattered about it, we ſhall briefly examine.
Object. 1. Page 10. He tells us, like an Oracle, among the reſt of their Purpoſes and Deſires, which are not a few, and they none of the beſt, that the Non-Conformiſts think, that a Pariſh, quatenus, a Pariſh, is not a Church: nor a Pariſhioner, as ſuch, a Church-Member.
Well, and who ever ſaid they thought otherwiſe? in ſome things, it ſeems, they think, as others do. Yet we know, and they ought to think at leaſt, that a Company of Chriſtians living within Pariſh bounds, and ordinarily attending upon Gods publick worſhip, in the place ſet a part to that end, are a Church.
Object. 2. But they think alſo, that Pariſh bounds of Churches are of Humane prudential Conſtitution, and not of Divine Inſtitution, or unchangable,
But pray think again; for you ought to think, that co-habitation of the Members of85 a Parochial Church is according to the Law of Nature, and ſo Divine: and that perſons, whom Providence hath ſo placed together, are bound to worſhip God together in ſome publick way; by vertue of the Law of Natural Religion, as much as Families among themſelves; were there no other inſtitution of God or man in the caſe.
Moreover, they ought to think, that co-habitation of Church members is ſo far of Divine Inſtitution, as the Examples of Churches in Scripture, alwaies ſo bounded, amount to Divine Inſtitution. Which is almoſt as much, as is uſually urged for the Divine Inſtitution of the Lords day This was the current Argument of the Presbyterians heretofore, againſt the attempts of Independents to break theſe bounds, and to glean up members in others fields, no matter what diſtance, to make up their Churches. Churches and Cities in the Scripture, are commenſurate. Was notCawdrey Schyſ pag. the Church of Jeruſalem and Corinth, ſo called from the places.
They ought, further to think, that the gr•unds of ſu•h parochial Churches, were laid in Reaſon, and Scripture examples: though Ours were actually divided, long ſince: and that our Pariſh bounds, in the general intention and ſcope of thoſe that firſt86 appointed them; notwithſtanding ſome errors which will alwayes happen in ſuch publick caſes) were made, upon the ſaid reaſonable and Scripture ground of co-habitation.
They ought, alſo, to think, that though Prudence at firſt diſcerned theſe grounds, and accordingly ſet theſe bounds of pariſh Churches; yet, it was not the prudence of the People, but their Governours: who have not now left it in the peoples liberty or prudence, whether they will ordinarily keep theſe bounds or not. But have alſo bounded that vulgar extravagancy by the Laws both of Church and State to the contrary:
Yet again, they ought to think, that they owe obedience to their Governors in theſe laws; which obedience is certainly of Divine Inſtitution, though I can hardly find it in all your Books.
You ought, laſtly, to think, of the fearfull conſequences of tearing theſe hedges and ancient bounds, and thereby making inlets, or outlets, or both, to all kind of licenti•uſneſs in Religion, and confuſion in the Church; while you thus expoſe parochial Congregations to the directeſt means of their diſſolution.
O that you would lay to heart thoſe ſerious words of Mr. Baxter. The Intereſt of87 the Chriſtian Proteſtant Religion in England muſt be kept up, by keeping up as much of Truth, Piety, and Reputation, as is poſſible in the Pariſh Churches. his Defence of his Cure p. 36.
For the laſt word, that pariſh bounds are not unchangeable, 'tis acknowledged; if the cauſe be juſt and Covent-garden be not Schyſmatical, yet ſtill the Rule of co-habitation ought to be obſerved; and then our deſign is half ſpoiled. Eſpecially if we add, as we needs muſt, that this changing or altering of pariſh bounds, lies not in the pleaſure of private Perſons: is not to be attempted without the order of Superiours, nor to the prejudice of Gods publick worſhip: wherein, if all order be not quite forgotten, the practice of the people ſhould not ordinarily exc•ed, that which the known Ʋnion and C•mmunion of Pariſhes, in the ſame Worſhip and Government, and the common Cuſtome, and conſequently Allowance, of the places intended, will warrant: wherein London, perhaps, if what you ſay be true, may claim ſome priviledge.
He ſaith, he doth allow our par•chial Churches to be true Churches, vi•. p. 35.Thoſe of them that have true Miniſters, other wiſe not. So that where there are no Miniſters, and where their Miniſt•r is not88 true; there the Pariſhes are not Churches.
Tis likely ſome few ſmal places, eſpecially Cures, have no ſetled Miniſters, but the Law requires their Communion with their Mother-Church, of which, in a ſence, they are reckoned Members, if they are Curacies.
And I hope there are fewer falſe Miniſters than your charity ſuppoſeth. How far the people are bound to communicate with ſuch as you call intollerable, ſhall be examined in the next Chapter.
But if this be all to be found at the bottom of your exceptions, as it ſeems to be, why do not your Brethren, confine their labour to ſuch deſtitute places; eſpecially, if this be the great reaſon why they muſt preach. At leaſt their Charity ſhould ſee them firſt provided for. Sure their voices will hardly reach to them from•ities, and Corporations, and places uſually furniſht well enough without them, though here they generally pitch their Taberna•le: you and they muſt think again and again, before you will be able to defend theſe practices upon ſuch principles.
CHAP. XIII.
The People of England, Members of Parochial Churches. Objections anſwered. Eſpecially that, from ſerving God better.
THe People of England, generally are, or ought to be (Members or Miniſters) of our parochial Churches, and conſequently are bound to atttend upon the publick worſhip of God in our Temples.
Ordinarily: I mean, I am not ſo ſtrict to think, that they ought never to be abſent, if they have reaſon, as the Statute intimates: or, that they may never go out of their own Pariſhes to hear a Se•mon: provided alwayes they keep within the bounds of that latitude, which the Communion of Pariſh-Churches, and the cuſtom of the place, as in London, if it be ſo there, as our Anſwerer affirms, will warant, as I ſaid before.
But that generally, the people are of the Pariſhes Churches and ordinarily ought to communicate with them, there is hardly any thing more evident in reaſon or ſence, and the judgement of the Non-Conf•rmiſts.
For they were baptized into theſe particular Churches, as well as into the univerſal; and the known Laws, both of Church and State,90 oblige their Conſciences, to Communion with them. Beſides, if they be not of the particular Church wherein they live, they are of none: but their ordinary attending upon the publique worſhip as they generally doe, or have done, concludes them by their own conſent to ſay nothing now, of the inconveniencies that follow ſeperation from them; an Argument not to be deſpiſed till it be better conſidered and cenſured.
Mr. Baxter ſpeaks very well and home to the point thusHe that is a Member of the univerſal Church, is fit to be received into a particularCure of Ch. div. p. 89. Church; and there wanteth no more but Mutual conſent: and if he have ſtatedly joined with a particular Church, in ordinary Communion, Conſent hath been manifeſted, and he is a Member of that particular Church — Thus in Theſi.
Then he ſubjoines;This is the common caſe in England, the perſons who were baptized in Infancy, were, at once, received into the Ʋniverſal Church, and into ſome particular Church, and have held Communion at Age with both, &c.
In a caſe ſo plain, in the writings of the Old Non-Conformiſts, I ſhall only give you Mr. Baxters Teſtimony for them all, eſpecially92 finding an Emphaſis in his words, which are theſe.
Hence, it is, that worthy Non Conformiſt Mr, Hilderſham, doth not only Judg it Lawful, and a Duty to attend upon the Pariſh Congregation, but uſeth many Arguments againſt the Ordinary leaving our own Miniſters, to hear more able men in other Pariſhes: and forupon the fourth of John. our coming reverently and at the beginning of the Service.
And Mr. Ba•ter perſwadeth with many Arguments to Communion with the Pariſh Churches which he would not have done, if he had not thought it, not only to b•Lawful, but a Duty, yea he ſaies expreſly, that to ſ•me it is a Duty to joine with ſome Pariſh Churches, in the Lords Supper three times a year, Defence of his Cure, p. 38. which he ſaith, he proved by twenty Rea•ons, and by his own example avow'd in publique, and92 his conſtant reſolution ſo to do, he adds much weight to his ſaid reaſons.
And to give my Anſwerer his due, in this, as he doth not deny the truth of moſt of our Churches, ſo he doth much perſwade, both by reaſon and his own example, to communion with them, and therefore he believeth (as I believe of him) that it is a duty.
But for the Presbyterians and their judgement in the point beforeInd. Schyſ. pag. 143. 1660; let Mr. Cawdrey be heard at large.
Speaking againſt the Independants ſeperation, ſaith he,If they did not ſuppoſe themſelves to be of ſome particular Church, it was their Errour and their Fault; their Errour becauſe all the people of the Nation, were confin'd to that Church, where they lived; and liable to cenſure for leaving that Church, for partaking of Ordinances; and the Miniſters for admitting them: their fault, becauſe they were bound by way of duty, both by the Laws of the Nation, and alſo by the Law of God, to be of one or other particular Congregation; meaning parochial.
Object. But what ſaith our Anſwerer againſt all this? he yieldeth much no doubt, pag. 41. where he ſaith, the old Non-Conformiſts93 hold Lay communion with Pariſh Churches lawful: and ſo do we. Anſw. But did not they alſo hold it a duty: prove the contrary if you can. I challenge him to ſhew in any of them, one word ſignifying it lawful, to hold Communion with any other ſtated Church in England, beſides the parochial, or that, ever they preach'd in houſes, as you unfairly intimate, when the people ſhould be in the pariſh Church; or, that any learned Presbyterian ſaid ſo, before 1660: if not, what ſignifies all your new-coined diſtinctions, pag. 34, 35.
Object. But in ſome places, we cannot profit by the Miniſter.
A•ſw. You may profit by the prayers, and Sacraments. The old Non-Conformiſts will not indure the objection, againſt all, or againſt ary weak, if honeſt Miniſter. Let Mr. Hilderſham's reaſons againſt it be examin'd: ſaith he, Our Shame, our Sin, and juſt cauſe of humbling to us, if we cannot profit by the meaneſt MiniſterOn John 4. p 225, 226. that God hath ſent. And the power of the Miniſtry dependeth not on the excellency of the Teachers gifts, but upon Gods bleſſing: though ſometimes he thinks people may go to hear other Miniſters of better gifts.
Object. But ſome Miniſters are intollerable.
94Anſw. I grant the Non-Conformiſts, and particularly Mr. Hilderſham, do allow the people, in ſuch caſes, to go from their own Pariſh; yet he puts in three Rules to the Caſe, that it be done without open breach or contempt to the Churches Order, without contempt of their own Paſtors, and without Scandal and offence to them and their people.
But if no Miniſters be intollerable, but ſuch as our Anſwerer deſcribes to be ſo, I hope, there are but few ſuch in our dayes; what ever there were in Mr. Hilderſhams time.
Theſe are Intollerable indeed, and if there ſhould chance to be found one or two ſuch within a Province (I hope not ſo many,) ſure, ſome duty we owe concerning them. But what's that? in the firſt place, we are certainly bound to endeavour his amendment if that be not to be done, but he be found incurable, he is the more intollerable, and our95 next duty to endeavour to remove him.
So far Mr. Baxters advice is wholſome and appoſite; uſe all your diligenceCure of Ch. div p 106. to amend him: and if you cannot do that, uſe all your intereſt to get him out, and get a better, indeed he adds, if you cannot do that, deliver your own ſoul from him by removing to a better, if you are free: he means, if you are not under the command of others, remove to another Pariſh, which none can except againſt.
But all this while there is no room made for Seperation: the Non-Conformiſts never allowed this, the Holy Scriptures as Mr. Baxter tells us, has not a word to that purpoſe.
Obj. But we are troubled again with his laſt refuge, which attempts us every where, your Churches are allowed, and communion with them, when we have no opportunity to do better: but to ſerve God better, we may leave your Churches and gather others.
