becomes unfit to live among them the two great parts of the Catholick Church that in Heaven and this on Earth have a Communion in that they are both United to Christ both worship and serve him in those particular ways that are proper for the state they are in and both wait for that compleat Salvation which they shall have at their general meeting besides this we know of no Communion betwixt them viz that either part can be serviceable to each other at present only we that live on earth enjoy the benefit of the Prayers and Examples which they left us who are now in Heaven and of their endeavours to continue the Gospel to us and so we succeed them in the same offices and endeavour to transmit the Knowledge of Christ his Gospel and Ordinances to those that shall succeed us nor can here be any Separation of one of these parts from another without breaking of Christian Religion which is impossible to them that are in Heaven and if any on earth thus separate it is to their own damnation The Catholick Militant Church on Earth hath a Communion in some more particulars for besides their common acknowledgement of Christ and his Gospel and the common love they are to bear to all Christians on earth as their Brethren they are to perform all offices of love which in this their imperfect militant state they are able and may need from one another such as to pray for all to rejoyce in each others welfare to sympathize in each others afflictions to assist by councell charitable relief hospitallity c. and when ever there is occasion to receive each other to their worship as brethren leaving to every one the liberty of their particular rites or opinions and this is so indispensable a duty that no Separation can be lawfull or tolerable in those who separate from the Catholick Church who relinquish the profession of Christ or cast of all love to their Brethren or that will not joyn with them in the worship of God or concern themselves in their common concerns Now for Organized Churches that are associated for the exercise of their Religion and their edification under Government o Pastours and Guides their Communion must be that the Members of every such Church joyn with each other ordinarily and peaceably in the same Acts of Worship and perform all offices of love to each other in some tolerable measure that they be subject to their Governours and that their Governours do conscionably endeavour the edification of the people committed to their charge according to the Laws of Christ which are the general rules of these societies and according to any other particular rules which they shall agree on amongst themselves for their own edification as Circumstances may require and so that both parts Governours and Governed do joyntly promote the edification of the whole Body in Holiness and Peace Separation therefore from these Organized Churches is a Breach of this Political Communion and Order among themselves which is done either by breaking off from the Body to which they belonged as Members which is Separation properly so called or by disturbing the Communion of it or withdrawing from some parts or acts of that Communion though they do not wholly break off from the body such Seperation is in many cases Lawfull in some necessary and a duty and therefore must not be Universally Condemned but the causes of it be inquired into For though all Christians must be Members of Christ and of the Catholick Church under him for the general ends of their Salvation it doth not appear yet that they must be Members of the same Organized Society or that they may not upon just occasions leave those societies they were joyned with and go to others already in being or constitute new ones for their own edification even as in civil government men may not only compose divers Polities or Common-Wealths but may also make new confederacies or divide their Polities into lesser and particular persons may depart from them to others or constitute new ones yea may deny their concurrence with many things done in the society they joyn with and all this without the Crime of Sedition or defection till the causes and ends of such practise prove it so Now to descend to the particular forms of Organized Churches by what hath been said we may easily judge of their Communion and Separation from them And First For the Oecumenicall Church the Political Communion thereof must be that all Christians in the World be subject to the same Governours under Christ and live as Members of the same individual society either as a single Congregation or as of many united into one Separation from this Communion must therefore be either to interrupt the peace and order of this Communion or wholly to forbear joyning with them but such a Catholick unity of the Church under one Government being impracticable and inconsistent with the edification of the Church since it is inlarged and dispersed throughout the world it is needless to dispute about Communion with it or Separation from it All other Churches that exceed the bounds of a single Congregation and must be constituted of many are of the same nature with the Oecumenicall Church though not of the same latitude as to the matter of Communion which must therefore consist in the performance of all offices mutually betwixt Governours and Governed as Members of the same society whether it consists of several Nations as Patriarchial Churches or of the people of one Nation as National Churches or of the people of one Province one Diocess or Classis as Provincial Diocesan or Classical Churches Separation here must be either a disturbing of the peace and order of these Churches or a withdrawing from them as to the political duties due to them such Separation must often be lawfull and warrantable seeing no command of Christs binds men to particular Provinces or Diocesses nor always to continue in the same Finally The Communion of a Parish or Congregation consists in this that Pastours and People mutually perform their respective duties to each other and amongst themselves for their dayly edification Separation from such Congregations is either to interrupt their Government or Concord or to withdraw from them now seeing no man is immutably bound to one Congregation nor any Congregation to one Diocess or any larger combination and all these Churches are subject to corruptions which the Members must oppose and contend against separation from them must not be censured till it be known whether the cause be just or unjust And thus we are come at the last to enquire What are just causes of Separation whereby we may judge also what are not And that we may not speak too generally and confusedly we distinguish betwixt Separation of one Church from another and of particular Members from that Church whereto they did belong As all Churches are bound to Communion among themselves being all Members of the
and Holyness elsewhere then foregoe our Edification to keep Peace with the Church The Dr hints at general Inconveniences that will follow if people find Fault with their Governours and withdraw from them and to such inconveniences all things in this world are subject and there ought to be the greater care to prevent them but must People bear always still there is nothing left but the name of a Church and their Communion with that be a hindrance to their Communion with Christ besides nothing would more awe both Pastours and People to their duty then if they knew that the soberest and most carefull Christians of their own Salvation would leave their company if they would not mend their manners and this would be a more Universal Benefit to the Church then the inconvenience of now and then one unseasonably withdrawing out of prejudice or finding too much Fault can do hurt to any Congregation 4. When a Church hath neither the exercise nor power of Government The Catholick Church is a Society under the Government of Christ by his Spirit and every particular Church is a part of the Chatholick gathered into a Politicall Body that it may edify and preserve it self which is done by Government and the exercise of Discipline as well as by preaching the word and administring the Sacraments and indeed the latter will be as ineffectual without the former as a Charge at an Assize or Sessions wherein the Laws are recited would be if there were neither presentment nor punishment of Offenders A Church without Power of Government is no Church but a Company of Neighbours that meet sometimes to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments together which Members of several Congregations may do for power of Government is the form of a Church as of a Civil Polity by which only it differeth from a confused accidental conventing or cohabitation of persons now it is no sin to separate from that which is no Church but a Duty as much as it is for every one to be a Member of some visible Church This case is too common with us where Ministers of Parishes are sometimes Deacons at least for a while who have no Ministerial power at all and if Presbyters yet such as pretend to no more then to preach and administer the Sacraments all power of Government as they say belonging to the Bishop and whatever their private Judgment may be of their power of Government we know they neither do nor dare exercise any solemn admonitions or suspension from the Sacrament much less Excommunication or Absolution when this is the case that the Church hath no power to govern her self hath long lost it and is out of hopes to recover it nothing can oblige men to live Members of it though there may be reasons why we should hear and receive with them occasionally as with Brethren If it be said that the Bishop hath a power of Government over all his Diocess I answer this shuts out all the Parish Ministers from Government and makes them but the Bishops Curates and makes all the Parishes cease to be distinct Churches and to become one general Church under a Bishop who is utterly uncapable to manage the charge of such a Congregation be it only to govern and not to preach as some men would have it and so it is still destructive of the end of a Church viz self-edification and preservation but moreover the Bishop himself is subject to the Metropolitane and all causes in his Diocess admit of an appeal to the Arch-Bishops Court so that neither hath the Bishop supream and full power of Governing his Church and therefore neither is the Diocess a Church but a part of the whole province all under the Government of the Arch-Bishop alone the Bishops being but his Deputies and this still makes the Government more impossible and Separation more necessary 5. A 5th just eause of Separation is when men are certainly and constantly debarred of some Principal Ordinances of Christ necessary to their Edification and Communion with Christ The end of a Church is the joynt practice of all the Laws and Ordinances of Christ in their proper seasons It is possible there may not be occasion for the exercise of some of them as Church Censures for a considerable time and it is possible some Ordinances may be carelesly neglected or for some reasons for a time omitted as the Lords Supper This is no cause of withdrawing at least not properly but if there be constant Bars put that any of these Ordinances shall be excluded the Church as the Sacraments are with many Sectaries or that they shall be made unaccessable by sinfull or unnecessary additions alterations interpolations or any other Corruption so that the most conscientious Christians cannot Communicate in them this after a convenient waiting and seeking for redress will justify Separation for the people may not be contented with one part of the Worship of God and the means of their Salvation this is to betray the Gospel and their own Souls nor have Church Governours power to add any thing either essential or circumstantial to the Ordinances of Christ that may hinder the people from Communicating in them and if they have no such authority to enjoyn such things there is no obligation upon the people either to comply with them in obedience or to bear their usurpation by continuing in Union with them If it be pleaded that the Jews never separated from their Church when they could not Communicate in the Sacrifices at the Temple under Idolatrous Kings or when the Passover or other Ordinances were wholly neglected or little used I answer this is not the case of Christian Churches the Jews were one single though large Congregation instituted by Moses to continue till Christ should come who should have power to new moddle the Church as he should think fit they were all tyed to one Altar and one Temple and might Sacrifice no where else they were also obliged to one Priesthood the House of Aaron and therefore in what-place-soever they were they must hold Communion with this people and Priesthood at this Altar and if publick worship was neglected or corrupted they could in no case separate or gather New Congregations or chuse new Priests or build new Altars but must be content with private helps till things were reformed but Christians though of one Nation or City are not obliged to one Congregation indispensably for then men may not move to other Parishes nor to one place of publick worship nor to one Minister or company of Ministers the Christians Church being tyed to no Countrey as the Jews were nor to any particular people nor kindred nor having any promise to be continued to the end in any one place or amongst any one people it hath therefore power to distribute it self into diverse Congregations and consequently again to withdraw from any one of them when there is need 6. Gross infringement of Christian Liberty we are commanded
