Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them
Or more Implicit when though they have not first called him nor so explicitly declared their consent to him yet they have ordinarily and statedly walked with him in the fellowship of all Ordinances But here must be considered 1. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt desiring consenting to and accepting of one as a Minister of the Gospel to Preach to the Parochial Society where a Christan lives as it is a part of the Catholick Church and consenting to such a one to be his or their Pastor in order to a Church Organical It must be a consent of the latter Nature I may consent and desire one to Preach to the people in the precinct where I live and yet have no thoughts of consenting to him as my Pastor 2. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt an occasional hearing and it may be receiving the Sacrament with a Minister and a slated ordinary fixed doing of it If a Christian that is of a particular Church at London goeth down to York and be to stay there 6 or 9 moneths and ordinarily hears and receives the Sacrament there while he is there this will indeed prove his owning the Church of York as a true Church having communion with it but not that he is a Member of it Suppose many Christians who were formerly stated Members of Churches but for 10 or 12 years last past have not been able to walk with their Pastors and Brethren in all Ordinances meeting in the same place to worship God have in the time ordinarily or often heard a Parochial Minister nay sometimes received the Lords Supper This indeed proves their Charity that they lookt upon that Society as a true Church but it doth not prove them Members of it nor their consent to such a Membership no not to such a Minister as their Pastor though it may be they consented to him for the good of the place where they lived as a Preacher of the Gospel to them If indeed they were of no other stated particular Church before and did ordinarily joyn in Sacramental Communion with such a Minister it goes far to prove an Union by implicit consent and we think such cannot plead They were not United § 48. It is true these Notions about particular Churches Worship and Government especially the first and last were very dark and little understood by many good men Anno 1641. and no wonder if it be considered 1. How very few Books were then wrote of them on the Presbyterian side 2. And how poenal it was made to have or read them and how little hope before that time appeared of reducing any thing had been said to practice Some of our Congregational Brethren having had more rest and freedom and opportunity of exercise in N. England and Holland were better studied in them As also our Brethren of Scotland This for a few years occasioned great animosities Yet I could never read nor hear quoted that even then any judicious Presbyterians ever granted 1. That all Parochial Societies were true Organized Churches 2. Nor that living in a Parish did more than give the Christian a liberty to claim admission into that Society But some few years passing and mens heats abating and peaceable converse each with other better advantaging them to understand one another than at first they did they began to be far more clear and unanimous in their Notions and more charitable in their practices § 40. I cannot speak for all but I can speak for a very competent number so many as in one County would be perswaded to meet in 1657. 58. They agreed in the following Character of a person fit for Church-fellowship in all Ordinances and Priviledges I have by me also the Scriptures affixed to prove this 1. One that is indued with some competent knowledge in the principles of Religion 2. Whose life conversation is free from all gross and scandalous evils both of Omission and Commission 3. Who maketh such a profession of Faith and Holiness as may give unto the Church a probable hope in the judgment of true Christian Charity that there are some seeds of some spiritual work of God in his soul 4. Who professeth a willing subjection to the Gospel and all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and so giveth up himself to the Lord and his Church to walk in all duties of Obedience and Love according to the Will of God To which they added and then subscribed We acknowledge such Churches to be true Churches as consist of such persons coming together as are here described and such to be true Ministers as are called by and unto such a people And we further acknowledge such to be Churches and their Ministers to be true Ministers though some bad with the good agreed to the call of those Ministers or to own and embrace them and although there were some disorder and failing in the Ordination and coming in of such Ministers By this these Presbyterians judgments easily appeared what Parochial Societies they judged True Churches and also what they judged necessary to make up the Union of a Member with a particular Organical Church § 50. I think I can from a Friend also assure the Author that the person whom this Author doth somewhere declare not only a Presbyterian but one of great judgment and Worth as indeed he was I mean Mr. Brinsley of Yarmouth was the man drew up this Writing recommended it to his Brethen himself agreed in it and they also and made it a great foundation for an Agreement betwixt them and their Congregational Brethren For my own part I am much of his mind We say many of the Ministers and people he reflects upon as Schismaticks neither were actually thus united to Parochial Societies nor we in capacity so to be because formally Pasters and Members else-where § 51. But the Author thinks the Law forbidding Ministers to Preach in the Parochial Temples hath dissolved this Relation In this we differ from him and desire a better proof of it both de facto then he hath given us and de jure Then Solomons putting Abiathur from the Priests Office who had deserved to dye as Solomon tells him first but more of that by and by I do not profess strictly to Answer the Authors Book about Schisme It is directed against an Author able enough to speak for himself but something I must say to this and some other passages only as they come athwart me in maintaining the Negative part of my Question and justifying my self and others from the clamour of Schisme Therefore in Doctrine of Schisme p. 75. I find these words What if a man hath a mind to be Friends with him that we desire for we are for peace c. and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded discommissioned he should have said or unordained as to their Ministry within the Church of England and that those Churches were not dissolved by having new Pastors he forgets the