Anſw. This hath pirkt up to my trouble two or three times already; I will now give it ſuch a blow as I hope to hear on't no more.
1. If we may not refuſe Communion with our own particular Church,96 while we can do it without ſin: the only condition allowed, by all that were pure Non-Conformiſts; yea, and by the very Browniſts themſelves, then this pretence is vaine. But you grant you may continue ſuch Communion with the Pariſh without ſin, by the tenour of the Objection.
2. This Objection, extends not only to the change of the Miniſter, but of the very Worſhip, the publique places of aſſembling, and the parochial bounds of Churches: which as in the nature and conſequence of the things themſelves are very dangerous, ſo they were all quite contrary to the reaſon and practiſe of former Non-Conformiſts. They might think ▪ they had reaſon ſometimes to do better, but they never meant it, in any way contrary to the publique Worſhip, and Aſſemblies; but only in ſome other Pariſh Church.
3. 'Tis in effect the ſame excuſe that the Browniſts had for their ſeperation, only, not quite ſo conſiderable,; they complained things were bad; and you would have them better; and therefore ſeperate, as they did.
3. The very ſame plea, that the Independents uſed in other words, more plauſable to their purpoſe. Namely, pretence of diſorders in the Church, and pretence of reformation, and yet more neer to the preſent97 pretence, that they might worſhip with purer worſhip, all which Mr. Cawdry, the Patron of Presbytery, hath taken notice of and anſwered to Dr. Owen. Boldly appealing the Dr. in the point, as I do my Anſwerer in his words.
But the pretence of worſhiping God better, and therefore they may gather a purer Church, out of a true Church the Presbyterian ſems to deride it as not worthyInd Schy: p. 198. a ſerious conſideration or anſwer is there ſaith he, any inſtitution of Chriſt, that they muſt gather members out of true Churches to make a purer Church, if ſo it be?
984. But the Sting is in the Tail, gathering Churches out of our Pariſhes, that they may ſerve God better, is an intollerable principle and practice; it plainly puts Raines into the peoples hands, to Govern and reform themſelves, without their Biſhops or Paſtors: which, me-thinks, Mr. Baxter ſhould not like very well; and without the Civil-Magiſtrate, which the Presbyterians could not endure.
To Reform themſelves, I ſay, without the order of any kind of Governors, not only in one ſingle Pariſh, but throughout the Kingdome: nor only to reform abuſes in Adminiſtrations but in the worſhip and Goverment, yea even to the utter diſſolution of our Church-ſtate, and the bounds and places of our Parochial congregations, & the ſetting up of other Churches, other Miniſters, and another Worſhip and Government throughout the Kingdome; ſo far as this Rule takes.
For the Rule, in its practical Nature and uſe, is general. And if it be the duty of one, it is the duty of another, and of all, to worſhip God better in this new way; and conſequently, all are bound to worſhip God better; and all muſt joine in theſe new Congregations while the Biſhops and Miniſters and Temples are left uſeleſs, and there is no way which our Author can think of, to prevent & ſtop this99 deluge but the peoples prudence: and how likely that is to do it, let the wiſe conſider. Was ever Non-Conformiſt or Presbyterian before, of this opinion or any one that was not a down-right Seperatiſt?
Dr. Owen, having ſaid, that, if a man cannot prevail to have the Church reformed, he may diſpoſe of himſelf, as to particular Church Communion, to his beſt advantage: one would think this was modeſtly ſpoken in compariſon, yet obſerve how the Presbyterian takes him up.
Beſides, the rule hath run equally in it, againſt the Reformers themſelves, every100 Sect will plead the ſame liberty to ſerve God better, and as Mr. Baxter hath well Item'd you, Separation will ruine the Separated Churches themſelves,Defence of Cure. p. 50, (and not at all varie from their own light by which they aſcended unto ſeparation) it will admit of no conſiſtency: parties will ariſe in the ſeparated Churches, and ſeparate again from them till they are diſſolved, as experience witneſſeth.
But becauſe, my Author ſpeaks of gathering Churches for the firſt three hvndred years after Chriſt, I ſhall not diſturb him by enquiring out of what Churches they were gathered, only ſhall give him a Presbiterians expoſtulation, and conclude this Chapter.
CHAP. XIV.
The preſent practice plain ſeparation, Objections by the Anſwerer conſidered.
THe•reſent practice of gathering Churches out of our Churches is ſeparation.
Though our Churches are true Churches: and the perſons concerned, are or ought to be Members of them; yet do they properly ſeparate from them.
This is matter of Fact evident in it ſelf, and to the ſences of too many ocular Witneſſes.
1. They diſlike, or diſtaſt, our Parochial Communion: ſome, as Antichriſtian; ſome, as corrupt; ſome, as defective; and not ſo good, as they would have it; and ſome, perhaps, becauſe they like not our Miniſters: and ſome, as he intimates for Communion, with their old ejected Paſtors, what their ſeveral reaſons are, (for they are far from being all of a mind, as he acknowledgeth) we can but gueſs, but they do all diſlike our Communion, at leaſt, comparatively none can deny or doubt this.
1022. Upon this diſlike, Whatever the cauſe of it be, they do plainly forſake our Pariſh-Churches, and publique worſhip. Now, we do not ſay, that non-Actual Communion, is properly Separation: yet all men ſay, that a renouncing Communion, or denying to Communicate with any Church, much more our own, upon any diſlike, or for any cauſe, except ſin, is properly Separation and ſchyſm: it is not actually not communicating with a true Church, but renouncing Communion, that, we think makes the Shyſmatick,In•. Schyſ. p. 188. 'tis this, in which Ameſius himſelf placeth the very formalityAm. de Schyſ. of Schyſm.
Schyſm is directly a breach of unity; as that is a breach of charity, refuſing to Communicate with a true Church, when I have opportunity, eſpecially, my own Church; is a plain breach of both: what ever my reaſon be, ſhort of Sin.
3. But thirdly, they perfect their Schyſm and ſeparation, by gathering themſelves into other Congregations under other Miniſters, and for another mode of Worſhip than is allowed by our Church and Lawes; and thus become Anti-churches, and to make this new Church-State, as oppoſite to ours, as may be, they generally, meet at the103 ſame time that we do: & that, not only where the Pariſhes are ſuſpected, defective in parts, gifts, graces or Adminiſtrations: much leſs intollerable, or where there are none at all, as was noted before, and in ſuch places as they ſuppoſe to be ſo ill provided: for we hear nothing of their charity, but in places, where neither theſe Miniſters nor their followers have the leaſt exception to the Pariſh-Miniſter.
And thus, they ſeparate, not for ſometimes and for ſome ordinances, but conſtantly, & for all ordinances: the Word, Prayers, and both Sacraments, and that generally, in all places near us, without any ſuch diſtinction of Miniſter or any thing elſe; ſo that though I have enquired, I can hear but of one Miniſter, within a very large compaſs that takes the liberty of Indulgence, and doth not ſo abuſe it. And I fear, they do ſo generally throughout England, if we may gueſs at other places by the practice of theſe: except your good example and advice have a better influence there, than here.
For, I cannot but let you know, that your Canons are ſo contrary to their purpoſes and practiſes, that I have ſome reaſon to believe, that our new Church gatherers here about are generally as much diſpleaſed with the rules whereby you would bound their ex ravagant104 practiſes, as they ſeem to be pleaſed with your Magiſterialneſs over me,
And, by the way, give me leave to tell you, that two things eſpecially, I cannot take well at your hands. 1. That you would inſinuate that ſuch as call themſelves Presbyterians, which you ſay, are not ſo, you ſhuffle them amongſt the reſt of the Sects, which are for gathering of Churches. 2. That you intimate, you knew their minds; and that they would not ſeparate and gather Churches in the manner we ſee, by ſad experience they generally do.
For, I do acknowledge you ſufficiently diſcover, your own Inclination, hopes, and deſires are otherwiſe than we find their practiſes: yea, you ſeem to intimate their practiſes to be otherwiſe: they have deceived you; as indeed, you did me: who am ſorry to find your pen imployed for the Countenance, to ſay no more of Separation and Schyſm in the higheſt meaſure that this poor Church ever yet experimented.
Why do I hear words to excuſe and alleviate the Matter; when their deeds declare the quite contrary to what you hope and intimate? all your prop•ſitions and purpoſes, can never make them either not Presbiterians or Seperatiſts; unleſs, by their quitting their former principles, they are ſunk into the105 number of Independents: for it is hard to ſay which of the Congregations is moſt Congregational.
Obj. Yo ſeem to wonder, p. 40. that I charged not your preaching before your indulgence, with Schyſm as well as now.
Anſw. No doubt, if it were ſo before, as we ſee it is ſince, I might yet venture to do it, but, Sir, let me tell you ſomething, that I know will not be eaſie to you. In the City where I am a Preacher, there might, perhaps thirty or forty ordinarily meet by ſteal•h, and perhaps not at the ſame time of our publique worſhip, whereas, there are now ſix or ſeaven allowed places; and perhaps, they may ſhare three thouſand of our Members among them; that now, ſo far as we can judge, totally ſeparate: yet I think never any one of them complained of the inability, infidelity, or ſcandal of the Pariſh-Miniſters. Now when we ſee ſuch a T•rrent preparing to bear down all our Churches, I think, it is time to ſpeak, I would deliver my own ſoul, if I cannot ſave the Church from the evil begun.
Speak in earneſt, Sir, if the matter be thus indeed, is it not ſeparation with a Witneſs if you will not, let others ſpeak.
The old Rule was the ſincereCawd. Indep. p. 161. 162. preaching of the Word, and106 right Adminiſtration of Sacraments are the Characters of a true Church, which we having, and they ſeparating from us, how ſhall this Crime be named, but by Schyſm in the higheſt degree.
And the rather does this relate to Schyſm, in gathering Churches. p. 180. Becauſe they do not only depart themſelves, but draw off others alſo into a formed Faction.
CHAP. XV.
The preſent practice of Separation and gathering Churches is cauſeleſs and unwarantable. Objections of the Anſwerer conſidered.
BEcauſe, it is Separation from true Churches, by ſuch as are, or ought to be Members, of thoſe true Churches; both negatively, and poſitively, and totally ſo; and laſtly, which only remains to be proved, becauſe it is both Raſh and Ʋnjuſt, and without ſufficient grounds of offence given by theſe Churches.
For it hath already appeared that ſuch ſeparation is ſinful and Schyſm, in the worſt ſence of the word, when it is Raſh or Ʋnjuſt, without ſuch grounds; it only remains to be ſhew'n, that the preſent practiſe107 aforeſaid, is both Raſh and Ʋnjuſt.
1. Firſt, it is, apparently a Raſh Separation; for thoſe that go from us, to theſe new Churches could not foreſee, or reaſonably imagine this Liberty now indulged, a Week, (if a day) before the Declaration was publiſh't.
And how ſuddenly, they did upon it, prepare for the work, and ſeparate to their new Congregations and Guides, 'tis too well known to inſiſt on: and where is the man (if one ſuch there be, let him come forth to own it) that adviſed with his Pariſh-Miniſter about his departure, or was ſo civil to take his leave; much leſs, ſhew'd him any juſt occaſion of his ſo ſudden reſolution; or what gave him the offence in the perſon or Adminiſtration of his paſtor; or in the Worſhip and Communion or Converſation of his fellow Members, and moved or diſpoſed him thereunto, before he did Actually ſeperate. Much leſs did he exerciſe any patience or long-ſuffering, in order to his own Satisfaction or the Reformation of the Church (of which he was a member) in what he thought amiſs.
If ſuch ſeparation is not Raſh and ſudden, if it fail not in the due manner of proceeding, ſhew your Reaſon, or elſe bear the Cenſure and charge of Schyſm, from all ſound and108 judicious Caſuiſts, let the pretence or cauſe otherwiſe, be never ſo great and juſt.