Surely one company or a certain number of Families had full authority to remove and plant Colonies where they pleased as well as another yea we see God compelled them to it by confounding their Languages at Babel and farther when one colonie removed into another Country were they bound still to adhere to those they departed from as a part of their society if so then all Nations must still have been parts of that society from which they first descended and so at length the whole world must have been but one Common-wealth under one Government which was impossible and would overthrow all the ends of government if then the race of mankind which are one body in some sence more then the Church is viz linked by the indissoluble Bond of Nature whereas the Church is united by free consent I say if they having the general gift of the earth and all that is in it to possess have free liberty and authority to share the world amongst them to constitute various societies greater or smaller as they please for the end of civil Life provided they wrong not one another and so hinder the ends of civil government why may not the Church though it is one body as united to Christ it being too great to live in one society multiply it self into so many as are for it 's own edification and the ends it was made for and not be obliged still to adhere as parts to those first Congregations that were planted in every country as it were the first Families till they are a burthen to themselves till their very society makes them a disorderly confused multitude and their government degenerates into Anarchy especially when we have neither command or Scripture example to the contrary By this we may Answer the Dr's Question viz What necessity there is to reduce Churches to several Parishes or Congregations any more then to reduce Kingdoms to the several Families of which they were at first made up Answ Because Congregations have an original right of governing and preserving themselves even as Families have a natural and unalterable right of government within themselves which he that takes from them makes them slaves and deprives them of their Birth-right he himself saith upon the dissolution of the Roman Empire the Nations that before composed it resumed their antient rights and formed themselves into several Kingdoms and Common-wealths yea and as he would have it into National Churches also grant this have Nations such an immutable right to their civil liberties and government that they may lawfully resume them when they have opportunity without the guilt of Rebellion why then may not Parishes resume their right of government within themselves for their own edification when they have opportunity or necessity calls them to it also wanting the benefit of protection and government from them that undertake them why should this be Schism in them more then Rebellion in the other and that self Government is the right of euery Parish or Congregation he confesseth when he saith that antiently a Church and Diocess was all one under one Bishop and a company of Presbyters for those did officiate in common among the whole people and when by reason of Multitude they began to divide them into several companies for meeting together at the ordinary times of worship nevertheless they all met together at the same Sacrament and all made use of the same Ministers as occasion served they being not tyed to any one or any one to them so that this Diocess was but a great Parish or Congregation and if the original right of Government were in these it is so still in our lesser Congregations and to resume this right is no sinfull separation nevertheless we deny not but the Congregations may and ought to unite for their mutual help and defence especially in times of peace even as civil states combine for mutual defence and commerce but then this must be voluntary and not to impose a yoak on the several Congregations by taking away their several liberties or bringing them all to the same Liturgies or Ceremonies for this is all one as if confederate Nations or States must therefore oblige each other to the same form of Government and the same rights and customs of living and why may not all the Parishes in one County with us combine for their mutuall help and edification in certain times of meeting each other by their Ministers or Delegates yet every one reserving to themselves the Government of themselves in their own customs and usages according as they find most meet for themselves as well as the same County have their Quarter-Sessions for civil Affairs wherein the Governours and Countrey concerned have a generall meeting and yet every Town hath its own supreme Officers with several rites and custome without any Breach of Peace or Good Neighbour-hood among them CHAP. II. Of Church Communion and the Nature of Separation WE are in the next place to consider what Communion the Church is obliged to betwixt the severall parts of it and what Separation is contrary to that Communion and what is not For the First The Church is a sacred Common-wealth united to Christ now the end of every Common-wealth or Polity is common good that they all promote the good and welfare of that Body and every Member of it of which they are parts viz that particular good in those particular cases and things for which they did combine together this is meant by Communion for hereby all the actions and designs of that body are common i. e. for the good of all the Communion then of the Church which is associated only for spiritual ends consists in this that all design and endeavour the common good and welfare of all Christians in general and of themselves in particular in furthering the Salvation of their Souls the service of Christ in the use of those helps or means which Christ hath appointed to these ends this Communion hath diverse degrees and doth exercise it self several ways according to the several considerations of the Church and the Relations Christians have to each other more General or Remote or more particular and near The Communion therefore of the Catholick Church in Heaven and Earth is that they all hold the same Head Jesus Christ and own each other as Brethren in him that they love each other and all pursue and wait for that universal perfection which they shall all have when they are all gathered to Christ at the last day This Communion cannot be broken without renouncing the Head and his Religion and love to each other which are the Rule and Bonds of this Union and therefore there can be no Separation from the Catholick Church but what is not only sinfull but damnable as he that renounceth the common bonds of humane society justice love and all moral honesty and only pleaseth himself without regarding the good of any other he doth hereby break the Communion of mankind and
Catholick Church of Christ though gathered into smaller bodies for their own conveniency and this Communion consisteth in acknowledging each other as Brethren in performing brotherly offices of Love and Kindness and especially in admitting each other to their worship upon occasions so Sepetation betwixt Churches is a Breach of this Communion when one Church disowneth another to be a Church of Christ excludes them from her Ordinances and from all Offices of Christian Love This is just when 't is upon great and just causes such whereupon we refuse Communion with the Papists and Socinians if upon lighter causes it is Unlawfull and a great breach of Charity yet not to be aggravated as an unpardonable sin or as that which deserves more animadversion then those sins which destroy all Religion and Humane Society seeing men may be good Christians in Doctrine and practise good Subjects and good Neighbours though they conceived such a mistaken opinion concerning another Church but this is not the Separation I shall insist on the causes that make this just will make the other just also but all the causes that make Separation from a particular Congregation just will not reach our Comunion with other Churches or concern our Separation from them We shall therefore enquire for what causes Members of a Church may Lawfully separate from it i. e. contend for the reformation of the Church and if they cannot attain it withdraw from and either joyn to other Churches or make new ones themselves And to clear this point let us always Remember that the Church is a Common-Wealth United to Christ as the Head First and but secondarily to each other Faith and Obedience to God in Christ with the Salvation of their own Souls is the end why men become Christians and give up themselves to Christ and next they give up themselves to the Church as a Society that profess to design the same end and to have given up themselves to the same Lord and therefore they hope and intend by the Friendship of this Church to be assisted and furthered towards the attaining of their great ends if therefore the Church prove otherwise i. e. to be no help but an hindrance to their serving of Christ and furthering their Salvation Separation from it is not contrary to their Obligation as Christians they are still Members of Christ yea may and ought to seek another Society wherein they may attain those great ends it is true men are bound to bear with many things amiss in a Church because there will be always some things amiss in one kind or other and also for publick peace least by unseasonable reforming some lesser things amiss or withdrawing from the Church while there is any reasonable hope of amendment they should make things worse yet when they cannot worship Christ aright or can have no tolerable edification in the Church the end of the Church Society is destroyed and Separation from it become necessary and the peace of a Church is subordinate to the great end of a Church viz that Religion may be preserved and promoted among them but when this is not intended but betrayed peace then is no duty but a conspiracy against Christ and the good of his Church Even as in civil Government the end being the good of the whole Society so long as that end is tollerably pursued in the preservation of publick justice and honesty many things must be born with rather then to endanger the whole by unseasonable endeavours to mend lesser things but when the publick good is not minded or those conditions broken upon which men did associate and there is no hope of redress in this case peace and quietness is to betray the Government The causes therefore which make Seperation Lawfull are in generall when men cannot worship Christ aright in the chief parts of his worship or edify their own Souls in the Church whereto they are joyned and when there is no reasonable hope of the redress of these things Particular causes are such as these 1. When a Church is idolatrous for now it forsakes Christ the Head for whose sake and service we became Members of the Church and therefore must now forsake it for him what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols 2 Cor. 6.16 Ye are the Temple of the Living God c. ver 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing c. 2. When any known sin is made the condition of Communion i. e. when a man shall not be admitted or continued to be a Member of the Church unless he approve some errour in Doctrine corruption in worship or himself commit some sin in practise or at least consent to it in the Church For also this destroys the end of a Church which is to edify us in Faith and Obedience whereas here something against Faith or Obedience is to be the very entrance into the Church Upon these 2 cases all agree that Separation is Lawfull and necessary and they both hold strongly against the Church of Rome for she is manifestly idolatrous and imposes both False Doctrines Superstitious Worship and wicked practises upon all her Members nor will it serve to say that that Church denies her worship to be idolatrous or the Terms of her Communion to be sinfull but she must clearly prove it from Scripture which is the Law of a Church and that to the capacity of every Christian concerned for if there be any reasonable grounds to suspect the Terms imposed to be Unlawfull a Christian cannot with safe Conscience submit to them till he is satisfied to the contrary and the Church having no Authority from Christ to impose any doubtfull much less sinfull Terms of Communion in this case the Church is guilty of the breach and not those who refuse to joyn with her or withdraw from her 3. When there is no tolerable means of edification in the Church though no evil is imposed upon the Members As when the teachers are Hereticall in the chief points that concern our Salvation or so contentious and such railers at any that differ from them that they cannot be heard with peace and composure For this cause the Dutch both Ministers and People and the then Prince of Orange also forsook their Parishes because their Arminian Preachers spent so much time railing on the Calvinists that they could neither hear them with profit nor bear them with Patience Also when Ministers are grosly ignorant and unable to explain the necessary Doctrines of Salvation to the People or when they do not or will not ordinarily preach to them or endeavour their instruction or when their Lives are greatly contrary to Religion and Godliness or when the People are almost all corrupt in Doctrines or wicked manners and will not be reformed For all these cases are directly contrary to the ends of a Church and we must rather forsake the Church that we may be edified in Faith
