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 Church Cas dâ— 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 without 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 â—â—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. Owen Independ 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 true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some reformation in lesser matters And Mr. Corbet and the Author of Evangelical Peace and Vnity 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 to Cure 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 is See 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 The 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 not Cure 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 his 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 gather 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 head-strong 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 And 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 'T is 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 have shewed is a causeless unwarrantable Seperation and 't is 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 't was either with cause or not 't was warrantable or not 't was 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 Had 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 Vsurpers 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 't is 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 Again 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 Instituted 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 they Whole 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 apparently 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
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 and 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 Presbytâ—rians as will soon appear in full light Our 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 prove 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 of 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 'T is 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 with 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 yoâ— 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 In this Case Sir be Judge your self you expresly
is only Cameron 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 King 2 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 And 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 I His Def. of Prin◠of Con. p. 2. am of Paul c. at length it came to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 little Chap. 11. purpose yet their divisions are not 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extra terminos Ecclesiae educentes Oecumenius segregantes fideles a fidelibus and Clem. 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 the Tract 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. 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 a 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 about 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
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 lawful 2d Admon to Bag. 117 Magistrates saith Mr. Baxter is more about the Circumstantials of 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 For Solomon put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood and put Zadock in his place 1 King 2. 27 35. David and the Captains of the Host Seperated to Gods Service those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and Jeduther who should Prophesie with Harps c. 1 Chron. 16. 4. And so did Solomon 2 Chron. 8. 14 15. They were for the Service of the House of God according to the Kings Order 1 Chron. 25. 1 6. And methinks those those men should acknowledge this that were wont to stile the King in all Causes and over all Persons the Supream Head and Governor So far He. 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 Vsurpers 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 you 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 Pro. 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 espâ—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 fâ—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 According 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 the Religion and worship of the Church of England to be of God not by petty reasons and colourable Ans 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 reâ—son deduced therefrom against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail Mr. Hildersham comes not a
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-Confâ—rmists For they were baptized into these particular Churches as well as into the universal and the known Laws both of Church and State 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 thus He that is a Member of the universal Church is fit to be received into a particular Cure 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 Vniversal 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 especially finding an Emphasis in his words which are these Speaking to his Brethren saith he much more should you have endured Defence of his cure p. 14. such as the Non-Conformists of that age who used Parish Communion and pleaded for it against the Seperatists fâ—r Sharper language than ever I used as their Books against Johnson and Cann and Brown and Ainsworth do yet visibly declare 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 for upon the fourth of John our coming reverently and at the beginning of the Service And Mr. Baâ—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 bâ— Lawful but a Duty yea he saies expresly that to sâ—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 Reaâ—ons and by his own example avow'd in publique and 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 before Ind. 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-Conformists 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 Aâ—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 Minister On 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 Answ 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 By Intollerable saith he I mean 1. Such as are ignorant of or erroneous Advice against the Essentials of Christianity 2. Such as are unable to teach them others 3. Such as malignantly preach down the practice of an Holy life or in a word such whose Ministery really tendeth to do more hurt than Good 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 our next duty to endeavour to remove him So far Mr. Baxters advice is wholsome and apposite use all your diligence Cure 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
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 2. 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 Inâ— Schys p. 188. 't is this in which Amesius himself placeth the very formality Am. 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 the 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 ravagant 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 propâ—sitions and purposes can never make them either not Presbiterians or Seperatists unless by their quitting their former principles they are sunk into the 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 stealâ—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 Tâ—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 sincere Cawd Indep p. 161. 162. preaching of the Word and 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 Vnjust 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 Vnjust without such grounds it only remains to be shew'n that the present practise aforesaid is both Rash and Vnjust 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 't is too well known to insist on and where is the man if one such