Indeed, they generally gave up themſelves, with all manner of dilligence, to obtain their Licenſes: to contrive their Houſes; to appoint their meetings: conſpiring in this, as appears by their practice, that they would hold their Aſſemblies, at the ſame hour with the parochial; the directeſt method they could imagine, to be oppoſite to us, yet, not ſo well conſidering, what might be the conſequences; as one of the ſobereſt of their Miniſters complained, who obſerved it too late, which had they had patience and wiſdome, firſt to have conſulted my Anſwerer, might in all likelyhood, in many places, at leaſt have been happily prevented.
2. But, Alas! this is not the Burthen of Ephraim; their ſeparation fails in the foundation and grounds of it, it is not accountable, upon any terms of Charity, Juſtice, or Chriſtian ſobriety: ſtrictly, the Churches, from which they ſeperate, hath not given them any ſuch offence, or cauſe of offence ſufficient, to juſtifie their ſeperation, either in truth or in the judgment of any, but themſelves: much leſs, the old Non-Conformiſts and Presbyt•rians; as will ſoon appear in full light.
109Our Anſwerer hath ſet you a hard Game to play, here; for you muſt ſhew us ſuch reaſon why you leave us, as will excuſe you from ſeperation, and yet juſtifie your gathered Churches.
Which, upon the ſuppoſitions already proved; that our Churches are true Churches; that you are or ought to be members of them, and to continue in Communion with them, while you live in them, if we have given you no juſt occaſion to diſcontinue it, ſeems to be a plain contradiction and your New Churches are no better than ſtated ſeperations.
But, laying aſide all little inſignificant Artifices and modern evaſions, the queſtion in ſhort is this. Whether we can have any juſt plea for ſeperation from any Church of which we are members, while we may communicate with it, without communion in ſin. The negative hath appeared, all ſet parties have ſubſcribed the negative: and hardly any but your ſelves, ever queſtion'd it, if yet you do ſo.
The Proteſtants by the Papiſts, the Browniſts by the Puritans; the Anabaptiſt, Independent, and Interpendent, by the Presbyterian, are all charged with Shyſm; and all without ſcruple, put their controverſies to this Iſſue; if you that charge us with Schyſm, can prove110 that we may hold Communion with you without ſinning, we acknowledge the charge, therefore they allwaies defend their ſeperation, by chargeing ſin upon their Communion from whom they ſeparated alſo. On the other hand, they endeavoured to make the charge of Schyſm upon thoſe that ſeperated, by anſwering the objections of Sin, againſt their ſeveral Communions, ſo that on all ſides, this ſenſe of Schyſm, paſſed uncontrolled; and was never I think diſputed or doubted before, if it be ſo now, and Dr. Ames hath put it into the very Definition of Schyſm: and makes it his great Rule, by which he anſwers the Caſes about it.
But, to prevent miſtakes, I muſt ſpeak with Caution; by diſcontinuing Communion, I do not mean; only a not having Actual Communion with the Church, for that may be involuntary, as when a man is excommunicated; or neceſſitated by ſickneſs, or if you will have it added, by too great a multitude of members: yea, it may chance to be voluntary, yet not properly Schyſm, when we do not attend Gods worſhip, through neglect of our Duty, and a prophane principle: but of theſe we ſpeak not here.
By diſcontinuing our Communion, I mean, a denying or refuſing Communion with our own Church upon any diſlike or diſtaſte of111 its Worſhip, or Miniſter, or Members. Now whether this diſtaſte ariſe from fear of Communicating in ſin, where there is no juſt cauſe of, or without ſuch fear; ſuch refuſing or denying Communion is Schyſm, yea, as Ames adviſeth, if there be real evil in ſome part of Communion in a true Church, to depart farther from it, then that evil requires, is Schyſm. So when there is no real or pretended ſinfulneſs in the Communion of our Church, and yet, we take diſlike and ſeperate, and totally ſeperate, and gather our ſelves into new Congregations in oppoſition thereunto, who dare ſay, this is no Schyſm?
'Tis not worth the queſtion, though you ſome where make it, whether it be Schyſm to remove our dwelling from one Pariſh to another? Our civil neceſſities may force us to it. we hold no ſuch Matrimony, between Paſtor and People, as ſome talk of: but upon fair occaſion, either may remove. All Pariſhes are in Communion together, and are of the general Conſtitution of the Church of England: by ſuch a removal, you become a member of another Pariſh Church, and are bound by the Laws of the Land, and by the Rule of cohabitation of memberſhip to hold Communion with the Church in which you live, you have ſtill real Communion with121 the former Church, not only in the ſubſtance, but mode of its Worſhip, and its very Conſtitution: but by removing to theſe New Churches, you do not, you cannot ceaſe to be of a Pariſh at all, nor of a Parochial Church, without Schyſm from the Church in which yo•live; and from all the Parochial Churches in England; and from the Church of England it ſelf. I mean, unleſs you can prove that ſomething is required in our way of Worſhip that you cannot joyn in without ſinning.
The queſtion is, to bring the point home, what ſin is to be found in our Worſhip, wherein the people that joyn with us, muſt needs Communicate? If none can be found we muſt write Schyſm upon your ſeperation and we cannot help it.
Uſe no delatory pleas: blind us not with wide diſcourſes about what is fit to be impoſed, in order to peace, &c. and about the duty of Superiors, that concern you not, or about the hard conditions of Conformity upon Miniſters, as ſuch: we are ſpeaking of Lay-Communion, wherein all that are not in the place of Miniſters are to look to their Duty. And if there be any thing required of them, in order to their Communion with us, that is indeed ſinful, ſay what is it, and ſpeak to the point.
113In this Caſe (Sir) be Judge your ſelf, you expreſly acknowledge, that our Worſhip is not ſuch as no man may lawfully Communicate in: then, certainly you believe, that there is nothing in it, that is really and materially evil, or evil in it ſelf; for then no man might lawfully joyn in it: but if it ſhould become evil accidentally, from the particular condition of any private man, let him remove that evil, and not commit a greater by Seperation.
But pray (Sir) why do you ſeem thus to limit your kindneſs and charity to our Communion ▪ if it be not ſuch as no man, why is it not ſuch as all men, may lawful•y Communicate in? If you may lawfully Communicate in ſome of our Churches (as in another place you ſpeak) why not in all? or why do you leave the people in ſuch diſtractions? have not all our Churches the ſame Ordinances? our Miniſters the ſame orders? have they not all the ſame matter, and the wery ſame Mode of Worſhip? you do not think the worth of the Miniſter goes into the lawfulneſs of our prayers and Sacraments: or that we may not joyn with the Liturgie that is not ſeconded with a good Sermon, I am ſure you lay not the weight of your limitation upon the manners of the people; that's a principle you ſeem to abhor: neither can114 you make uſe of any exception againſt the Dioceſan Church, where in all our Churches are equally concerned, except a few peculiars. I am ſorry, to ſay I know not what you mean until you better explain your ſelf, give me leave to underſtand you indefinitely; eſpecially while you ſay, you do & will hold Communion with our own Pariſh-Churches your ſelf, and that you make it your buſineſs to adviſe and perſwade others alſo, thereunto, which I am very certain you would not do, if you did not believe, not only, that our way of Worſhip is Lawful i. e. not ſinful, but alſo ▪ Good; and that they in duty ought to attend it and Communicate with us, in it.
But, pray Sir, Why then do you p. 34. intimate, as if ſome Pariſh-Churches did impoſe ſome things which God forbids? Indeed, when you ſpeak ſeriouſly, you ſeem to reduce all the peoples exceptions in this kind, to the two known heads; kneeling at the Communion, and the Croſs at Baptiſm.
1. For kneeling, you your ſelf ſeem not only to allow, but to approve it, you alſo practiſe it and you know, Mr. Baxter ſpeaks handſomely for it, in his diſpute. p, 411.
2. For the Sign of the Croſs, made at Baptiſm, this indeed is required of the Miniſter;115 and 'tis his peculiar part to do it; and for ought I know, it is no more to the people than his wearing the Surpluſs, and if he knows it to be his duty, why will you deny him his liberty to do it. Mr. Baxter teacheth us, that in ſuch things, we ought to be guided by our Paſtors, which is certainly required; while they are only ſuſpected, or at leaſt they are not ſo certain, that they are ſinful; as we areDiſput. 484. certain, that we ought to obey, as he reaſons well.
Eſpecially, Signing with this Signe, being the Miniſters own Act, you may venture to give him ſo much power, as to do it, without offence to you, or, ſo great offence, as to cauſe you to ſeperate. Beſides, if you cannot be perſwaded to like this one Action, yet you muſt remember the Rule of Ames, and ſeperate for this, in nothing elſe but what needs all this trouble? you have known a way this ten years, to anſwer this ſcruple, by private Baptiſms: and you will know, how to ſerve your ſelves, in this of the Kings Declaration without my advice but then, why ſhould you ſeperate, or gather into new Churches, for that, which the Declaration removes without ſuch doings? why do you ſtun and diſtract the Church, by killing a Gnat upon her forehead, with ſo great a ſtroke.
116Sir, you intimate, p. 35. the Caſe is altered: but ſurely, not much as to this point betwixt us and the old Non-Conformiſts, yet you well know, all conformed with the people in, and contended for Lay Communion, againſt the Browniſts, yea, it is a worthy obſervation of Mr. Baxter, that if there be any alteration, 'tis for the better for the people, as he ingeniouſly confeſſeth and accounts. Take his words at large.
CHAP. XVI.
Further proof that the practice is Schyſm, by way of Reply to his Objections againſt it.
BUt for all this, gathering Churches is not Seperation. Who will ſay ſo beſides? Refuſing our Communion, and gathering themſelves into diſtinct Congregations, I am ſure was that which the old Non-Conformiſts wrote againſt, and called it Seperation, and though other things occurred by way of Argument, this was the main ſcope and bore the Burthen of their Diſputations.
118Beſides, you cannot in earneſt accuſe our Communion with ſin, and what then can excuſe your leaving us and gathering new Churches; from Seperation: according to the judgment of all but your ſelves, the Seperatiſts themſelves not excepted, who, never that I ever heard of, ventured to queſtion the major propoſition of this Argument, but denied the minor.
Thoſe which ſeperate from a true Church in whoſe Communion is nothing ſinful, are guilty of Schyſ•.
But you ſeperate from a true Church in whoſe Communion there is nothing ſinful.
Therefore you are guilty of Schyſm.
For all this, we may gather Churches and be neither Shyſmaticks nor Seperatiſts, and we have eight Reaſons to prove it, a whole cluſter of them: we ſhall try their weight, eſpecially, ſeeing they would bear us down in a point contrary ▪ to the ſence of all mankind; for new reaſons are not alwaies beſt.
But they are clung together ſo that we take ſeven of them at once, or they are ſpoiled.
1. The Non-Conformiſts, though they gather Churches are no ſeperatiſts: for they will not pronounce any of your Pariſh-Churches119 Null, which have lawful Miniſters: not Null by any means, but they will make them as void as they can.
2. They will not ſay, that your Worſhip is ſuch, as no man may lawfully communicate in. We are beholding to you, perhaps one or two in a Nation, ſcarce in a Pariſh, by your good will. 3. They ſhall hold that Pariſh bounds are very convenient: they ſtill hold this, what ever elſe they have let ſlip — and none ordinarily, but Pariſhoners, to be of the Church: but what Church do you mean? the old or new, none of the Pariſh, if they can help it ſhall be of the old, and as many out of the Pariſh, as they can draw in for ought I perceive ſhall be of the new. 4. They are driven from the Pariſh-Miniſtry againſt their Wills: and had rather hold their Ancient ſtations, & they will thankfully return when they have leave. But muſt they therefore break ancient bounds and ſpoil the Pariſhes to which they would return? and after they have taught the people to go aſtray, they are not ſure they will return with a whiſtle. 7. they ſet not up the Church-Government of the people over the Paſtors, but they diſſolve the government of the Parochial and Epiſcopal Paſtor, and teach the people by their countenancing of ſeperation120 to deſpiſe and ſhake of both. 8. They deſire nothing more than as neighbour Miniſters — in love to carry on the ſame work of Chriſt with us, and do nothing leſs.