not in the Passover or Sacrifices which were their Sacraments and the greatest ties of their Society and all this only for their Civil convenience because they were seated in other Countries and by reason of Trade or other occasions were loath to remove to Jewry if this will excuse them why may not other Cases arise where one part of a people may not think fit to break off from a Church wholly and yet not be bound to all acts of Communion or worship with it and such a case we have frequently in Ecclesiastical history when the people of some great City as Rome Antioch Alexandria c. differ'd about choosing a Bishop Suppose the better and sounder part chose a fit and worthy Person and the bigger and worse part chose a Person unsound in Doctrine or scandalons in Life and him they will have thrusting out the fiter Person and his People also if they will adhere to him what should be done in this case I know it was usual neither to Pray nor hear together though some of them might happen to be in the same Prison and in the same Room but this without doubt was Schism on both sides Should the better yield to the worse and quit their Election So they should betray Religion and their own Souls should they quite break off and forsake the others resolving never to have more to do with them So they should betray the others to utter ruine and the Church by degrees to destruction The good Wheat continually-leaving the Tares among whom yet it is very likely some good Wheat may be scattered it remains then that they keep to their Priviledge and adhere to him whom they have chosen and yet not dissert them who would cast them out but communicate with them as Brethren especially in such common Duties as do not contain a plain acknowledgment of their undue and Schismatical practise and so wait till Providence may find means to make up the Breach That this is our case shall be shewed in the last Chapter The Dr's other reason is grounded from Phil. 3.16 The sum of his arguing from that Text is this Men are to do all things Lawfull to maintain the Unity of the Church where they live therefore whatsoever is Lawfull for them to Communicate in sometimes they must do it always Answ Lawfull is either simply and absolutely so or Lawfull in those Circumstannces as the Apostle distinguisheth betwixt lawful and expedient 1 Cor. 6.12 i. e. lawful in it self or lawful in this or that case If every man be bound to do all that is simply and absolutely lawful to preserve the peace of the Church then he may be many times bound to yield to turbulent and irregular persons in unreasonable demands and impositions but if a man be bound only to do those things which are lawful in the present Circumstances then the Argument is of no force for it will be said they that held but occasional and partial Communion go as far as they judge lawful i e. expedient and fit in their Case and Circumstances and so they shall not be bound to constant and full Communion 2. The great sin and mischief of Separation lieth in judging and condemning others as no Churches having no Ministry no Sacraments and so not being in the ordinary way of Salvation not having Christs presence amongst them This indeed deserveth all the aggravations which the Dr. cites out of Mr. B. Sect. 24. and I am perswaded he intended no more and this was the meaning of the Old Non Conformists Severe reprehensions of the Brownists viz. that they dishonoured Christ reproached his Servants his gifts and Graces in them and slandered the footsteps of his anointed This indeed tends to the Subversion of the Church to expose it to the contempt of the world destroys all charity and brotherly Communion and is a great presumption for who shall dare to judge when Christ hath forsaken a People who shall profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his word though they do or are supposed to fail in Circumstances or lesser parts of their Duty And if the Fathers mentioned by the Dr. intended any other Separation by their high invectives against it as it is probable they did not at least those pious peaceable men Cyprian and Augustine when they said Schism is as bad as Idolatry c. we may say by their leave that they shew'd more zeal for themselves and their own Interest then for the honour of Christ and the peace of his Church Mr. Hales tract of Schism saith Heresie and Schism are the Theological Scare-Crows wherewith Men fright Children and men commonly use against all that differ from them when they cannot prove such a Crime against them and again he saith the Donatists might have been in the right for any thing that Augustine said against them and if he had extended it to Cyprian and Cornelius writings against the Navatians he might perhaps not have exceeded the Truth We do acknowledge all Un-necessary Separation from a Church is a sin let the ground be what it will the errour of Conscience in him who thinks it a duty will not make it a duty it doth impair Love it layeth the Church open to her Enemies reproaches and to endless contentions within her self but it is not such a sin as some men labour to make it to maintain their own greatness as if it would excuse men for the neglect of their Salvation or make them amends for the loss of Heaven that they have been scrupelously fearful of running into Schism Let the Church take care as Mr. Hales adviseth that the Terms of her Communion be no other then the Scripture will justifie and do concern all Christians and if any other be added let them be temporary and removed when inconveniencies arise greater then the Reasons for imposing them or equal to them Let the Ministers labour in publick and private with soft words and good Reasons to satisfie the People in all their doubts about things relating to the Church and if after all this some few as they will not be many are so far dissatisfied as that they they think they ought to withdraw let them withdraw provided they do not reproach and condemn the Church they depart from and let them nevertheless be owned as Brethren This certainly becomes the Gospel and will make more for the peace of the Church and send more towards reducing of those that separate then all corrections and hard words against Schism And thus did the Primitive Christians towards the Novatians for though some zealous of their own authority speak sharply against them yet they were not troubled in Constantine's time the Bishops of theirs sate in the Councel of Nice they had their publick Churches one in Constantinople when it was the Imperial Seat to which the people generally resorted when Macedonius was Bishop and when their Church was commanded to be pull'd down and they not to
the world to come leaving the management of worldly things to other societies or combinations of men under other Governours and other Laws The Kingdom of Christ is not of this World i. e. as Mediatour and Head of the Church this Kingdom cometh not with observation but is within us Luke 17.20 21. Hence it follows that Christ doth not cannot delegate this Power to any other neither in whole nor in part and who shall presume without his appointment to usurp hâ—s dominion he call's the Church to himself immediately and not to men and they give themselves immiedately to him and not to deputies they first gave themselves to the hLord and unto us by the will of God 2 Cor. 8. ver 5. And as Christ is the only Head of the Church so he only gives Laws to it whereby it shall be governed and by his Spirit procureth and maintaineth love and obedience to himself and to his Laws It followeth also that all other Governments and their Laws with the designs and ends of them are extrinsecal to the Church as such and must not intermeddle in the spiritual peculiar ends and government thereof they may joyn their persons to the Church by giving up themselves to Christ the King thereof for the Spiritual ends of his Kingdom but they may not mix or interweave the interest and ends of their Kingdoms or governments with those of Christs in his Church for so it would become a Kingdom of this world and the concerns of this world would greatly hinder if not swallow up those of the World to come which the Church is designed for Moreover the Church consists of Members called indifferently out of all Nations Kindreds Sexes Ages diversities of worldly interests through the succession of all Generations from the beginning to the end of the World whereof one part is in Heaven already the Church of the first born which are written in Heaven Heb. 12.23 for they yet wait for the coming up of their Brethren till when they do not receive the compleat benefit of their association and union to Christ and each other the other part is yet on Earth pursuing the same general design of their Common-Wealth the Glory of their King and their own Happiness yea among these some are yet Infaunts and Children capable only of the immediate influence government and protection of their Heavenly King without being able to do any thing for themselves and others there are yet unborn who though they are not actuall Members of this society yet are known to the King of it and their names contained in his Role and he will not reckon his Kingdom compleat or the ends of it accomplished till these also are brought into it even to the last man John 10.16 what then are the Intrests and designs of this world or the Princes of this world or the Laws Methods and Instruments by which they pursue those designs to this Kingdom of Christ they are diverse in every age this is one throughout all ages they are contrary to and do subvert each other and one succeeds another this is one uniform most consistant government they are temporary but for the present for the short lives of Governours or for the uncertain continuance of their Families and then they pass to others perhaps their enemies but the dominion of Christ is an everlasting dominion and his Kingdom an overlasting Kingdome Dan. 2.24 Thus we have the true definition of the Church of Christ which is but one in Heaven and Earth dispersed throughout all Countreys and Ages from the beginning to the end of the world Ruled by his Laws contained in the Scripture influenced by his Spirit according to those Laws and protected by his power against all their enemies to this we must reduce all Discourses and Notions of a Church and examine them by it as by the first truth in that kind the Rule and standard of the rest Wee are next to consider the distributions or several sorts of Churches And First the Church is distinguished into Triumphant and Militant as a whole into integral parts the Church Triumphant is that part of the Church of Christ which is already in Heaven having got the victory over sin and Satan yet not fully Triumphant because it waits for deliverance from Death or the Redemption of the Body the Church Militant is that other part which is yet on Earth contesting with all her Spiritual Enemies both these make up the Catholick Church which we profess in the Creed and is immediately subject to Christ and immediately govern'd by his Word and Spirit and all the Members of it as Members of this Church are equal none having authority over others being all equally and immediately united to Christ and guided by him to the proper ends of this Society Secondly The Church Militant is Vniversal or Catholick on earth sc all the Christian Members of the Catholick Church