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-Churches 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 seperation 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 T is this If a great and real cause of seperation 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 't is 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 your hand as 't is 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 â—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 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 't is 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 the 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
not to be cast off although it swarm full of faults though there be faults in the Administration either of Doctrine or of the Sacraments yet we ought not to estrange our selves from the Communion of it for all the Articles be not of one sort and therefore for every light dessention we ought not rashly to forsake the Church 4. The value which our Englesh Presbyterians just before the Wars had of our Church and its lay-Communion is not impertinent Letter 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 They speak to their brethren in New England thus if we deny Communion with such a Church as ours there hath been no Church these 1400 years with which a Christian might lawfully joine Nay that if such scruples as are now in your heads may take place it will be unlawful to hold Communion with any society under Heaven 5. Mr. Gifford an old Non-Conformist wrote a book Gifford 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 do 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 that Jus 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 Presbyâ—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 just 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 Ministers Sion-Coll to the Assembly were these the Independents are guilâ—y of Schysm 1. Because they refuse 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 But 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 dissenting Defence 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. By their renouncing Communion with us to set up a Church of another Indep 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 He concludes his first book bravely they saith he that Ind. great Schysm raise differences in them i. e. in our Churches and draw disciples from them and renounce Communion
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 least 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 I 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 Engine 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 Brownâ—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 other 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 at 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 dâ— 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 Apâ—stles were charged not to teach in the name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of
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 self make 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 God 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 Bishops I hope As for our Worship I presume the Reformed Liturgy will not take place except in yâ—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 yâ—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 1. This mischief is likely to follow their gathering-Churches as you well observe the exasperating the minds for number and quality considerable and so alienating from their brethren and hindring them 2. Thereby weakning the Protestant Interest in a time which requireth â—ur greatest concord 3. Then setteng of parties against parties and Churches against Churches and turning of Religion into contentions and mutual oppâ—sitions 4. The countenanceing of unlawful Seperations which will all shelter themselves under such examples and the Dividers will not see the different principles on which we go while our practice seemeth to be the same 5. And so it may be injurious to future ages by seeming to give them Presidents for unlawful Seperatiâ—n 6. And it is not the least evil consequent that we shall cherish not only the error of tâ—ose that think worse of the Parish-Worship and Assemblies than there is cause but we shall also accidentally nourish their pride who will think themselves a holier people because they erroniously over-censure the persons and practices of others These are they evil consequents which you wisely forâ—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 dâ—th p. 22. The 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 bâ—y up the people in their weakness which you well observe p. 23. inclineth them to causeless seperations and disâ—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 'T is 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 gatherâ—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 Pâ—sts of the Church in the writings of the Fathers and Church-Historiâ—ns You acknowledge our errors are Tollerable else you would not Communicate with us and this is a standing rule in the Church si error est Tolerabilis non â—pâ—râ—et â—erâ— Secessionem If the errors or scandals of the Châ—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 and Cameron de Schys holiness of unity in Religion Sir I perceive I need not endeavour to quicken your sense of the fearful effâ—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 luxantur Pareus membra Ecclesiae Membra luxata inepta sunt ad sua muncra obcunda membra luâ—â—ta gravissimo dâ—lore corpus afficiunt P. Mart. Schysm in the Church puts the members out of joynt members out of joynt are unfit fâ—r service and cause great dolours and disquietment to the whole body What sharp contâ—nâ—ions and ruptures in the bowels of the Châ—rch what Wars and desolations in Nations hath Schysm been
the original of what sighs and warnings did the seperation of the Brownist draw from 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 Heresies Vid 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 fâ—ln out use to do let us expâ—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 But 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 Exâ—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 Madnâ—ss If any thing hath miss'd my eye and consideration that you conceive to be â—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 wilâ—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 know 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 Mâ—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 but understand the Declaration to prohibite al such private meetings as the law calâ—s conventicâ—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 Nâ—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 bâ—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 for 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 lâ—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 't is 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 without any great noise about it that there is one Paragraph of yâ—urs that could I take pleasure in such little p. 45 last par or Sect reflections