But what of all this? therefore they are no ſeperatiſts: how ſo, becauſe, herein they differ in their principles from the old Seperatiſts; what then, if they are the ſame in that very practice that made them Seperatiſts,
I am much of the mind ſtill, that thoſe that are guilty of ſinful ſeperation are ſeperatiſts: and that thoſe that voluntarily ſeperate from a true Church where they may communicate without ſin, and gather Churches, in opppſition thereunto, are guilty of a ſinful ſeperation, do with your reaſons what you will.
They may perhaps prove that the old Seperatiſts had ſome principles about theſe things worſe than the new: but, under your favour, I think if theſe ſeperate as they did and think themſelves they have not ſo much to ſay againſt our Churches as they of old did, their practiſe of ſeperation is the worſe for this, and not a whit the better. Now give me leave to bring forth my reaſon too. Tis this
If a great and real cauſe of ſeperation121 does warrant and juſtifie it in all mens judgment but your own, the leſſer the cauſe of ſeperation is, the worſe it is, and the more ſchyſmatical; and conſequently where there is no real cauſe at all, 'tis worſt of all.
Therefore, I conceive the old Non-Conformiſts, as well as the late Presbyterians, firſt charged thoſe that ſeperated with the error of the fact viz. Seperation: and in the ſecond place, upon their reaſons given for their ſeperation, from the Nullity of our Churches and Miniſtery, &c. they ſet themſelves upon the proofe and defence of them but never took ſuch their falſe opinions to be of the eſſence of their Seperations; but only as their reaſons and excuſes for their evil practiſes of Seperations. This ought to be heeded; and then ▪ what becomes of your lump of reaſons ▪ ſeaven of the eight, you ſee, are light and weigh very little, if the matter againſt them be weigh'd alſo.
But, what think you of the other reaſon, the ſixt in number? truely that hath ſo great a Smack of the old ſeperation, and ſelf-eſteem and admiration of their own way that we threw it away before as worſe then none, when ever it came to our hands; eſpecially in chapter 13.
If you ſuſpect us, take it into your122 hand, as 'tis waſh't and rubb'd and preſented to you in the beſt manner the Author can ſet it forth; he ſaith, they prefer their own manner of worſhiping God as better than the Liturgy in their opinion (no doubt of that) and therefore to be choſen when they may chooſe (but who hath given them this liberty! and freed their Conſciences from the obligation I know not, though they may ſin unpuniſht) but they account it not the only acceptable worſhip, but are preſent with you in ſpirit, as the great Apoſtle was with the corrupt Corinthians: but why only in ſpirit and not in body. I had like to have thought that Communion in ſpirit in a bad worſhip, had been the more dangerous of the two,) deſiring a part in the prayers of all true Chriſtians in the World, and truely no more than need; if by ſuch practiſes they ſeperate allmoſt from them all, and think to be juſtifyed by ſuch kind of Reaſons.
But who taſts not the ſmack of Browniſm and Donatiſm here? for what is the meaning of it but that our way of worſhip is not ſo good as it ſhould be; for certainly, theirs,•s no better than it ſhould be; yet they muſt leave ours, to enjoy their own, as better; our way is therefore, defective, if not Corrupt. But, wherein is it defective more than yours?123 have not we as many Pſalms and Chapters read, as many Sacraments Adminiſtred, as many Sermons preached, as you, doth not the Pariſh Miniſter, generally pray before and after Sermon, as well as yours? and have we not the Common-prayer over and above? where is our defect? away with theſe pitiful ſhews inſtead of reaſonings. If we are corrupt in our worſhip, ſay ſo, if that be the reaſon of your ſeperation, ſay ſo, and be Seperatiſts indeed ſay plainly 'tis a purer worſhip and reformation that you leave us for.
But, let it be what it will, you your ſelf think our way acceptable to God; you joine with us in it; you perſwade others to it: ſo that what defects or corruptions you find in it, cannot juſtifie their ſeperation from us, in your opinion, and I ſee not, how you can avoid joining with us in this alſo; and to ſay, they are Schyſmaticks for ſo doing. Eſpecially ſuch Non-conformiſts, whoſe Adminiſtrations you ſuppoſe as bad as the Liturgy. p. 16.
But you intimate one difference more (for your ſelf alone, I ſuppoſe) betwixt you and the Browniſts in another place, where you ask, whether ſuch gathered Churches would be Schyſmatical if the Common prayer were read in them? But, what is the reading the124 Common prayer to Seperation from the Church? or, why cannot you better hear it in the Temple; the ſame mode of worſhip, is no excuſe, but an aggravation of diviſion and ſeperation; ſeeing they that uſe it, ſay they like it; and ſo have no reaſon from the point of worſhip to forſake our Communion. We have a Demonſtration from the Church of Corinth; who, had all the ſame Apoſtolical mode of worſhip, and yet are charged by the Apoſtle himſelf, with diviſions and Schyſm.
Wherefore, though we take it kindly that you are moderate in your own practice, and let the World and your brethren know it, and propoſe your advice and example to your brethren ſo ſeaſonably in it, I cannot but a little reflect upon thoſe words of yours p. 100.
But, though I will not bind my ſelf (take heed of that) I here tell the World, — if opportunity — I would ſometimes pray freely without forms, and ſometimes uſe ſome part of the Common Liturgy: and ſometime uſe the Reformed Liturgy, which in 1600. was agreed on by Commiſſioned Non-Conformiſts, though being done in exream haſt, it ſhould be review'd and perfected.
But why would you not uſe all theſe at once? then 'tis like ſome body would be pleaſed. 125In earneſt, muſt the Liturgy eſtabliſhed by Law, and ſo long practice, obtain no more with you, than the other two waies mentioned? Speak plain, were the Non-Conformiſts then Commiſſioned for that purpoſe, to make a new Liturgy, as you do more than intimate? Really, me thinks, untill this new one be amended, you ſhould prefer our Liturgy, which was made by as good men, and with leſs haſte, and more deliberation.
But you may have ſome peculiar reaſon why you would honour this Reformed Liturgy, as you call it, pray what is it? Becauſe it is new? or becauſe you are for change? or for a third reaſon you wot of? Indeed Novelty, Change, and Property are three great Arguments with ſome men, that are no ſmall pretenders to Antiquity, Reſolution, and ſelf-denial.
But all this concerns not you: pray what are your reaſons for the uſe of it? you have told us nothing of it yet, but its imperfections, and I do not hear of any one hitherto that, from the worth and excellency of it, hath been induced to practiſe it: your reaſons may poſſibly draw ſome one or other to joine with you in that new Liturgy: In the mean time pardon me in the mention of an odd paſſage, I heard in the times of our late126 Confuſions; what Church are you of pray, (one askt another) I am, quoth he, of Mr. Barbers Church? Mr. Barbers Church, a Church I have not heard of before, pray how many members have you? truely, ſaith he very gravely, we have none yet, but him and I; but we hope we ſhall have more.
CHAP. XVII.
More direct proof that this practiſe is Schyſm. With conſidering the principles upon which they ſeperate.
I Shall fix my foot and prove more directly, that ſuch ſeperation without Juſt ground, is plain Schyſm in all the Notion of Schyſm we have hitherto received in the Church of God, without any ſuch conſideration of the Browniſts principles, denying the truth of the Churches or Miniſtery, or lawfulneſs of the worſhip, from which ſuch ſeperation was made.
1. Firſt in the Scriptures, Schyſm is condemned with dividing the Church into parties; forſaking the Aſſembling of our ſelves together, ſeperating themſelves, drawing diſciples after them, creeping into Houſes, and leading ſilly women Captive, and the127 like; without any ſuch thing, as cueſtioning, much leſs denying the truth of thoſe Churches, Miniſtry or Worſhip, as is evident beyond all diſpute and to a plain Demonſtration, in thoſe Schyſmaticks in the Church of Corinth: who kept in their publique Aſſemblies, and indeed preferred one of their Miniſters in the ſame Church, before the reſt: but denied not any of them, except to hear them; and that was their Schyſm, though they complained not againſt either the Conſtitution of their Church, or the corruptions in it; which yet were great and many, both in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, as is well known.
Yea, though the Miniſters in Corinth, walked in love together, and carried on the ſame work of Chriſt, as you pretend with us, and made no ſuch attempts of drawing parties from their brethren, to themſelves, and had no hand at all in the Schyſm, that we read of, but the great Apoſtle himſelf diſlikes and proteſts againſt it; becauſe only the people too much admired ſome, to the diſlike of others of their Miniſters, they are charged with Schyſm, as before was noted.
2. Shortly after, we have an account of Schiſm from Ignatius, and what was it, but a not owning or ſubmiting to the Government128 of their proper Biſhops and Paſtors, without any ill reflections or denials of their office, or the truth of their Churches, or any ſuch thing.
3. Next, we read of that great Schyſm both of the Eaſtern and Weſtern Churches, (for neither could be freed from the charge of it) about the time of the celebration of Eaſter, upon this ſlight occaſion, without any of the ſaid Browniſtical principles, they ſeperated from, by refuſing Communion with one another, for many years together; and though the occaſion was ſo very ſlight, it is noted for a great, yea therefore, for the greater Schyſm in Church ſtory.
4. After this, we read of the Schyſm of Donatiſm: this, though it ſpread, and run very deep into Naughty, and much like to our later Seperation-principles about the Church at laſt; yet at firſt it was occaſioned by a contention about the Biſhoprick of Cecilianus, and therefore branded with the name of Schyſm; eſpecially, when the Donatiſts much like our late Sectaries, refuſed Communion with the Church, becauſe corruptions were tollerated: contending that they were the only pure Church and ſpouſe of Chriſt; and this is little otherwiſe, than what at preſent is pretended, by ſuch as would not be called Separatiſts.
1295. The great ground of Schyſm obſerved from Church ſtory by Mr. Hales, was generally, contentionOf Schyſm p. 12. about Biſhops, as it is now without any Browniſtical principles.
He notes, that at firſt there was but one Cathedral Church in one Dioceſs, afterwards, ſome had two ſome more, and it happen'd many times, that theſe Cathedrals had diſtinct Biſhops, and theſe by their differences many times came to have diſtinct Churches: and theſe Churches refuſed to communicate with one another for the ſake of their Biſhops which was called Schyſm: though it was, no Browniſm it was a ſeperation very like to ours in our Pariſh-Churches, this was, ſaith St. Cyprian, Erigere altare contra Altare, and to this doth that father impute (as Mr. Hales further obſerves) all Church-diſorders, and if you read him you would think he thought no o•her Church-tumult to be Shyſm but this.
Indeed, Schyſm is any unwarrantable breach of unity in the Church of God; where you find this, you find Schyſm, let the occaſion be what it will, tis a ſinful practice, dividing the Church, by our ſelves or others and lies not in the reaſon of that practice, unleſs it be conſiderable for the excuſe of it: as all Divines conſent.
130Heare St. Auſtine, SchyſmaContr Fauſt. l. 20. c. 3. & de fid. & oper. c. 3. & contr. Creſ. gr. l. 2. c. 7. eſt, &c. Schyſm is a late diſſention or diſagreement of a Congregation ariſing from ſome Diverſity in•pinion; no matter what it be.