that live on Earth dispersed through all Countreys mixed with all societies of Civil Government with whom also are mixed many persons who profess Christ but are not really united to him by consent and real subjection of the heart and therefore are not living Members of the Church but accidental accessions to it as Forreigners that live in any state or Common-Wealth in some general things conformable to their Laws seem to be Members of that Society but indeed have their Relation and Union to another Or else this Church is particular as 't is distributed into several lesser societies for their convenience and edification now these are not distinct Churches but distinct Considerations of the Church on Earth either as collectively considered as one Company united by the same Bond to Christ the Governour of all though divided and dispersed in place or distributively in respect of place only being divided into several lesser Companies these also thus considered have all an equall Relation to Christ as their Governour to his Law as their Rule to his Spirit as there Internal Living Guide and to each other as Brethren without any authority over each other Thirdly These particular Churches if they be considered only in respect of place and vicinity may be and are by some distinguished into National viz all the Christians that live in one Nation or under one constitution or form of civil government or provincial viz the Christians that live in one Province or County or City Churches those that live in one City or Parish Churches viz the Christians that live in a lesser Neighbourhood yea thus Churches may be distinguished or divided into as many sorts as there be societies of men any way divided or distinguished from each other but all these divisions are but accidentall and extrinsecall differences of the several parts of the same Church thus divided into diverse lesser parts which are all equally Churches and that upon no other account then their Relation to Christ and to the universal Common-Wealth to which he is Head From hence we infer 3
things 1. All particular Churches being but integral homogenious or equal parts of the Catholick Church they have all an equal intrinsecal power of forming themselves into Congregations or lesser bodies for their own spiritual edification according to the Laws which Christ hath prescribed to that purpose for being all Brethren equally and immediately related to Christ and the division betwixt them being meerly accidental and external from the place of their dwelling or other circumstances they must all have an equal right to all the ordinances and priviledges of a Church and equal authority to dispose of themselves for their own good 2. That the only end of Christians combining into several lesser societies is that they may serve Christ together and help each other in their Spiritual concerns for they are a spiritual Common-Wealth associated for Spiritual ends only when they are considered as one body under Christ therefore if they divide themselves into lesser bodies it must be only that they may more easily and conveniently attain the ends of the Whole Body and generall Association 3. And that the designs of civil governours Laws and interest with the conveniances of civil bodies greater or smaller ought to have no influence or concern upon the constitution of these particular Churches for if they imbody themselves in lesser companies only to serve Christ and edify each other with the best advantage to their Souls then they are still in such incorporating only to respect the honour of Christ their own edification and the best execution of Christs Laws among them leaving other governours to prosecute the ends of their Laws and Government in ways proper to themselves and distinct from theirs and therefore if civil Governours model these Churches in subserviency to their civil ends they do really alter the nature of Churches and take them out of their immediate subordination to Christ and his Spiritual Government or else they make Christ and his Government and Common-Wealth subservient to theirs and the concerns of Mens Souls to be not other ways regarded then as they may promote worldly and temporary designs But further that part of the Church which is on earth being absent from their King and Lord and in a state of imperfection hath therefore need of guides and helps that it may understand the Law of Christ and yield obedience to it though all are equally Members of Christ yet all are not able to guide and help themselves from whence ariseth the necessity of Guides and Governours in the Church whence it is called an Organical Church as a body consisting of different organs for different uses thus the Church is made up of governours and governed but 't is still the same Church under the same Head Christ and his word as its Law only the interpretation and application of this Law of Christ is committed to some for the better edification of all viz the preserving and perfecting those that are present Members and the continuing of the Church by bringing in more that shall be saved Church Governours therefore are in no wise supream Christ being still the immediate head both of power and influence both to make Laws and to make them effectual upon the hearts of men they are appointed only to expound and apply Christs Laws for the good of his People for his Glory only and to leave both the success and the account to Christ of themselves and of the people Hence ariseth a Fourth Division of the Church in respect of the Government and order of it into Oecumenical National Provincial Diocesan Classical Parochial or Congregational but all these and each one alike are taken in a double sence singularly or collectively singularly for one individual Church or Body under one Government whether of one or more persons and thus the Oecumenical or Vniversal Church on Earth must be but one great body of Christians associated with the same Governours for the edification of each other as Israel of old being one Family multiplyed into a People and these gathered into a great Assembly at Mount Sinai was there framed into one spiritual society under the Guidance and Government of the Tribe of Levi so that when they were afterwards dispersed over all Canaan they were yet but one polity and accordingly thrice a year at least all met to worship God together to testify their Unity this the Pope claimeth viz that the whole Church is one Congregation committed to him as the only Pastour or Head of all In like manner a National Church thus singularly understood is all the Christians of that Nation making up but one Congregation and Polity all immediately under the same Governour Also the Provincial Church is all the Christians of one Province the Diocesan of one Diocess or small circuit and the Parochial or Congregational the Christians of one small Neighbour-hood or that without respect of Neighbour-hood voluntarily gather into one small Assembly under the same Guides or Governours respectively The Church collectively taken if Oecumenical is the association of all Churches in all Nations under one general Head and Government the National Church is made by the Union of all the Churches of several lesser Divisions under the general National Officers the Diocesan is all the Churches of a Diocess or smaller circuit as the Provincial is those of a larger circuit under one Common Head or Bishop A Classis is the same thing with a Diocess saving that by common use the Diocess is appropriated to one Head or Bishop and a Classis to those Churches that are govern'd by the common Consent and Councell of the Ministers of the several Congregations And a Parochiall or Congregationall Church is a society of so many Christians as living in one Neighbour-hood or in some convenient nearness may ordinarily meet together for the worship of God and all other offices of a Church Here we must observe that if the Church be taken for one individual Congregation immediately under the same Governours then 1. The Oecumenical Church was never instituted by Christ he never gathered them into one Congregation as he did Israel nor ever appointed one Governour or Colledge of Governours over them For seeing the Church was to be called and gathered out of all Nations and that successively some at one time and in one place and some at another one Colledge of Governours much less one single person could not take charge of it to teach it or rule it nor could Christians so dispersed perform the duty of Fellow Members to each other 2. Nor did Christ ever constitute a National or Provincial Church Henever called a Nation or Province at one time to the Profession of his Gospel nor can one person or society of Governours teach such a body or administer the Sacraments to them or know their cases nor can the people know and help one another or come to their Governours upon every necessary occasion especially not in times of persecution which for the most part hath been the lot of
the Christian Church and should such a thing be necessary our Bondage would be greater and means of edification much less then they were to the Jews who were confin'd to a little countrey and were an intire people among themselves and all tyed to each other by the Bonds of nature as one great Family descending naturally from one man and woman 3. Nor did Christ institute Diocesan Churches viz that all the Christians in some considerable circuit less then a Nation or great province should be one Congregation ruled by one or more Governours immediately There were no such companies or associations of men called converted or formed into Churches by Christ and his Apostles but the first Believers were scattered and independent persons called as God pleased besides such a flock cannot ordinarily meet together know and help each other or repair to their Governours or be acquainted with them as they ought nor can the Governours know teach and feed them and when we have once exceeded the bounds of a regular assembly to make up one Church of many Towns of a whole County or more we may by the same reason extend it without end to a whole Province a whole Nation or Empire and so make the duties of Pastours and People impossible and the ends of the Church impossible to be attained which is contrary to the nature of it 4. A Parochial or Congregational Church is the only Organical Church directly and immediately appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ For thus the Apostles collected the Believers in every City and place where they had preached into one Church or Society ordaining them Elders in every Church Acts 14. ver 23. If these Churches were companies of Believers in several Cities and Towns as the History in the 13 and 14 Chap. shews and the Apostles ordained them Elders in every Church then they did constitute them several Congregations and no common Governours over them all nor have we any command to do so when the Churches should be increased into multitudes of Members It must be remembred that the whole Church in Heaven and Earth is one Common-wealth because of its Union to Christ and the same general end of that Union in like manner every particular Church being but a part of the whole must unite only to attain the special ends of the whole Church with more ease and convenience and therefore they must be no more then the same Governours may exercise a true pastoral care over and as may perform the Offices of Brethren ordinarily to each other and also may assemble together in one place ordinarily for the worship of God and their mutual edification To what purpose is the name of a Church or Society to serve Christ together and edify each other when the persons are so numerous or so distant that they cannot possibly perform these offices such combinations are useless yea burthens and snares Even our opposites confess this viz that the first Churches and those for 200 years after Christ at least were but several Congregations which when the number of Christians were multiplyed they say were called Diocesses be it so yet what warrant had they to keep the Christians of one city or place to one Congregation and one Pastour personall or collective when the number was so increased that the ends of that society could not be attained 't is the best construction we can make of the proceedings of those antient Churches in this ease that out of desire to keep up the unity of those Congregations which the Apostles planted in great Cities they still obliged all that were afterwards converted in those Cities to be Members of the same Congregation and then the converts in the Villages about And lastly all the Christians that were within the civil jurisdiction of those Cities whether it was lesser or greater provinces or whole Countreys till they made government impossible to themselves and to the edification