recession from it Disputes betwixt Kings and Parliaments we think are not to be determined by private Persons without the doors of the Pallace and Parliament-House nor medled with by the Subject till the matters in difference if any be be agreed by themselves and by some publick action notified to the People We know for the King of England in civil things to suspend the execution of an Act which he hath found inconveniently practicable till the Parliaments meeting and further agreeing in it is no more than hath been done even during this Parliament and possibly to all may not appear unreasonable § 11. Upon this foundation we stand and practice Preaching to our People in places distinct from the Parochial Churches What can we do less May we having this liberty sit still and live without the publick worship of God Thus indeed a very great number of the People of England possibly not inferiour to the N. Con. yet we have rarely heard of one of them Endited Presented or Prosecuted when our Brethren were in their fullest career against the new Recusants at least not comparably to those of their Brethren who they knew were every Sabbath day if not with them yet somewhere strictly worshipping God and either Preaching Christ or hearing him Preach'd Surely our eager Men should rather have bent their Bows and made their Arrows ready against these Atheistical livers than against the Servants of the Living God though of a little different Livery different too not in the Cloath but in the insignificant Fringes and Laces of formes and ceremonies What though they could say which we know in truth they cannot that Christ amongst the Nonconformists was Preached of envy and strife yet had they been of St. Paul's Spirit from whom they pretend to derive though indeed Christ amongst the Noncon had been Preached of Contention and not of Sincerity Yet a little charity would have commanded them to judge as Paul Some out of good will Preached him But however they being as St. Paul saith Phil. 1.16 17 18. Set for the defence of the Gospel should have said after him What then Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or in truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce and will rejoyce We shall only say had they been of St. Pauls Spirit they would have said so § 12. We take it to be a confessed Principle That every individual Member of the Church-Catholick Visible is bound in duty both to God and his own Soul to joyn himself to some particular Society of Christians with which he may enjoy all the Ordinances of God so as may be for his Souls advantage What shall therefore these indulged Ministers and People do How shall they live up to this peice of the Divine Will Shall they joyn with the Parochial Societies in their Temples They have professed to the World that the business is so stated by the Act of Uniformity that they cannot do this without doing what they judge sinful If they could neither would the Ministers 1662. have parted together with that publick exercise of their Ministry with the livelihoods also of themselves their Wives Children or exposed themselves to Excommunications Imprisonments Fines Banishments and all manner of Reproach and Obloquy or their Families to the Charitable Baskets of Christians Neither would more private Christians have suffered so much in most of these kinds as they have suffered in vain § 13. It must therefore be in Congregations locally separate from the parochial meetings Accordingly having first obtained his Majestie 's Licenses they practice Presently they hear a great Out-cry of Schisme and sinful separation from true Churches Gathering Churches out of Churches and we know not what nor do we believe they do that clamour at this rate § 14. But the truth of this clamour must be a little examined for the Non-conformists have got very little by his Majesties favour by escaping the hands of men to fall into the hands of the living God We remember when David was in his great strait 2 Sam. 24.14 he acquiessed in this Let me fall into the hands of the living God for his mercies are great and let me not fall into the hands of men We think we may in this case say the same thing and that with some advantage which David had not for his heart smote him for a known sin our hearts as yet do not condemn us for any such black thing as a sinful separation and we do believe those that thus clamour do not well understand what they say Let men rather call us Schismaticks sinful Separatists so we may worship God as his Word and our own Consciences tells us he should be Worshipped purely and in Spirit and Truth rather than we not Worship God at all or so as our Consciences shall continually flie in our faces § 15. But certainly God's Word hath laid us under no necessity of sining let us therefore challenge our confident Accusers to the Law and to the Testimony 'T is worth the while to examine whether this great cry be not Vox et praeterea nihil A clamorous scandal nothing else which we are the more advantaged to hope that it will prove by a noted passage in a great Church-man Mr. Hales his discourse of Schisme It is this Schisme is one of those Theological Scare-Crowes with which they who use to uphold a party in Religion use to fright away such as make any inquiry into it and are ready to relinquish or oppose it if it appeareth to them either erronious or suspicious Not that Schisme truly so called is of no graver importance but that which generally by School-men and Casuists and very many and some of those Learned Divines though like Elias men subject to like passions with other men is no more is as evident as the shining of the Sun at Noon-day to any one who knoweth any thing of Books or of the World § 16. The Greeks say those of the Latine Church are Schismaticks and they because they are the most ancient Church seem to have best right but the whole Latine Church requites them with the same-name of Obloquy The Papist so call the Protestants but they requite them with the like term saying They that gave the cause of the separation are the true Schismaticks Amongst the Protestants the Lutherans so revile the Calvinists nor are the Calvinists behind them Amongst the Calvinists The Episcopal men so call the Presbyterians the Presbyterians so call the Independents and Antipaedebaptists Thus we have called one another Schismaticks round Let us therefore leave these pittiful uncharitable Boyish Revenges especially seeing in vulgar use lately the term hath had no further significancy than to speak persons not of our mind and for a name to brand such of our Brethren with who are a little more inquisitive than others into the things of God and is of the same import amongst Protestants that the word Heretick is amongst Papists that is not one