And again, more full to our purpoſe. Shyſmatieos facit non diverſa fides, ſed Communionis diſrupta ſocietas. Do you ask what is Schyſm? it is not a differing Faith, but a breaking the fellowſhip of Communion, which makes men Schyſmaticks.
Yet more plainly, Schyſma eſt eadem opiniantem & eodem Ritu utentem Solo Congregationis delectari diſſidio. Schyſm is, when a man, that profeſſeth the ſame faith and worſhip, is delighted only with the difference of an Aſſembly or Congregation. You might have adviſed this Father a little better, had he been now alive but, it ſeems, your objection was then urged by ſome that you are loath to own,
And this ſame notion of Schyſm kept its ground in the Church from St. Aug. to Beza's time〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſive〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉eſt, &c. Schyſm or Diviſion, ſaith BezaAn. in 1. Co. 1. 10. is this, when men are ſo addicted to ſome men or to ſome outward Rites, that though they do agree in the chief points of Religion, yet they are eſtra•ged in their minds,131 and engage themſelves into parties and Factions. Thus Beza, and yet he paſſeth for a Presbyterian, and ſo doth Mr. New comen, who uſeth all theſe places of Authority, to my very purpoſe, againſt the Independents, who would it ſeems, have excuſed their Schyſm from the Moderation of their principles, and the ſoundneſs of their Doctrine, He, therefore ſhall be the next Presbyterian that we ſhall produceNew commen. Sr. at Pauls. p. 14. for this notion of Schyſm, not neceſſarily incluſive of the Browniſts rigid principles.
He tells us plainly, as I obſerved in my other book, their holding one head and one faith with us doth not excuſe them from being guilty of breach of unity and down-right Schyſm, as long as they hold not one body, one Baptiſm. As if he had ſaid, let your principles be what they will, you are downright Schyſmaticks while you ſeperate and break our unity.
As for Seperation, Mr. Baxter tells us, that the miſchiefEp to his Reſt printed 1669. of it lies not in the bare error of judgment, but in the unchriſtian and Church-diſſolving diviſion, and Alienation which thence followeth.
Yea, let us know the man that did ever132 directly or by any clear conſequence to be drawn from his words, print ſuch a Notion of Schyſm, as includes the Browniſts rigid principles about our Churches, &c. in the Nature of it. Examine Cameron, Ames, Hales, Brinſly, and if any others be dearer to you, and ſee, whether their definitions take in any ſuch thing; or can bear ſuch an expoſition, as you would put upon them. See how Mr. Cawdrey and the London Miniſters, at Sion ▪ Colledg deal with the Independents in the point; and whether you can poſſibly perſwade your ſelf, to continue in the beleif, that for the reaſons you have alledged, the Non-Conformiſts may gather Churches and not be Seperatiſts in the judgment of the Presbyterians, before the year 1660. or any of the old Non-Conformiſts: you may ſee their Judgment in general by a few quotations out of their writings.
CHAP. XVIII.
Teſtimonies of Non-Conformiſts for the ſame.
GIve me leave touſher in this worthy verdict, with an Argument after your own mode.
I will undertake to prove, that the Non-Conformiſts, both Ancient and Modern, before 1660. held, gathering Churches out of our Churches unlawful and Schyſmatical, and that abſolutely, without any reference to the principles upon which it is don, much leſs the Browniſtical.
Do you prove afterwards, if it be poſſible, that they ſuppoſed your New diſtinctions and evaſions, or that they, at any time let words drop from them ſignifying an allowance of Seperation from our Churches and ſetting up new ones, upon ſuch weak grounds as you ſtand upon.
Mr. Ball I had mentioned inMr. Ball. my laſt, as one of the old•uritans, that had wrote for Communion with our Parochial Congregations; you tell134 me ſubtilly, that he ſpeaks not againſt Non-Conformiſts preaching, and thats an Anſwer. But I muſt now add, that, that great Nonconformiſt doth not plead for our Communion as lawful, but in a ſort neceſſary; and that to ſeperate from us is a ſinfull Seperation.
He telleth you roundly, that ſuch Seperation is the Wound ofEp to his 1. vol. Friendly Tryal. the Church, — yea, whoſoever ſeperateth from the body of the Church ſeperateth from Chriſt in that reſpect. — Voluntary Seperation from the Lords Table, and the Prayers (he reckoned upon more than hearing Sermons) of the Congregation, what is but a willing Excommunicating of our ſelves from the viſible tokens of the Lords preſence and love — is it not a greater ſin in Members to deprive themſelves (then in the Church Governors to deprive others) of the ſame Communion for ſmall occaſions? you ſee he makes the ſmalneſs of the occaſion of Seperation to be Emphaſis and Aggravation of it.
2. Let worthy Mr. Hilderſham lay down his grave and weighty point clearly and boldly, and likeHilderſham upon 4. Joh. p. 149. himſelf 'tis this; Thoſe Aſſemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation; though they have many Corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknowledged the true Churches of God, and ſuch as none of the faithful may make Separation from. (He will not allow you, upon pretence of purity and ſerving. God better in your way, to ſeperate and gather Churches, not any one, none of the faithful) he proceeds to prove it largely: and it may be well known how ſevere he is, againſt the faithful, that will ordinarily leave their honeſt Miniſter, to hear thoſe that are more able: upon pretences of profiting better by them: which is yet the beſt plea the preſent Separation hath for it ſelf.
3. M. Calvin ſpeaks to the point with no mean Authority. Calvin Inſti. li. 4. c ▪ 1 ſect. 9, 10. 12.136He tells us, that whereſoever the Goſpel is purely preached, and the Sacraments Adminiſtred according to the Inſtitution of Chriſt; there is the Church of God. — There appears neither a deceitful nor doubtful face of a Church, of which no man may either deſpiſe the Authority, or refuſe the Admonition; or reſiſt the Counſels or mock at the Corrections; much leſs depart from it, breaks in ſunder the Unity of it, and go unpuniſhed.
4. The value which our Engleſh Presbyterians juſt before the Wars, had of our137 Church and its lay-Communion is not impertinentLetter of many Miniſters in Old England, to their brethren in new E. pub by Mr. Aſh, &c 1643. but very conſiderable: together, with the Cenſure they then paſs'd upon ſuch as refuſed it.
5. Mr. Gifford an old Non-Conformiſt, wrote a bookGifford Printed 1590. call'd a plain Declaration; wherein he doth not vindicate every thing in our Church; but that there is no ſufficient Cauſe of ſeperation; Complains thus, ſome are proceeded to this that they will come to the Aſſemblies to hear Sermons and the Prayers of the Preacher; but not to the prayers of the Book; which I take to be a more grievous ſin than many do ſuppoſe. But yet this is not the worſt; for ſundry are gon farther; and faln into a damnable Schyſm; and the ſame ſo much the more fearful and dangerous, in that many do138 not ſee the foulneſs of it; but rather hold them as Godly Chriſtians; and but a little over-ſhot in ſome matters.
6. We come now to review the Teſtimonies we gave in our laſt, from the late Preſbiterian Controverſie with the Independents: we pitcht upon ſome words of the Provincial Aſſembly in London: and the Argument ſent to the Aſſembly of Divines by the London Miniſters from Sion Colledge, two eminent bodies of known Presbyterians. And we yet ſee no reaſon to judg, but their words and Arguments are very direct and full to the purpoſe; eſpecially conſidering, the moſt pittiful ſhifts of our Anſwerer about them.
As to the words, in the Divine right of Presbytery, be ſaith, thatJus divin. Reg. Eccl. book was ſuppoſed to be penn'd by Dr Roberts now a Conformiſt. But what doth he mean? was he a Conformiſt then? or doth not the book plead for the Presby•ery, and its Jus Divinum? and in the ſame ſence by which he himſelf defines a Presbyterian? yea, was it not owned by, and publiſhed under the name of the provincial Aſſembly of Presbyterians? and what matter is it then who pen'd it? the like dealing you uſe about Mr. Trapp: you ſay he is a Conformiſt, what then? hath he not given a juſt139 account of the book written by the London Miniſters, as I ſaid he did? their reaſons alledged by me, were alledged by a Conformiſt: yet they are theirs ſtill. What manner of anſwering is this? It were not pardonable with ſome Adverſaries, but you are faln into merciful hands.
The Authority of the perſons then is clear: the words I cited out of the preface to that book called, Jus Divinum regiminis Eccleſiaſtici, were theſe, Parochial Churches are received as true viſible Churches of Chriſt, and moſt convenient for edification: gathering Churches out of Churches hath no footſteps in Scripture: is contrary to Apoſtolical practice: is the ſcattering of Churches, the Daughter of Schyſm: the Mother of Confuſion and the ſtep-Mother of edification.
Obſerve, they condemn gathering Churches out of our Churches: abſolutely, and without any reſpect to the principles upon which it was done particularly, they call it the Daughter of Schyſm, ſeperation in order unto the gathering of Churches being Schyſm it ſelf, in the then Presbyterian opinion.
The Arguments, I took out of the Letter of the London MiniſtersSion-Coll. to the Aſſembly were theſe, the Independents are guil•y of Schyſm. 1. Becauſe they refuſe140 Communion with our Churches in the Sacraments. 2. They erect ſeperate Congregations under a ſeperate undiſcovered Government: never charging them with any Browniſtical principles, but the fact it ſelf, an undoubted proof of what they undertook to prove.
Again to the ſame purpoſe, they charge them with three great Scandals, how you will avoid either of them I cannot Devine. 1. That they ſeperated from the true Church. 2. That they endeavoured by drawing Members out of it to make up their ſeperate Churches, to weaken and diminiſh the Church. 3. That they endeavoured to get a warrant to authorize both, viz. by a Toleration: and this, ſay they, we think to be plainly unlawful.
Now, hereupon, I am bold to challenge our Anſwerer, or any one elſe, to prove clearly, that any one Eminent Presbyterian before 1660. was not utterly againſt all the three, againſt ſuch ſeperation, ſuch gathering Churches, and ſuch Toleration. Convince me if you can: but not by telling me they are now for them all. That they would Tolerate, things Tolerable, that is gathering Churches: and perſons Tolerable, that is Presbyterians, as you ſpeak very intelligibly.
141But no wonder, they are chang'd in their thoughts of theſe things: the caſe is Alter'd, as you hint.
True, there are ſome new impoſitions upon Miniſterial Conformity; but other Alterations render our Lay-Communion more eaſily than it was before the wars, when the Preſbyterian denied it not; as was noted out of Mr. Baxter before; who alſo aſſures us that he never heard of five Non-Conformiſts, beſides the five diſſentingDefence of his cure p. 13. brethren in the Aſſembly at Weſtminſter; he means, they conformed as Miniſters of the Church of England before they ſate there.
However, that Churches may not be gathered out of Churches is aſſerted not as a Temporary truth, but moral: depending upon the Nature of a Church which never alters: or gives any occaſion of change, in the judgment, about this point.
The Books of Mr. Cawdrey, that Captain in the Presbyterian. Cawdrey.Army againſt Dr. Owen, and the Independents, challenge you all. We may, ſaith he, prove them to be Schyſmatical. 1. by a voluntary Seperation from true Churches; with whom we dare ſay, they may Communicate without ſin, and ſo conſequently, cauſeleſly rending the body of Chriſt. 2. By142 their renouncing Communion with us, to ſet up a Church of anotherIndep. further provd Schyſ p. 73, 74 conſtitution; and ſo condemning our Churches ipſo facto, as no truely conſtituted Churches.Mark, condemning our Churches ipſo facto. Their very Act is enough; whether they avow ſuch principles or not: and conſequently, what ever you pretend to the contrary; your very departure from us, and making new Churches, does of it ſelf condemn you of Schyſm.