of the People and made way at last for Primates Patriarks and the Pope and turned the spiritual government of Christ by his Ministers and Word into a civil government of their own maintaining what they had gotten by their own Cannons and the Laws of Princes and why must we not take warning by them now if the Churches appointed by Christ are only the Congregations of such Christians that can ordinarily meet together and with their Pastours for the proper ends of a Church it follows that they must judge for themselves what Congregation and how large or small is for their own edification it is their own choice and consent that makes them Members of the Catholick Church and this Congregation is but a part of that to prosecute the same ends therefore it is their business and concern to frame their own society also these Congregations have the sole right of chusing their own Pastours admitting their own Members and altogether of governing themselves else they have not the power of a Church but are a company of Christians subject by right or wrong to those that exercise this power over and amongst them it also follows that Congregations cannot be justly compelled to combine or unite into larger associations as Diocesses Provinces Nations or the like for the ends of civil governours for this alters the nature and design of a Church and is a great dishonour to Christ that he must not Reign among his people but as men please but if several Congregations do associate for mutual help and strength into smaller or greater Congregations as Classes Diocesses Provinces or even all that are of one Nation yet they must unite but as formerly the Cities of Achajah or at present the United Netherlands for great and common cases and for generall defence leaving the self preserving and governing power intire to every Congregation and they also are to be judges how far 't is for the good and edification of the Church to inlarge or contract such associations how long to continue them and when to break them off for those associated assemblies govern only by assent and have not other authority over particular Congregations farther then as they approve of it we may illustrate this by the civil governments of the world There was at first but one Family and but a small one all mankind was made of one blood to dwell on all the face of the Earth Acts 17. ver 26. was there any obligation when they were multiplyed that they should still continue in one Family or was it consistent with the ends of Family Government other Families had the same intire authority within themselves as the first had and authority to sever themselves from the first when that was too numerous and they a sufficient number to make distinct families again when families were multiplyed were they obliged to live all in one Country and to continue in one civil society what then must have become of all the other parts of the earth which they were commanded to replenish and possess Gen. 1.28
a better and publickly authorized Translation they judg'd it a matter of no small Offence 7. The Reading of the Apochryphal Scriptures as parts of the publick worship and that without any distinction from the Canonical They accounted it an intolerable thing that Fables and Fictions should be solemnly Read to the People with the same Reverence as the Word of God and such are many of the Apocryphal Books and the rest being only of Humane Authority the reading of them ought not to be made a Solemn part of Divine Worship The Conformists say that Reading the Scripture is Preaching and the Non-conformists say it is not fit meer Humane or Fabulous writings should be preached to God's People when they meet to Worship him by hearing his word Above all they were offended that a great deal of the Holy Scriptures is left out of the Liturgy and so never to be Read in the Congregation and Apocryphal Chapters put in their Room 8. Holy-days or Festivals in the honour of Saints They would not deny but if the Church thought fit they might observe the days of Our Saviours Nativity Passion Resurrection Ascension and sending the Holy Ghost as other Protestant Churches do provided they might be kept seriously and not made of the same necessity with the Sabbath but when all divine worship of the Creatures is Idolatrous and the keeping of days in Honour of them as well as Building Temples to them was ever reckoned a part of Divine Honour and to be sure is more Honour then ever God commanded or allowed to any of his Servants They knew not how to excuse this practice that it should be a part of a Churches Liturgy 9. Nor could they approve the Doctrines of the certain Regeneration of all in Baptism and that Infants dying after Baptism before the Commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved which are laid down in the Liturgies as undoubted Articles of Faith whereas there is no Scripture that clearly proveth either of them and at best they are points disputed on by Learned men on both sides Nor could they excuse the practice of refusing Parents to promise for their own Children in Baptism seeing it is upon their Account only and Gods Covenant with them that the Children are admitted to be Baptized and they are thereby engaged to breed them up in Faith and Obedience much less that Strangers should receive the charge of the Baptized who have no authority over them who neither care what they promise nor are ever called to account how they perform their promise for if they should few would undertake the charge and so this custom would fall to the ground 10. They excepted against the Ordination of Deacons to read Divine Service Baptize and Bury and to preach with special License this they say was to create a new fort of office in the Church which Christ never appointed nor gave his Ministers Authority to appoint it Deacons were to look after the poor and that was all their work and though the Primitive Christians sometimes used them to read the Scriptures in the Congregation yet they never ordained them to this as an office yea though they should be admitted to read Prayers to Marry or Bury yet this is no sacred office appointed by Christ that should constitute a distinct order of Ministers and if as grave and prudent persons they might be admitted to do these offices either for want of Ministers or to assist them yet may they by no means be suffered to Baptize it being as peculiar to the Ministry as to administer the Lords Supper and the admission of Members into the Church as sacred and solemn a work as to confirm and Build up the Members of it These were the principal objections of the Non-conformists against the Liturgy which were some of them at least exemplified and confirmed by many particulars of lesser moment in themselves but all tending to make their desire of a Reformation of the Service Book to seem reasonable and the work necessary Rea. 2. The Second thing the Old Non-conformists disliked in the Church of England was the Government of it by Prelates i. e. Bishops with sole power of Jurisdiction Many of the Old Non-conformists thought Episcopacy utterly unlawfull and an usurpation not to be born but the rest who looking upon it as a humane constitution as our Law doth thought it Lawfull and that it might be submitted to did yet dislike our Episcopacy partly because of the secular grandure power and imployments our Bishops were invested with which made them unable and unwilling to discharge the office of a Pastour in the Church partly because the Church hath nothing to do in their election except an empty shew and therefore persons were most commonly prefer'd not for true Episcopal Qualifications but because they could make interest with Superiours but principally because the Bishops arrogated to themselves the whole power of governing the Church and excluded all the Ministers from any share therein a thing most unexcusable in them who acknowledge themselves to be of the same order with the Presbyters and only in a degree of honour above them and that by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate Whereas even those that with any probability or sobriety maintain the Divine Right of Episcopacy do nevertheless acknowledge that he may neither ordain nor govern without the advice and consent of his Presbyters This was look'd upon as intollerable that the power of governing the Church which was committed by Christ to all his Ministers should be wrested from them generally by a few of their Brethren And that they who are thought fit to dispense the Word and Sacraments the cheif keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby men are brought to the Faith admitted into the Church and bnilt up in it should not have power to censure offenders and to receive the Penitent again to Communion which are things of lesser moment and depending on the former and yet without which the former could not be managed in a fit manner for Edification By this means Ministers are deprived of one half of their Office and Power and are both discouraged and hindered in the other half For who will regard their Preaching who have not Liberty to judge what persons are fit to be admitted into the Church or who in it deserves censure or to be cast out of it And the Bishops themselves in undertaking the whole work of Governing the Church took that upon them which they never could nor did manage for the Churches Edification R. 3d. The Non-Conformists were much dissatisfied about the Discipline of the Church both in respect of the Rule of it and the Officers that manage it The Rule they say is not taken out of the Scripture which is the only Rule and Law of Christ's Church but it is the Roman Civil and Canon Law which at best were suited to their own times and People in many things very defective and in others erroneous and superstitious There
of men appointed by David by Divine inspiration for this work and so the manner and method also was appointed by God and Art and rules of Musick were then acceptable and part of the Ceremonial worship But there being such Offices nor such service appointed in the Christian Church this is no warrant for our Responses Neither do the Scriptures give any warrant or example for observing dayes as sacred in the honour of Saints Or of instituting new Offices in the Church or new Ceremonies of worship but on the contrary our Saviour declares that men worship in vain that teach for Doctriens the Commandements of men Matth. 15.9 It seems then That Decency and Order which men purposely devise to add significancy or comliness to gods worship is abominable in his sight he hath no need of mans service and therefore will accept of nothing but what is appointed and carried on by his own Spirit Neither do the Scriptures appoint or warrant any superiority of Bishops above ordinary Ministers at least not such as that they should have sole power of governing the Church The high Priests of old had no such power of the Priests as this Learned Doctor hath proved in his Irenicum They had some peculiar things appropriated to their office but were themselves subject to the Sanhedrim The Apostles were all of one Order and had no authority over each other and governed the Church only by consent Gal. 2.9 Nor is there any distinction made betwixt ordinary Ministers except what they see needful to make amongst themselves for the good of the Church This all our old Bishops acknowledged and therefore pleaded for Episcopacy only as an humane constitution And those who of late wrote for its Divine-right do yet the most learned of them acknowledge that it cannot be proved from Scripture unless perhaps from the angels of the Church of Asia which this Dr. hath solidly confuted It was alwaies objected to the Non-conformists that the Scriptures do not forbid those things though they do not command them But they replyed that the Non-command of any thing in Gods worship and Church is a prohibition except of those things only that occasionally become necessary or that are naturally necessary circumstances of such actions as are commanded for it would argue great imperfection in the Law if it should omit things that are constantly or generally necessary for the good of the Church And as Moses closed his Law with this command that none should adde or diminish it so Christ having given his Law to his Church and appointed Officers with power to make govern and cast members out of it as there was need without giving them liberty to adde or alter He also did virtually prohibit such additions or alterations till he shall come again and their Commission being only to teach baptize and to teach all that Christ commands to the end of the world Mat. 28.18.19 This doth sufficiently restrain them from making or teaching cammands of their own all their authority being grounded on that Commission 2. From Antiquity the Non-Conformists alledge that the