to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship is a Schisme from that part of this Church which meet for that end in London § 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution Doctrine of Schisme 55. which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen let Mr. Cawdry or who will say so Dolus versatur in Generatibus What is the difference did Christ constitute theirs We trust he hath constituted ours that is by the Rules given in his Word Were theirs constituted by Parliament that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Arch-Bishop the Parliament afterwards or Custom rather might confirm them Doth it then make a Schismatick to depart to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom How else are we of another constitution Is not the same Doctrine Preached the same Sacraments administred the same acts of Worship performed Where 's the difference In the Modes Rites and Ceremonies only And these all of humane institution This is that which the Church of God never before called Schisme which the Apostles never thought of Do not we agree in the same Government That concerns us not yet while we are clearing our selves only from a Church which the Author must shew us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed intrinsecal to his Church In the mean time as to the National Church of England we deny that we are guilty of any Schisme either in it or from it so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches and our pretended separation from them § 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry and quoted by our Author ch 9. p. 57. these he calls Parochial Congregations We are he saith guilty of Schisme from them we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches 1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholick Church and so capable of the name of the whole thus we were indeed united to them as we were united to the Catholick Church and united still to them as unto that owning the Lord Jesus Christ his Word and Ordinances and professing a subjection to them But this is not the other state he speaks of by which he can mean nothing but a governing state 2. Secondly therefore These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly or more imperfectly Organized furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order or not so furnished or so walking The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered lay in two things the latter of which he delivered thus Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches Advice to Conformists c. p. 72. or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from We have read over the Book and good Reader at thy leisure do but read over that Pamplet the second chapt particularly the 13 14 15. pages and see whether this Author hath or no dealt ingeniously with him p. 14. He speaks of these Societies as parts of the Catholick Churches and saith Short Reflections p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish yea Family of Christians is a true Church But he indeed concludes that out of such particular Churches it must be lawful to gather a Church for all particular Churches in the world are gathered out of the Catholick Visible Church even Heathens when converted must be of the Catholick Visible Church before they can form a particular Church In this state and no other must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours which we think is a contradiction P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them as Ministerial by which he saith he underst ands a competent number of Christians who have either first chosen or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor he might indeed have spared this Notion I do not remember I have met with it in any Author but Mr. Rutherford and the truth is if it be a single Minister I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them than as he is so far an Officer of the Catholick Church and they a part of that vast body He considers these people Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances or as at present living without some Ordinances or having them so unduly administred as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no He adds we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duely sent able painful Minister regularly administring the Ordinances of Christ so as people may communicate with them without sin and pressing forward to that perfection in order which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them may not separate without sin He did not indeed say but I dare say for him he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England and he hints it when he saith This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches Reader judge in his 15. page He tells us There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical and furnished with all its affairs and walking in all points of Gospel Order He adds such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches from which causeless and unnecessary separation is sinful Indeed he says How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches avowed so by Presbyterians he was yet to learn And his Answer is for any thing I see in his Remarques yet to teach him and I believe will so continue For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order He I am sure will tell him he means no more Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church The Word Sacraments and Censures of Jundical Admonition Suspension and Excommunication which they cannot do till they have Officers I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justifie a single Minister in Suspending or Excommunicating but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry I do not think he believes but that there may be more Ministers if the Parochial Society hath more than one or others chosen by that Church And if any will contend that the body of the people must joyn with him in those acts though he reserves his private judgment in the case yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication because he understands not to what purpose
endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of