I only aſſume, that generally the Non-Conformiſts make differences in our Churches, draw Diſciples from them, and renounce Communion with them, quod eſt demonſtratum, And now I beg leave of my Anſwerer to conclude with the words in my laſt, that ſo much offended him; that I am ſure the Presbyterians, (if they walk by the principles of their Fathers before the Kings return) I am ſure, I ſay, that they have no143 reaſon to engage in a way of publique worſhip, contradiſtinct to our Parochial Congregation.
CHAP. XXI.
Gathering of Churches ought not to be practiſed, as now it is, either, in Conſcience, or prudence. Objections anſwered.
YEt, we are not at a full Agreement: he ſeems every where, to take it for granted, that, we are now, at perfect liberty, to gather new Churches or not, which, by no means, I allow, while my principles ſtand undemoliſh't: Such as theſe.
That our Church of England is a true144 Church that our parochial Congregations are true Churches that the people of England are generally, Members of this Church and Churches; or at leaſt ought ſo to be. That they lawfully may, and conſequently are, in Duty and Conſcience bound to Communicate with them. And therefore, for them to Seperate, and to gather themſelves into new Congregations, of another conſtitution, is plainly ſinful and Schyſmatical.
Upon the premiſes, I doe conclude, that Conſcience ought firſt to be conſulted in the caſe: and the many obligations thereof, effectually and totally removed, before you can make it a matter of indifferency in it ſelf, and of more Chriſtian prudence pro hic & nunc, as you ſeem to affirm.
Our Obligation to this Communion falls many wayes upon us: from our Relation to the Church; the laws of cohabitation of Church-Members, the Laws of the Kingdome, and the long continued practice of this Church: none of all which, are in the leaſt touched, much leſs Altered or Repeald by the Declaration of Indulgence.
Beſides, the many expreſs Scriptures againſt our forſaking our (wonted) Aſſemblies, Seperating our ſelves, making parties and diviſions in the Church: having our Teachers in too much Admiration, and heaping145 them up to our ſelves, and receiving the faith with reſpect of perſons: and drawing Diſciples after us, in all which, both the preſent caſe, and the ſeveral Conſciences of the Non-confomiſts, whether Preachers or people, are in my opinion, not lightly concerned. Shake of the Burthen as well as you can.
Until theſe things be better anſwered, I muſt add here; that the caſe is of weight in p•int of Conſcience, as well as prudence: and that gathering Churches, as now you do, is a breach of the Laws both of God and Man; a Sin againſt our Church in her Right, in our perſons and fellowſhip: both with reſpect to our Paſtors and Brethren ▪ and a plain breach of our Covenant with them all; a breach of the Churches Ʋnity, and Order, and Ancient bounds and Cuſtoms, and in the Teachers that draw away our people, beſides all that hath been ſaid, a plain robbing of God, the Church and our Brother. To conclude, if the Laws of Piety, Juſtice, Temperance, or Charity, can reach the Conſcience, every one of which are violated by this gathering of Churches, the caſe is not a work of meer Chriſtian prudence, and to be determined only comparing the good and evil conſequents together, as you ſay p. 21.
But ſuppoſing my foundations to ſtand firm, and Conſcience in the point well ſecured:146 we may parly a little upon it in point of prudence: eſpecially, ſeeing, you affirm p. 21. that, he that through imprudence mijsudgeth either w•y doth ſin. Moreover you confeſs, that the caſe is now of ſo great moment, that no Miniſter ſhould raſh'y determine it for himſelf, p. 20. nor upon the deſires of ſome of the people only; but ſhould conſult with wiſe and ſober men that are impartial, but, if the caſe be ſo difficult for the Readers, who you ſay, muſt preach, how difficult is the caſe for the people? for it is, no where ſaid, they muſt ſeperate, and leave us to hear you, yea, your ſelf teach the contrary. You ſtate your nice Caſe, thus, p. 17, 18. whether in competent pariſhes, which have Able and Godly conformable Miniſters, the obligation to hold Union and Communion with the pariſh-Church; or the obligati•n to exerciſe a more regular way of Church-Diſciplin and worſhip, than the Pariſh-Churches do or will do, ſhould be judged the more prevalent; and conſequently, whether they ſhould gather C•urches out of Churches in this?
A Caſe not ſo difficult, as you ſeem to make it, if there be as you have heard, ſo much obligation upon Conſcience to the former part of it touching Communion with us: and none at all left, for their gathering-Churches147 for the ends aſſigned by you, for they can neither leave us without ſin; nor gather Churches without ſin; as, we hope it hath appeared.
Your opinion is given upon a double ſuppoſition, and both of them falſe. 1. That the caſe is indifferent; or, at leaſt the obligation to both, ſo equal, as, that it is to be weighed only by prudence. 2. That it is lawful and a duty to be a Member of ſuch a Pariſh-Church (only) when we can have and do no better [i. e. in our own opinion] and that when we can, we have liberty to forſake our own Church, though, I confeſs your explication of having or doing better, hath ſome tendency to a right determination of this great point, viz: you ſay, we cannot have or d•better, when it cannot be without a greater hurt to the publique intereſt of the Goſpel, the Church, and the ſouls of men, then the benefit to us and others is like to countervail. But I muſt add (as the caſe requires,) eſpecially, when that benefit, cannot be had without ſinning our ſelves, and drawing others to ſin with us by our endeavours, Scandal, and example; which, I think, we too plainly and manifeſtly do, by gathering Churches.
Now give me leave, to make a ſuppoſition; and I ſhall immediately take the Scale and weigh the conſequents, as you ſay, on both148 ſides. My ſuppoſition is, that this caſe which you call the difficult one, is the very caſe with moſt Non-Conformiſts, who do now gather Churches, for as our Pariſh-Miniſters are generally, more Tolerable then you ſeem to allow them; ſo, eſpecially are they of the better ſort, and truely able, and Godly, and our Pariſhes, in your own ſenſe, competent enough, where, for the moſt part, they have hitherto ſet about this new experiment, which, it ſeems, renders the caſe ſo difficult in your own opinion, that, I fear, you will have cauſe enough to cenſure the raſhneſs of their unadviſed undertaking of it.
But now to the Scales, wherin we muſt weigh. 1. The Benefits to be hoped. 2. The evils to be feared, will follow ſuch gathering Churches.
You pitch upon three great Benefits. 1. The pleaſing of God (when we know it is his will) and the profit of mens ſouls by the moſt regular manner of diſcipline and Worſhip. [But be ſure you know it is his Will] you your ſelfmake it very difficult to know this, even for the Teachers; how much more for the people. The ſame Argument will put us upon the Reformation of the State too, when we know it is Gods will. This we know to be Gods will; that we ſerve God149 the beſt we can in our places: that we move for a Reformation in a peaceable and regular way, that we preſerve the unity and Communion of the Church. That we obey our Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Governors: theſe things we know to be Gods will: and we know that he is not the God of Confuſion, but of order in his Churches; and what tends to diſorder and confuſion, we know it is not Gods will; but how we ſhall know that it is his will we ſhould reform the Church upon our own heads, and therefore Seperate from true Churches and gather Churches, in order to better Worſhip and diſcipline, if ſo it prove, this we know not.
2. The ſecond Benefit, is the ſetting up an imitable Example of right Diſcipline, and worſhip to other Churches i. e. Setting up a Standard with the former Narrative of the grounds of the War. But heads, ſeverely, then woe to them that ſet up a worſe. And, in your Conſcience, is not this woe likely to be generall? how many hundred years hath our Diſcipline been expoſed to examination, and for the ſubſtance of it, what part can envy it ſelf, find fault with this? are the ſhort Counſels of our new Reformers likely to mend it? beſides, how will you do, that are for Epiſcopacy? you will not regulate that by having none; or by making other Biſhops150 I hope. As for our Worſhip, I preſume, the Reformed Liturgy will not take place, except in y•ur own Congregation? and ſure, that we have already, is better than none at all: as it is with your brethren of the new Churches.
3. Your laſt benefit is a marvellous one indeed, the ſatisfying the Conſciences of honeſt miſtaken people, who think it unlawful to communicate with us. i. e. we muſt break the Churches in pieces, to feed the miſtakes and ill humours of honeſt people, if they are honeſt, remove their miſtakes, teach them truth, and wiſdome, and peace, and duty, and perſwade them to keep their Station and Communion with us; and I doubt not, but that y•u and they will find this to be the greater benefit of the two at laſt, as well as we.
You may ſee there is no good to be done by the practiſe, and you, in the next place, ſee what a ſwarm of miſchiefs attend it. I ſhall obſerve the things you fear your ſelf; and indeed, they are more in number, weight, and meaſure too, then the benefits you mentioned.
Theſe are they evil conſequents, which you wiſely for•ſee will follow theſe new Churches: and you cannot, I think, prudently avoid them, but by forbearing that practice, and perſwading your brethren to do ſo likewiſe. For you confeſs, when the publique good forbids it [as no doubt, it now d•th] p. 22. 152The Tolerated Miniſters muſt not gather diſtinct Church-Aſſemblies, but joyn with the publique Churches, and help the people by their inſtructions at other times. And not to b•y up the people in their weakneſs, which you well obſerve, p. 23. inclineth them to cauſeleſs ſeperations and diſ•unctions.
But who ſhall now hold the beam? let any hand but your own, and, I am ſure, the inconveniences you have mentioned, muſt needs preponderate, thoſe ſhadows of benefit that the practice pretends to.
'Tis the known and ſtated judgment of the Church in all Ages that defects, yea and many corruptions (which you charge us not withal) are far more tollerable, and not ſo hazardous to the Church, as Seperation by the breach of unity; and then what ſhall we think of the formal and poſitive Schyſm in gather•d Churches.
The Novatians, Audeans, and Donatiſts had all the ſame pretence, of better diſcipline and worſhip than the publique; therefore, they gathered themſelves into diſtinct Churches for reformation and greater purity in Religion: but for this, they ſtand recorded for Schyſmaticks and P•ſts of the Church, in the writings of the Fathers and Church-Hiſtori•ns.
You acknowledge, our errors are Tollerable,153 (elſe you would not Communicate with us:) and this is a ſtanding rule in the Church, ſi error eſt Tolerabilis, non•p•r•et•er•Seceſſionem. If the errors or ſcandals of the Ch•rch be Tolerable, we ought not to leave it, and what's the reaſon? becauſe of the dangerous conſequents that have ever followed Seperation, and the beauty andCameron. de Schyſ. holineſs of unity in Religion.
Sir I perceive I need not endeavour to quicken your ſenſe of the fearful eff•cts of ſeperation: and ſhould I begin to ſpeak of them there would be no end; God grant we may never feel them; and therefore that you, and I, and every man, may do our proper endeavour to prevent and heal them. Schyſmate luxanturPareus. membra Eccleſiae ▪ Membra luxata inepta ſunt ad ſua muncra obcunda: membra lu••ta graviſſimo d•lore corpus afficiunt. P. Mart.Schyſm in the Church puts the members out of joynt: members out of joynt are unfit f•r ſervice: and cauſe great dolours and diſquietment to the whole body.
What ſharp cont•n•ions and ruptures in the bowels of the Ch•rch, what Wars and deſolations in Nations, hath Schyſm been the original of? what ſighs and warnings did the ſeperation of the Browniſt draw from154 the Puritans? and of the late Sectaries from the Presbyterians? all this cannot be torgotten, though in the midſt of our Buſsles, and our new joyes for our preſent liberty, we mind it not.
I ſhall not repent my former inconveniences: the fear of which, at leaſt, ſome of them, is yet ſtill upon us: notwithſtanding, &c.