primitive Churches for many hundred years had no stated Liturgies prescribing the words as well as method of worship Justin Martyr in his second Apoligy designedly gives an account of the Christian worship viz the order and method of praying preaching admitting of Members administring both Sacraments but hath no word of a prescribed form but he saith the Minister prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was able Tertullian giving the same account in his Apol. Cap. 39. saith likewise sine monitore quia de pectore oramus they prayed by heart and therefore had no prompter much less a book We read that Constantine the great Euseb de vit constant l. 4. cap 19.20 having abolished idolatry composed a form of Prayer for his Heathen Souldiers wherein t hey should pray to one God the Creatour of all things but we read of no form imposed on Christians There are indeed Lyturgies that goe under the names of the Apostle James Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but they convince themselves to be forged by later men and so are an argument that there were no such things in the primitive times but when the Church was over-run with errours and superstitions it was appointed in Africa that the Ministers should either receive a form of Prayer from their Bishops Cansil Milevet 2 dum Can. 12. or shew their own Prayer to them for their approbation but this was above 400 years after Christ the usurpation of Bishops Lazines and ambition of Ministers ignorance and superstition in the people bred Liturgies and they grew up together Nor is their any mention of Responses in the Antient Church a superstitions story of a vision of Angels singing an Hymn in that manner by turns is pretended to be seen by Ignatius dead long before nor had the antient Church days holy to Saints for 300 years and upward we find only mention amongst them of Easter-day and yet that caused such division and contentions that it might have been a warning to after ages for contending about things that God hath not commanded The Apocryphal Books were indeed read in the Christian Church very antiently though they never were amongst the Jews but it was more excusable in them then in us because it was long e're the books of the Scripture especially the books of the New Testament were gathered into one Volumn or it was agreed among the Churches which were Canonical and which Apocryphal for some of the Apocryphal were read in some Churches as Canonical and some of the Canonical were by some Churches rejected The Cross in Baptism was so long unknown to the Church that it is hard to say when it came in though the sign of the Cross was commonly used amongst them upon their Cloaths in their Hats to distinguish them from Heathens and as a token that they were Christians the Montanists began to make a superstititious use of the Cross and so did many others soon after Constantine himself can scarce be excused if Eusebius be credited but that it was annexed to Baptism and made a symbole of mens embracing Christianity there is no record Kneeling at the Lords Supper was not enjoyned till transubstantion was established above 1200 years after Christ nor is any general example for it pretneded in former ages The Surplice was much Elder then the Cross in Baptism or kneeling at the Supper yet for 200 years and upwards there is no mention of it nor is it known when or how it came in many Rites Customs and Ceremonies were used in the Primitive Churches some being derived from the Jews some from the Heathens by the converts of both sorts yet not imposed upon others the Apostles Rule being yet observed that no man should judge another in meats or drinks Col. 2.16 Rom. 14. or in respect of an holy day i. e. the Jewish Festivals which were once of divine institution Nor did the
disown and disparage that Reformation which they had been engaged in for twenty year and to make themselves transgressors to reproach their Brethren that were dead to disparage all the Providences of God in their behalf and to villifie the success of their own Ministry and the growth of Religion and Sobriety in the Nation which they had seen and been instruments of and moreover to engage them against all endeavor of Reformation for the future and all those principles which their pious Predecessors had delivered to them And therefore they think he that can do this is a servant of men and not of Christ They do not justifie all proceedings in the endeavours for Reformation never any such thing was attempted without many infirmities in the best and transvers designs in selfish men There were never more Heresies Schismes and Superstitions in the Church then were in the Apostles dayes and those that immediately succeeded proportionable to the number of Christians the Gospel being then but setting up in the world But the Reformation it self being good and necessary and the effects of it as to Religion manifest they cannot revile or renounce without condemning those principles which animated them to bring in the King without regard of their own peersonal peace or interest It is said that Reformation wanted Authority it did so such as should make it National but selves and Rulers ought to protect them in it and not to trouble them for it or force them from it CHAP. VI. The Judgment and Practise of the present Non-conformists concerning Communion with and Separation from the Church of England HAving given the Principle Reasons why many Ministers both formerly and in this present Age cannot conform i. e. approve and subscribe to the Lyttergy of the Church of England as it contains all things belonging to Publick Worship It is needful that we set down what are their thoughts concerning their present case and what their practise ought to be in reference to the Church of England that their friends may not mistake and think they maintain principles of Anarchy and Confusion which if they did they would long since have come to nought and that their ill-willers may not have oportunity to slander them by misrepresenting them as enemies to all Government and as inconsistent with themselves as this Dr. hath done Therefore 1. The Non conformists conceive the case betwixt them and the Conformists Clergy to be much the same as betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists in Germany or betwixt the Papists and Protestants since the Council of PTrent i. e. differences are come to the highest extremity under blood and that only because it is not in Clergy mens power and are utterly irreconcileable The Lutherans formerly had some men amongst them of some moderation and the things in question betwixt them and the Calvinists wer disputed and debated and men left to their liberty both in judgment and practice but when they got strength enough then they imposed their subscriptions deposed and imprissoned the Calvinists enveighed against them with all bitterness will admit of no treaties of Reconciliation and finally are so obstinately fixed in their own way as that they will much rather go three steps backwards to Rome then come one forwards toward the Calvinists the Papists also though they earnestly opposed the Reformation yet they maintained disputes and debates held conferences and consultations with our first Reformers and forbore violence at least by means of the Princes a good while so that there was hopes the Church might have been reformed without any fatal breach hCharles 5th then Emperour and Francis the 1st K. of France and others carnestly endeavouring to bring it about but when after all the Councill that had been desired on both sides met at Trent and excluded the Protestants from voting amongst them and established all the errours and corruptions of the Church of Rome which the Protestants condemned and cursed all the Doctrines and Practises of the Protestants point by point that they should have heard and examined And finally ordered all that should be ordained to the Ministry to subscribe to this Council There was now no more hope of Reformation of the Church or of pacification betwixt dissenting parties Thus the Non-conformist being of the same date with the Conformists Bishop Hooper Bish Coverdale Mr. Rogers Mr. Bradford with others of the first Reformers being dissatisfied with the established Lyturgy and still more and more successively in after Ages were at first treated like brethren and though the Lyturgy was established by Law by K. Edw. and Q. Eliz. yet they required not subcriptions to sit or approbation of it being content with a silent practise of what was enjoyned and very frequently passed over with silence the omission or non-practise of the Ceremonies and other things enjoined till Arch-Bishop Whitgifts dayes all which time the Non-comformists had still hopes things might have been accommodated and they appplied themselves to Princes and Parliaments to that end At length the Canons in 1605 made by the whole Convocation but with as fair play as those at Trent and ratified by the King established all things that the Non-comformists complained of and that not in the gross but point by point and fortified them with the Censures of the Church against all Dissenters and finally required all Ministers to approve the Lyturgy by subscription Whereupon many werer turned out at present and many kept from the Ministry nevertheless these subscriptions were private before the Bishops and Ordinaries who might and did frequently either omit the subscription or qualifie it with such interpretations that many who were in their Judgments Nonconformists could and did still get into and continue in places and those who were driven out of one Diocess were frequently suffered to preach in another and they who could not be ordained by Bishops would procure Ordination in other Protestant Countreys so that here was a little alleviation There was also one ground of hope elft viz. these Canons were not Law another King yea the same that approved them might have altered them and therefore the Non-conformists stretched their patience to the utmost hoping that at last their afflictions might be looked on by them that had power to remedy them and some appearance of it there was under the long Parliament especially when the King and they were upon terms of pacification But behold the Conclusion We have at length the private subscription to the Common prayer Book turned into a Publick solemn Declaration in the Congregation and that in prescript form of words that there may be no moderation And this to extend to the unfeigned approbation of the use of every thing contained in the Book And these Episcopal Canons turned into a standing law which equally extends to all parts of the Realm and to all times and ages successively as much as men can oblige them so that there can easily be no alteration And besides all this they must not only
just liberty is on the Non-Conformists side in these points 3. Whether the Non-Conformists both Ministers and People are not greatly strengthened both in their Non-Conformity to the Lyturgy and also in their practise of holding Communion together for self preservation by what hath followed in an un-interrupted course ever since the ejection of Ministers viz the horrible and general contempt of Religion general corruption of manners great neglect of preaching to the people most Dignitaries having many Parishes in their hands which they supply by ignorant boys the great growth of Popery with a certain and manifest design of bringing it into the Land again if his Majesty who now letteth were taken out of the way the great corruption of Doctrine as well as manners in our own Clergy neither of which are minded by the Rulers of our Church so as man be conformable that it is now in the Church of England as in that of Rome men may be of any opinion live in any vice or be of no Religion so they own the Pope and his Church and be no Protestants so here men may be Arminian Socinian Papists Atheists and what they will so they externally conform to the Lyturgy and be no Presbyterians so that it is now manifest that nothing was intended by the contrivers of the Act of Uniformity but to cast out of the Ministry those whom they knew could not then conform and for ever to keep out and intangle the most understanding and conscientious men and to let none into the Church who should scruple any of her commands or practises Are such things any motives to the Non-Conformists after 18 years suffering all the indignities and injuries that Julian's wit and malice thought fit to lay upon the Christians of his time and supposed them more intollerable to them then present death which would have been both honourable and an end of their miseries I say are these things motives that at last they should condemn their former practise and without any relaxation quietly take all the Burthen on their Shoulders no they are satisfied that whereas the Church of England hath given her self a mortal wound by her Act of Uniformity and hath layn bleeding of it ever since almost to death that they ought not to hasten her death by putting their hands and adding their helps to it 5. The Dr. thinks that Ministers are not now so indispensibly bound preach as the Apostes were who were immediately sent by God and Authorized by Miracles and therefore they must cease preaching if forbidden by the Magistrate justly or unjustly Answ There is the same necessity of the Ministry to preserve build up and continue the Church by adding new Members through the preaching of the word as there was of the Apostles to lay the foundation of the Church and therefore there lay's the same necessity upon every Minister to preach to his flock within his Compass as did on the Apostles in their Compass May Civil Magistrates be resisted or deposed by the people upon any pretence and they not seek redress because they are not anointed and immediately sent by God as Saul and David c. were if the standing order of Magistracy hath its immutable warrant and unalterable priviledges to enable it for the the discharge of that office surely the standing and ordinary Ministry hath as much warrant and provision for the execution of their office without expecting Miracles to give them new Authority Serm. p. 36. 6. The Dr. saith the Assembly of Divines gave many weighty Reasons against Toleration and were for Uniformity as much as the Church of England So that that Church is justified by them from all Tyranny in exacting Uniformity and the question is not whether there shall be a Uiniformity but who shall have the ordering of it Answ The present Non-conformists have opposed Toleration of all Sects and Opinions as much as the Assembly but this charge is a great injury both to the Assembly and to the Nonconformists now living for the Assembly never desired Uniformity in the same words of Prayer and all Divine Offices or in Rites and Ceremonies devised by men that might occasion scruple to any nor do their reasons tend to any such thing but only that men should not have liberty to withdraw from their Parishes upon every pretence and to constitute new Congregations The present Non-conformists desire no Uniformity but in Doctrine and the substantials of worship Discipline and Government leaving the wording and methoding of worship to particular mens prudence and the necessities of their people and leaving all Congregations to their liberties in Rites and Ceremonies not instituted by Christ supposing that Physitians may as well be tied to the same rules in administring Physick to all bodies as Ministers and people be obliged to the same words and things universally for their souls Let the late Act of Uniformity be abolished the Apocryphal books and Holidayes be left out of the Lyturgy and the Psalms read in the new Translation let the Cross and Surplice be taken away and kneeling at the Sacrament be left indifferent according to the discretion of Ministers and the desires of the people also let Parents stipulate for their own children and some few things in the Prayers be altered or so explained that they may give no offence let the book of Consecration of Bishops c be restored as it was in Queen Elizabeths dayes and Ministers be bound only in general words to a peaceable submission to the Lyturgy let them subscribe to the 39 Articles only in Doctrines of faith and Sacraments according to the Statute Eliz. 13. and this will make much more for Union then any thing the Dr. or his brethren have yet said Serm. p. 11 12. But the Dr. saith Phil. 3.16 Commands all to walk by the same Rule viz. the Rule of Uniformity formerly given them when the Apostle was with them as they were wont to do in all the Churches Be it so but did the Apostle intend any more then that they should be content with the same substantials of worship which were for common edification wherein all might and ought to agree without contending about the Ceremonies of the Law or particular opinions which some out of weakness might be zealous for and others that were more perfect knew were abolished This seems to be the plain meaning of the Text for both the perfect and the imperfect and otherwise minded were all to agree in the practise of this Rule which therefore could not be the imposition or limitation of disputable Doctrines or questionable Rites and Ceremonies but he would prove that this Uniformity was in Rites and Ceremonies from 1 Cor. 7.17 because some things the Apostle ordained in all Churches but the Text speaks only of the Co-habitation of Husbands and wives when one was an Infidel ver 15 16. Was this a Ceremony In 1 Cor. 11.34 The Apostle abolisheth the custom of Love-feasts before the Lords Supper because it was
of the Parishes any more then the Non-Residents may plead that they cannot reside with their own people or perform Ministerial duties to them because they must hold Communion with them amongst whom they dwell Thus the Dr in all his book hath said nothing directly to the question in hand but the Terms of Communion he saith are the same now as at the first Reformation but as to the Ministers this is apparently otherwise such Subscriptions and Declarations being required of them as no History can match except those imposed on the Jansenists in France of which ours seem to be an immitation The contrivers of our impositions being then in France when the Jansenists were removed from all Ecclesiastical Places by a like artifice as we afterwards were If he mean the Terms of Communion that concern the people as he elsewhere expresseth himself and restrains them to the Terms imposed by Law this is nothing to the purpose for the Ministers though they should submit to those terms when they act as private men may nevertheless be bound not to for sake the exercise of their Ministry Besides there is a Fallacy in restraining the Terms to those enjoyned by Law what if neither Ministers nor people can enjoy the benefit of the Law but new terms are imposed on them without Law as were the subscription to the Service Book Can. 36. whereby so many worthy Ministers were turned out in K. Jame's time the Reading of the book for Soorts on the Lords Day and the Reading of the Prayer against the Scots and the order for Preaching but once a Sabbath and then not to exceed an hour for disobeying which more were rejected in the late King's time and many such are still continued viz the constant Reading of the Communion Service though there be no Sacrament which makes the Prayers more tedious and fuller of Repitions then they need to be and also straitneth the Preacher if it do not hinder the Sermon the placeing the Communion Table and Railing it like an Altar and compelling the Communicants to come up by parcels to kneel before it contrary to Q. Eliz. injunctions must the people submit still because these things are imposed by Law do not innovations and corruptions come into the Church by degrees and by connivance at first and afterwards when their Authors are strong enough they are then established by Laws and Canons And yet the Argument holdeth not the things imposed might be submitted to at the first Reformation ergo they must be so still The Jewish Ceremonies were tolerated and practised by the Apostle Paul in the beginning of the Gospel and yet when false teachers and other peevish or timorous men contended for the observation of them still when the reason of it viz not offending the Jews was ceased and they were an hindrance to the Gospel then the same Apostle would not give place to them no not for an hour though Peter and Barnabas joyned with them Gal. 2.3.4.5 and ver 11. to the 18. Nor doth our practise reflect on our first Reformers unless they had been extraordinarily inspired to that work then indeed to vary from them or endeavour to correct them would be to reproach the Spirit by whom they acted But if they made that Reformation only as good and wise men acting according to Principles of Piety and Prudence as farr as they could in their circumstances it is no disparagement to them if others vary from them according to the times and circumstanees they live in My L. Bacon observes that in civil matters our Parliament does dayly alter our Laws Bacon 's Essays and suit them to the present times and case of the people yet this is thought no disparagement to the Wisdom or Justice of their Ancestours in former Parliaments but the Church â—â—eth almost buried in the Rubbish of time and this must not be removed out of Veneration forsooth to Antiquity The best men not inspired can but do what is best for their own time we should therefore inquire not only whether the terms of Communion be the same now that they were at the first Reformation but also whether those terms be as necessary as Tolerable and as fit to be submitted to now as they wre then Nor did our Reformers expect that their endeavours should be made an unalterable Standard to all posterity The exprest in their Preface to the Common-Prayer Book their mind this purpose viz. That they had done what they could in reforming the Church and the Liturgy according to their light and as their times would bear and that they hoped those that came after would be able to do more and go further This I have heard from divers Ancient and Credible Persons who remembred they had read this passage in the said Preface though it be now left out And it is the more unreasonable to urge the platform of the first Reformation as a Rule not to be altered though in disputable and mutable things because some of these Reformers both Ministers and People of that time disliked some things that were imposed and because they were yoked with some Papists who dissembled their Religion that they might both keep their places and more effectually hinder the Reformation as Bishop Cranmer is said to have complained How ever the thing was an unquestionable Truth Nor is it altogether true which he saith that the dislike of our Liturgy or Ceremonies was wholly brought from abroad by Hooper Rogers c. such as had travelled in Germany and Helvetia where Cranmer himself had also been a considerable time But it sprang up at home also together with the first seeds of the Reformation Almongst Wicklif's Opinion recited by Mr. Fox and charged on him by his Adversaries there by many pieces of the present Non-Con-formity relating to Discipline and Ceremonies * Church Hist Cont. and Dr. Fuller reports that in the latter end of K. Henry 8th many Articles were complained of in the Convocation as being now common among the People as against Lent most of the Ceremonies and such like It is natural for Christians not only to desire to hear true Doctrine and to have true Worship but to have that Doctrine and worship maintained by such Discipline and expressed by such Ceremonies or Circumstances as are allowed by it and agreeable to it and not by exotick things of mans device and humour It is true then Conformity and Non-conformity were Twins conceived and Born together in the Womb of our Church and it is as true that Non-Conformity put forth its hand first though Conformity had the hap first to break and to be Midwifed into into the world by Law But indeed is it a Reflection on our first Reformers to desire to mend what they were not peremptory in and some of them disliked And is it no dishonour to them to change the Doctrine then establisht in chief Articles of Faith viz. the Pelagian and Arminian points which have so long reigned amongst us And