Dividing principles will give ſhelter to all kind of HereſiesVid Baxt. def. of his cure p. 51, 52, 53. &c. and Sects; of which experience is too full a proof — and ſhall we ſtand by and ſee this work go on, and neither lament their ſin that drive men to this, nor warn them of the paſſions and principles that lead to it? and who knoweth not how fair a game the Papiſts have to play by the means of our Diviſions?
CHAP. XX.
More particular addreſs to the Anſwer, a friendly expoſtulation about his hard words and dealing. We muſt preach. And we may gather Churches to ſerve God better: two great cheats, a deſire he would detect them.
Sir, I perceive, by ſome Golden lines, drawn here and there, upon your Rough and Rugged peice (pardon the expreſſions) that though we differ in our meaſures, yet, we intend the ſame end: and in general, by the ſame means. Let us then, in cold blood, as friends f•ln out uſe to do, let us exp•ſtulate a little, and be friends again.
I confeſs, I thought I could not reply to much of your book, but in Mirth or Anger: the former I rather choſe; and have ſometimes uſed, but make it my publique requeſt, that neither your ſelf, nor any one elſe would take it in contempt of your perſon or parts.
156But if my pleaſantneſs hath, indeed, diſpleaſed you; pray, reflect a little ſeriouſly upon the manner, how you dealt with me, without any provocation. And conſider both the Ex•mple and Rule, you give me. p. 4. and I am apt to conceive, you will require no further ſatisfaction: yea, and that for the future, you will learn this leſſon; not to diſpiſe your Adverſaries perſon or parts; leaſt of one you make two; and inſtead of Reaſon, you ſtir up and provoke Folly and Madn•ſs.
If any thing hath miſs'd my eye, and conſideration, that you conceive to be•rgumentative: believe me, it was not deſign'd. I left your Method, becauſe I had a mind to review the point throughly, and once for all: and therefore you are ſecure from any further trouble from me, in this matter (unleſs I ſee more reaſon hereafter, than now I can foreſee,) Yet I promiſe you, that if, without Inſulting, you will ſhew me any Argument which was overlookt, I promiſe you faithfully, I will either Anſwer it, or acknowledge I cannot.
Indeed, ſome parts of your Book I have wil•ingly declined to inſiſt upon; there being obſervable in them, the defects of Pertinence and Charity: which I impute to your haſt and haſtineſs: and thank God, that I know157 how to allow ſomething to the beſt of men, for their Natural Temper.
Yet ſo far as we are vertuous, we cannot be unwilling to hear of our faults, eſpecially, with meckneſs of reaſon, and in a friendly expoſtulation: which, I hope, may well enough admit me to tell you plainly, that I have found neither kind words, nor fair dealing in your book.
For your Words: calling my Arguments ſilly; queſtioning my Witt and M•deſty; rendring me guilty of Noiſe, inſtead of Sence; of Confuſion and immeaſurable conſidence; theſe, and ſuch like, do not much affect me, but I confeſs, when you ſpeak of my pernitious fallacies, that goes ſomething near me, as alſo when you number me with factious diſputers; when, God knows, I intended nothing, as I ſaid in my laſt, but to ſave the people from ſin, and the Church from confuſion and ruine, by groſs Seperation.
For your fair dealing, I mean, not only, that you would make me affirm, what I never ſaid, or thought, for of that I have delivered my ſelf before: or ſo much that you ſeem to ly upon the Catch for little overſights, which concern not the Controverſy; though by the way take an Inſtance or two of this Nature.
Whereas I ſay, p. 28. they cannot but158 underſtand the Declaration to prohibite al ſuch private meetings as the law cal•s conventic•es. What an out-cry do we hear? you know not whoſe underſtandings you talk of — and with ▪ Scorn — why ſhould you judge us to be as wiſe as your ſelf.
But where's the victory? doth not the very Declaration it ſelf ſuppoſe unlawful Conventicles? or what if I had ſlipt, and put in the word Law for Declaration? was it unpardonable? it looks ill, when we deſign diſgrace to our Adverſary, without any advantage to our Cauſe, and what have you gained by this N•ble quarrel, but the name of Conventicles? and ſo branded by the Law; a name, one would think, not much worth the contention, if we Admit the Learned Hale's definition of it; a Conventicle ſaith he, is nothing elſe but a Congregation of Schyſmaticks. Tract of Schyſ p. 14
Take b•t one Inſtance more; I had ſaid, p. 14. that I thought I might ſafely ſay, that the Declaration doth not ſo much as uncommand any thing which the Law properly commands. But had you heeded one word among the reſt, you would hardly have entred this exception: p. 46. I mean the word, properly; which you, to ſeeming Advantage leave out in your Reflexion, for who knows not, that the main matter for159 which the Law is framed, is the thing properly, and directly commanded by the Law? and that the execution of the penalty, and the command thereof, are but in ſubſerviency thereunto; and, only of force, conditionally, in caſe the Law, in the proper matter of it, be diſabuſed?
And your exception to the other paragraph, hath yet l•ſs colour. I ſay, the Declaration medles not with the law, either in the preceptive or punitive part of it. But I ſtill take it to be beyond your skill in the Law, to confute me in this; and to be beyond diſpute, that the Law in both theſe parts of it, had its being from the Legeſlative power; and the Declaration from the Executive power: and that this cannot operate, to the change of that at all. The true internal vigour of the Law is ſtill the ſame; and 'tis your miſtake to think that the Declaration ſuſpends the command, or ſo much as the punitive part of the Law: it ſuſpendeth only the Actual Execution of the Law, as poenal: and allows ſuch meetings, as break the Law, and incur its penalty, to abide unpuniſhed; think on it well, and you may be of my mind.
Of theſe by the way, which indeed had not found their place here, could I have reduced them to any head of diſcourſe above: yet now I am upon it let me whiſper it in your ear,160 without any great noiſe about it, that there is one Paragraph of y•urs, that, could I take pleaſure in ſuch littlep. 45 laſt par or Sect reflections, I could ſhew, to have as many real Soloeciſms in it, as you have noted in my whole Book.
But, I am not careful for theſe things: you deal more hardly with me, when you lay preſumption and cruelty to the Non-conformiſts at my door, cannot I imagine that they do not only deſire to eſcape the penalty of the Laws, but erect ſeperate Churches to themſelves; but I muſt be an Ithacian Maſter, and make you feel my meaning, and give occaſion to cry out as you do, but, my Brother, what good will our ſufferings do you? do you feel your ſelf ever the more at liberty when we are in the Common-Goales? are you the fuller becauſe ſome Non-Conformiſts want bread?
Is this reaſonable, charitable, or candid? what ground have you for it, either in my words or deeds? would you not think you had wrong'd me, if ſome Non-Conformiſts ſhould tell you, that I have run ſome hazards and ſuffered in my Name for their Liberty? and if a peaceable ſilenc'd Miniſter ſhould teſtify, that he and his Family have many years together, had the greateſt part of their livelyhood from my Charity? But I muſt forbear, though you provoke me, leaſt161 you ſhould have juſt cauſe to impeach my Modeſty, and think you have cauſe to ſay, that I, in a ſenſe, call you Perſecutor.
But who am I, when, alas, the whole body of Conforming Clergy, (though you have ſaid, that many of them are pious, able, and faithfull in their places yet) you more than ſeem to load them, p. 74. with the unchriſtian like charge of perjury, perfidiouſneſs, and perſecution, proud, contending who ſhall be greateſt, and Covenanting, never in certain points to obey Chriſt againſt the World and the Fleſh.
And, you cannot but know, this is no way Argumentative: unleſs you deſign'd to weaken the Affections of the people towards us, and ſo to prepare them for a ſeperation: which I am not willing to beleive: for that I find, you, in many other places, ſo earneſtly perſwading to the contrary.
Sir, I do not preſume to adviſe you: but Sir, if you ſhall think to write any more upon this matter, let me beſeech you ſeriouſly to conſider, whether your own principles, and the preſent vile practiſes of ſeperation, contrary thereunto, would not more worthily and more ſeaſonably draw your ſtudies another way.
162I know, that the peace and reputation, and Integrity, of our Parochial Churches are dear to you, however you were tempted to miſtake me, and to let ſome things fly, ſome things that may chance to prejudice them more than you would.
There are two principles ſcattered up and down your Anſwerer, that I here mainly aim at, and into theſe indeed, all its ſtrength reſolves. 1. That the Non-Conformiſts muſt preach. 2. That to the end the people may ſerve God better, they may gather themſelves into other Churches. The firſt of theſe would not concern me in the defence of my other Book, neither, doth the allowance of it, draw a neceſſity of gathering Churches, as we have made to appear above the latter of them, indeed, lies at the bottom of all that you ſay againſt me, and I have often ſpoken to it, even, where ever I met it I am now making my Petition in the Churches behalf, that you would lay to heart the certain Diviſions and confuſions that muſt needs follow, upon the practiſe of both theſe principles, jointly received, and improved by the skill of Dividers, and the cunning craftineſs of ſuch as lie in wait for that purpoſe.
The firſt of theſe, that they muſt preach, give me leave to ſay, as it is the preſent Engine163 for diviſion, is a plain cheat put upon the World, and not to be countenanced by an honeſt man.
They muſt preach, but why? becauſe of the Text, becauſe of the neceſſities of the people, and laſtly, becauſe of their Relation to their old Flocks, of each a little.
They muſt preach, becauſe the Text ſaith, there is a neceſſity laid upon us, and wo be to us if we do not preach.
Anſ. But, my Brethren, what if you have no opportunity, and the Churches are all full, muſt ye preach ſtill? We have before noted, from Mr. Baxter, that where there is no opportunity there is no duty, and conſequently, there is no neceſſity no Woe, & is it not plain enough, that while you have no particular flock, eſpecially, while the Law forbids you to have any, you have no opportunity to preach publiquely: can have no opportunity to be ſo buſie in another mans Dioceſs: nor warrant in Conſcience without leave from the Laws, which are ſtill obliging, notwithſtanding, &c, and the Licenſe of the Biſhop, or the Parochial Miniſter, to whoſe people you would preach.
It ought to be remembred, this Doctrine is perfect Brown•ſm, and condemn'd as ſuch by the Old Non-Conformiſts, who held and defended againſt the Browniſts, that though themſelves were only ſuſpended, and had yet by Law the poſſeſſion of their places and no other164 could lay claim to their flocks, yet, being only thus ſuſpended, they ought not to preach publiquely to their own people.
Whether ſuſpended or degraded, their Doctrine was not the neceſſity to preach, as you and the Browniſt ſay, but to keep ſilent.
For ſo long ſaid they, as the Biſhops ſuſpend and deprive according to Law, we account of the Action herein, as of the Act of the Church, if they do otherwiſe we have liberty given us, by the Law to appeal from them.
Obj. But we think in our Conſciences that the cauſes of our Silencing are not ſufficient to juſtifie it. This very Objection alſo the Browniſts uſed to the Non-Conformiſts of old, and received this Anſwer from them.
Anſ. It lies ſay they, in them to depoſe that may ordain, and they may ſhut that may open. And that, as he may with a good Conſcience execute a miniſtry, by the Ordination and calling of the Church who is privie to himſelf of ſome unfitneſs (if the Church will preſs him to it) ſo may he who is privy to himſelf of no fault that deſerves Deprivation, ceaſe from the execution of his Miniſtry, when he is preſſed thereunto by the Church. And indeed, if a guiltleſs perſon put out of his charge, by the Churches Authority, may yet continue in it, what proceedings can there be againſt guilty perſons, who in their own conceits, are alwaies guiltleſs, or will at165 leaſt pretend ſo to be; ſeeing they alſo will be ready alway to object againſt the Churches judgment, that they are called of God, and may not therefore, give over the execution of their Miniſtery at the will of Man.
Obj. But how ſhall we anſwer the Text, woe be to us if we d•not preach? Thus alſo the Browniſts urged againſt the Non-Conformiſts, and were thus ſolidly anſwered.
Anſ. The caſe now, and in the Apoſtles times, is far different. Firſt, they that inhibited the Apoſtles, were known and profeſſed Enemies to the Goſpel: Secondly, the Ap•ſtles were charged, not to teach in the name of Chriſt, nor to publiſh any part of the Doctrine of the Goſpel; which Commandement, might more hardly be yielded unto, than this of our Biſhops, who are not only content that the Goſpel ſhould be preached, but are alſo Preachers of it themſelves. Laſtly, the Apoſtles received not their calling & Authority from men, nor by the hands of men, but immediately from God himſelf; and therefore might not be reſtrain'd or depoſ'd by Men: whereas, we, though we exerciſe a Function whereof God is the Author, and are alſo called of God to it, yet are we called and ordained by the hand and Miniſtry of men, and therefore may by men be alſo depoſed, and reſtrained from the exerciſe of our Miniſtry.
166Theſe three laſt objections and anſwers are taken out of a Book called a grave and modeſt confutation of the errors of the Sect called Browniſts or Seperatiſts: Agreed upon long ſince by the joint conſent of many Miniſters then ſtanding out in the cauſe of Non-Conformity publiſhed by Mr. Rathbang 1644. par. 2. p. 41, 42.
2. They muſt preach, becauſe the people need it, the neceſſities of thouſands of Souls require it.
Yet you ask, is the notorious need of many hundred thouſand ſouls no reaſon? — is the releiving of many Godly Chriſtians who are caſt out of your Communion becauſe they dare not conform, no reaſon?
But I am ſtill confident you have no reaſon, or no good ones: for, I believe you have brought out the beſt you had, to make this vapour, and for the credit of the Cauſe: for neither theſe, nor their fellows as hath appeared, are worth a fig: and yea, ſome would tell you they are rotten, they have great Worms in them; and are only ▪ fit to pleaſe Children.
Doe but open theſe reaſons, and you will preſently find they are deceitful wares, and nothing but skin. The ſenſe of them is, Non-Conformiſts muſt preach, upon a double reaſon, taken from the people. 1. from their numbers. 2. From their quality.
1671. From their numbers. Many hundred thouſand ſouls, Souls. thouſand ſouls, hundred thouſand ſouls, many hundred thouſand ſouls and all theſe need, notoriouſly need, Non-conformiſts preaching. Here is ſtrength of Argument indeed, and is this no reaſon? I am ſure his Rhetorick, as ſweet to ſome mens palates.
But, I marvail at two things: firſt, that this great neceſſity ſhould be ſo notorious to none but your ſelves, and that a Chriſtian Government ſhould notoriouſly be guilty of the blood of ſo many hundred thouſand ſouls, by ſuffering them to periſh for lack of knowledge, had another ſaid it, I ſhould have anſwered, this is a moſt notorious ſlander.
The ſecond thing, I wonder at, is, how any Conſcientious man dare ſay, contrary to plain ſence and Fact, that this is the Reaſon neceſſitating Non-Conformiſt•to preach, as they do. Seeing, in the places worſt ſerved, we ſo ſeldome hear of your new Congregations. But, as ſome Mountebanks pretend to cure the head by applications to the feet, you have skill to work by a quite contrary method you will cure the feet by tampering with the head.
In plain Engliſh; all this is but a blind and a ſtawking-Horſe, behind which, theſe fowlers lurck, to catch their Game, and to draw our beſt and fatteſt Partridge into their Net:168 it is Cities, Corporations, and the Wealthieſt parts of the Kingdome, where they Tincle their Bells and draw Swarms to their Hives that will yeild moſt Honey,
You ſeem ſome where p. 74. to tax my Charity or Verity in an intimation tending this way; but my particular experience, as well as general, and not to be controled, obſervation, was my Warrant. I will trouble you with a pat Inſtance of two or three Non-Conformiſts in a place where I am well acquainted; and I count them not a whit the leſſe honeſt for their plain dealing in the point,
One of them, that hath a Licence to preach in a Country Houſe, near the place where he lives, told me himſelf, that, unleſs he ſhould know, what they would pay him, he would not preach among them: and I ſuppoſe, they differed upon that point, for he is gon off, and joyned himſelf with a Brother of another Church. Another, licenc'd to preach in his own Pariſh, where he rents a Farm, told the Miniſter of that Pariſh, that he would looſe 50. pound by his Farm, that he might remove, and place himſelf in a Corporation, that is indeed very well furniſht with Miniſters, and better without his Company. A third, alſo licenced to preach in his own Houſe yet, one Lords day in three, as I am informed by a pretty good hand, rides twelve miles to169 exerciſe his gifts in a great Town, not meanly provided with publique preachers. And all theſe three, within eight miles one of another: and theſe are plain and honeſt men, and doubtleſs ſpeak their own and their Brethrens minds, for by this foot you may gueſs at Hercules.
Many ſuch Tricks there are, you know, to be done by Numbers; but when they are one diſcovered, they are as ſil•y as this.
2. But their quality may be conſiderab•that's the other reaſon of neceſſity. For y•170Ask, is the releiving of many Godly Chriſtians, who are caſt out of your Communion becauſe they dare not conform, no Reaſon?
Sr, will you ſay in earneſt, that the Non-Conformiſt ſhould countenance ſuch in their Seperation, and harden them in their ſin? and that a neceſſity lies upon them to do ſo? though you your ſelf believe that theſe people may not only lawfully, but that it is beſt for them to Communicate with the Pariſhes, if their Scruples and miſtakes were removed?
However, the Cheat here, will be too manifeſt, if we open this one box: who are thoſe that are thus to be releived. You canmean no other but ſuch as did not Communicate with us before the Indulgence, for ſuch as then did, may do ſo ſtill, and not need your Charity.
Then, thoſe that are to be Releived, muſt be either Independents, or Anabaptiſts, or Quakers, or thoſe, that go under the Name o•Presbyterians.
Now, I think, you your ſelf would not head any of the threeVid. p. 14. former of theſe Sects; or if you, or any of your brethren would ſtoop ſo low, how would they in pride trample upon you? and in deriſion, tell you, they have paſtors of their own way, and need none of your care or pains.
It follows that the perſons needing your relief, muſt be the people known by the name of Presbyterians, that did not conform before171 the Toleration; be it ſo. Were their Numbers ſo great to need the releif of ſo many thouſand Non-Conforming Miniſters, as ſome brag of? I would not have you Count them, leaſt you be aſhamed of your Argument.
In this City, I am credibly informed, there were not above 30 or 40 at moſt of this quality, that ordinarily refuſed the publique and met privately before the Indulgence: and we have, they tell me, ten Non-Conformiſts, come into their releif. But what needed a Toleration in this Caſe? Ten Preachers to fourty Hearers, by an eaſy Diviſion might have kept within the compaſs of the Act. Now indeed, they have drawn a greater number together, though not of ſuch as durſt not come to our Churches, but of ſuch as did: but for whoſe Releif, the peoples or their own, ſome do give a ſhrew'd gueſs.
3. The laſt Reaſon aſſigned for Non-Conformiſts preaching, is not ſo confidently delivered, yet ſufficiently intimated: it is founded in the Relation betwixt the Pariſh and the Ejected Miniſter. Yet, methinks, you ſhould conſider the enmity to order and Government and Peace, that this reaſon carries in it: and the neceſſity of Schyſm, in one or both parties, about their old and new Paſtor, before you aſſert it any more. God is not the God of confuſion, and that which tends to confuſion he will never own.
172I have, before ſpoken ſufficiently to the unreaſonableneſs of the principle, and ſhall now only note the Fraud of the perſons, that uſe it to their private ends: which I know you cannot endure, for in truth, 'tis made an Engine to keep up a faction in the Church, and little elſe is done with it.
If they muſt preach becauſe their Relation to their flock requires it, why do they not reſort to the places from which they were Ejected? Or how can this poor pretence juſtify their preaching ſo generally in other places? Sure all that now preach, were not P•ſt•rs in the places where they now preach, heretofo•e. Indeed their Country Pariſhes muſt now ſtarve for them, they are generally called••gher. Here are Ten Non-Conformiſts in this City: but how many of them were Paſtors here Aug. 24. 62 ? About two or three: and what Title they had, they beſt know themſelves. But what pretence have the other ſeaven? and what makes ſuch as were ejected in other Counties, and out of Country Pariſhes to trouble this City? I hope none are ſo wiſe as to ſay, that theſe are to fill up the Dead places, to perpetuate the Faction.
I confeſs ſuppoſing their former places be not well ſerved, and the Ejected did confine themſelves to thoſe places,•t ſeems to be the moſt plauſible colour that I have yet ſeen, but it is neither ſo, nor ſo, and I hope you will173 abhor the Patronage of ſuch Impoſtures, when you have exercis'd your ſec•nd thoughts.
2. Too much of the neceſſity of preaching: but that this may be maintained, you ſay, they may gather new Churches: and this muſt run upon a pretence of purity, and ſerving God better, than we do in ours, or, as you expreſs it in the place we lately ſpeak of; is the exerciſing of a Worſhip and Diſcipline more agreeable to Gods word than yours (We are you ſay, p. 30. ready to give you the proof when we have leave) •o Reaſon.
But it ſeems you have not proved it: can you fairly leave us and gather Churches, o•t of ours, before you have proved it? elſe, have you done your endeavour, in order to our Conviction, and Reformation? if not, your Seperation. Let the ground be what it will, for the Manner, it is Raſh and unwarrantable, and indeed Schyſmatical, in the judgment of the beſt Caſuiſts, as well Presbyterians as others, as hath appeared before.
Yea, it hath appeared alſo, that this Anabaptiſtical, and Browniſtical principle of Seperation, the ſame, with finding faults and corruptions in our Churches, and the pretences of Reformation for purer Churches, and ſerving God in more purity, as they uſed to Cant: and that it hath no bounds, but naturally divides Sect out of Sect till it brings us to utter Confuſion.
74And you have a hard task upon your hands to perſwade the people to Communicate with us as their Duty, and yet to allow gathering Churches from us for purer worſhip and diſcipline, upon this principle, that we are bound to ſerve God in the beſt way we can, and conſequently, we are bound either not to ſerve him in a worſe way, or elſe, we are to ſerve God in both Communions, and to be members of two particular Churches at once, of different Worſhip, Government, and Diſcipline.
Rather, throw it away as an unpea•eable and ungovernable principle: and do like your ſelf, to undergirt and ſupport the ſorely threatned, and even ſincking Parochial Conſtitution of our Churches: ſay what you will to the Contrary, if you take not in this miſchievous Engine, you plainly Countenance all the Factions in the Kingdome to endeavour the Ruine and ſubverſion of them.
While we keep within the ancient bounds and conſtitutions, we know where we are: but if one we begin to Tumble, where we ſhall Stop, God only knowes. I need not mind you of the fearful end of Gnoſtiſcime, Donatiſm, Browniſm, and of our late Seperations, which took their beginning in Independency: they all had pretences to break the Peace, under Colours of purity, but in the ſhuffle, they loſt both, and ſunck down at laſt, into the Sinck of Confuſion and Impurity.
175Theſe conſequences, Mr. Calvin reckons to be juſt judgments of God neceſſarily following the diſſolution of the ſacred Bond of Unity which the God of peace and the Father of mercy, avert from this divided and untoward generation.
God, who doſt teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by ſending to them the light of thy holy ſpirit, grant us by the ſame ſpirit, to have a right judgment in all things: and evermore to rejoyce in his holy Comfort, through the Merits of Chriſt Jeſus our Saviour.
Grant, O Lord, we beſeech thee, that the courſe of this World may be ſo ordered by thy Governance, that thy Church may joyfully ſerve thee in all Godly quietneſs, through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. Amen.