concerning the Divine right of Bishops above Presbyters which they so expresly disavowed both in their printed books and in the Manuscript of divers questions decided by them the account whereof we owe to this Learned man Irenic p. 2. and last All this therefore from the honour of our Reformers is but a flourish But now Sect. 3. We have three Reasons given why our Reformers left such Ceremonies in the Church 1. He saith it was out of Reverence to Antiquity they being of use in the Primitive times long before Popery and yet three of the chief Men Peter Martyr Martyn Bucer Paulus Fagius who were sent from beyond Sea to assist in the Reformation promoted no such continuance of these venerable Antiquities in the Churches abroad where they had been made use of before to help to reform And how Ancient were these Ceremonies Why the Surplice he saith was used in Augustine and Hieroms time that was 400 years after Christ and Superstition came in apace Images in Churches and praying for and to the Dead and such like And Ceremonies were so many that Augustine complained of the condition of the Church in his time in that regard was worse then that of the Church under the Law The Sacrament he saith was received about Constantines time in a posture of Adoration That was standing Sc. from the time of Easter to Whitsuntide as all other publick Worship was then performed in remembrance of Christs Resurrection But did they kneel The Dr. will not say so nor can he produce any evidence that kneeling at the Communion was commonly used till divers Hundred years after Popery had defiled the Western Church The Cross he saith was much Ancienter and used with much Superstition even in Tertullian 's time but the Dr. saith not it was used in Baptism nor is there any proof of it and that was only to our case When he pleads that we need not reform beyond the example of the Primitive times viz those soon after the Apostles and saith it gives great advantage to the Papists to to reject the Customs of those times upon pretence that the Mistery of Iniquity was working even in the Apostles daies I desire to know where we shall stop and what Church shall we take for our pattern Do all did any of the Churches for the first 300 years use our Ceremonies in their publick Church Service or if they did were not others also used in many Churches now generally disallowed by Papists and Protestants As giving the Communion to Infants sending the Eulogies or consecrated Bread to those that were absent from the Sacrament and the like Mr. Mead no Non-Conformist hath proved that Saints and Image Worship in remoter and smaller degrees began very early in the Church amongst which he reckons the most Ancient use of the Cross in Tertullian's time with which they use to fortifie themselves against the Devil and all evil Accidents There were never more Heresies and Divisions in the Church Apost of the latter times then in the Primitive times Yea before the Apostles were dead there have been no Errours or Corruptions since but the like were then and must we not go beyond or pass by all these times and appeal only to Scripture as the only Rule for Constituring and Governing the Church Did the Judges or Kings of Judah that reformed their Church before the Captivity or Zerubbabel and Nehemiah after it ever make former times their President Did they not alwaies appeal to the Law of Moses If we must suppose the times next the Apostles had their Customs and Ceremonies from the Apostles because they lived so near them This opens a door to all Popish Traditions and overthrows the perfection of the Scripture Or if we suppose the present Church in every Age hath not as much Power of self-Government as the Primitive Church had or to appoint and alter their own Customes and Ceremonies we shall contradict our 20th Artic. and bring our selves into unsupportable slavery to all the Cannons and Customes of all former times and so the Christians as well as the Jews will need a Talmud besides their Bible It is probable our first Reformers seeing they must retain some Ceremonies retained those they thought most Ancient and least offensive and this was the Reason why they were retained and not laid aside 2. The Dr. saith These Ceremonies were retained for fear of the Popish Bishops who were some of them Learned Men least they should reproach the Reformers with innovation against the Primitive as well as the Popish Church Answ This was indeed the true and chief reason why our Reformations was no more compleat because the Popish Bishops that were joyned with the Reformers hindred them and the Popish People would not endure a through Reformation Mr. John Elliot a worthy Gentleman in the Parliament Ann. 3. Car. 1. said That he had seen in a Diary written with K. Edw. 6th own hand Rushw Colec part 1. pag. 661. these words That the Bishops at that time some for Ignorance some for Sloath some for Pride and Luxury and some for Popery were unfit for Discipline To which we must add that some of the good Bishops Bishop Ridley in particular being but late Converts from Popery had yet a Zeal for the old Customes and Ceremonies those that could be retained without manifest Superstition And so much they themselues acknowledge in the Preface to the Service Book before cited Now what Obligation is this upon us not to endeavour a further Reformation 3. He saith They had respect to the Lutheran Churches who retained the same and more Ceremonies Answ They might consider that seeing they must retain some of the old Customes it would be more excusable to retain these because some other Protestant Churches did retain them But that they did it in imitation of those Churches there is no ground to believe seeing till now our Church was alwaies charged to be too much addicted to Calvin and influenced by him and Beza both in K. Edw. and Queen Eliz. time Nor is there any Reason why the Lutherans themselves retained so much many Popish Ceremonies but because Luther being almost wholy intent upon reforming the Doctrine of the Church neglected matters of Discipline and Ceremonies which his Followers interpret his judgment So hard is it to make any Progress in any good design especially in matters of Religion beyond the first Efforts when mens first Affections and Zeal are cooled and the World with carnal self doth afterwards intangle their minds It is strange overlashing when the Dr. saith that our first Reformers dyed Martyrs for our Church They dyed indeed for the Doctrine and Worship of our Church as it is common to all Churches and grounded on the Word of God in opposition to the Idolatrv and Superstitions of Rome and particularly that Idol of the Mass But the disputable things of our Lyturgy as to Government Rites and Ceremonies were never in question then nor did
their Judges who were their professed enemies and tell the King that So long as it shall please the King and Civil State to maintain in this Kingdom the State Hierarchy or Prelacy we can in honour to his Majesty and the State and in desire of peace be content without envy to suffer them to enjoy their State and Dignity and to live as brethren amongst those Ministers that shall acknowledge spiritual homage unto their spiritual Lordships paying unto them all temporal duties of Tenthes and such like yea and joyning with them in the service and worship of God so far as we may do it without our own particular communicating with them in those humane Traditions and Rites that in our Consciences we judge to be unlawful Thus we see it was only for respect to the State and for peace sake that they could give the Bishops any acknowledgment or reverence and that though they did acknowledge other Ministers for their brethren who did in Conscience ascribe spiritual Authority to the Bishops yet they did acknowledge the Bishops as such neither for Fathers nor brethren Mr. Robert Parker wrote in Latine de Ecclesiastica politia wherein he proves Presbyters to be the only Ministers and answereth Mr. Hooker and Bishop Bilson where they maintain or excuse Bishops or a power of imposing what government the Magistrate pleaseth upon the Church 2. They hold Congregations or Churches severally to be the only Gospel Churches and each one to have full power and jurisdiction within it self without being subject to any Ecclesiastical Officers but their own but all to be immediately subject to the Civil Magistrate and his inspection This is the Scope of Mr. Baine's Diocesan Tryal of Dr. Ames in his Medull Theol. Cap. 32. Part. 1. And thus they joyntly declare Engl. puritan Chap. 3. part 1. they hold that the Pastors of Particular Congregations are or ought to be the highest Spiritual Officers in the Church over whom by any Divine Ordinance there is no Superiour Pastour but only Jesus Christ And that they are led by the Spirit of Antichrist that Arrogate or take upon themselves to be Pastours of Pastours and to the same purpose position 2. before cited And Position 3. They hold that if there were a Supream National or Ecclesiastical Minister or Pastour that should be the Prince of Many thousand Pastors that then also Christ as he did in the Jewish Church would have appointed a solemn National or Provincial Lyturgy or worship unto which at sometimes of the year the whole body of the people should ascend and that unto the Metropolitan City as unto Jerusalem and that he would as he did in the Jewish Church more precisely and particularly have set down the manner of solemnization thereof then of his Parochial worship For as much therefore as they cannot read in the new Testament of any higher or more solemn worship then of that which is to be performed in a particular Congregation they cannot be perswaded that God hath appointed any higher Ministers of his service and worship under the new Testament then the Elect Ministers of Particular Congregations See Position 4th more to the same purpose And Protestation Position 24th We confine and bound all Ecclesiastical power within the limits only of one particular Congregation holding that the greatest Ecclesiastical power ought not to stretch beyond the same and that it is an arrogating of Princely Supremacy for any Ecclesiastical person or persons whatsoever to take upon themselves Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over many Churches much more over whole Kingdoms aud Provinces of Christians 3. They held that the Officers of every Church or Congregation were Pastors teachers and Elders chosen out of the people and herein they agreed with all the Protestant Churches besides the Lutherans Engl. Purit ch 3. p. 13. They hold that by Gods Ordinance there should be in every Church a Doctor whose special Office should be to instruct by way of Catechizing the ignorant of the Congregation and that particularly in the main grounds and principles of Religion Chap. 4. Position 1. They held That by Gods Ordinance the Congregation should make choice of other officers as Assistants unto the Ministers in the spiritual Regiment of the Congregation who are by Office joyntly with the Ministers of the word to be as Monitors and Overseers of the Manners and Conversation of all the Congregation and one of another that so every one may be more wary of their waies and that the Pastours and Doctors may better attend prayer and doctrine and by their means may be made better acquainted with the state of the people when other eyes besides their own shall wake and watch over them Protestation Position 25. We hold it utterly unlawful for any one Minister to take upon himself or accept of a sole Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over so much as one Congregation and therefore we hold that some of the sufficientest and most honest and godly men in the Congregation ought to be chosen by the heads of families to be adjoyned in Commission as assistants to the Minister in the spiritual Regiment of the Souls of that Congregation of which he is the Pastor 4. They hold that every Church hath power to Elect her own Officers to censure or depose them as they shal deserve and that this power ought not to be taken from them though they grant also that the King or Supream Magistrate hath Authority to Command and by Civil Mulcts to compel them to make due Elections to amend undue ones and so to cause them to restore such Officers Engl. Purit ch 2. pag. 5. as may be unjustly rejected by them c. They hold that every established Church ought as a special Prerogative by which she is endowed by Christ to have power and liberty to elect and chuse their own spiritual and Ecclesiastical Officers and that it is a greater wrong to have any forced upon them against their wills then if they should force upon them wives and upon women husbands against their will and liking And Position 6. They hold that if in this choice any particular Churches shall erre that none upon earth but the Civil Magistrate hath power to controle or correct them for it and that though it be not lawful for him to take away this power from them yet when they or any of them shall apparently abuse the same he stands bound by the Law of God and by vertue of his Office grounded upon the same to punish them severly for it and to force them under civil mulsts to make better choice Protest pos 26. We hold that these Ecclesiastical Officers being so chosen by the Church or congregation are to exercise over the said congregation only a spiritual jurisdiction and power c. Then they shew the manner of proceeding in censuring private Members when they offend and then adde If any one of the Ecclesiastical Officers themselves shall sin he is subject to the censures of
of peace which the Dr. now magnifies after their Death but was in their life time as little accounted of as ours at this day they being alwaies charged with breaking the peace of the Church I say all their desire of peace did not oblige them to comply with those things which they thought unlawful either in themselves or at least in their time and Circumstances 3. I infer That when they were rejected for Non-Conformity they still reckoned themselves the rightful Pastors of their Congregations and that their Right or Relation was not taken away only that they were forcibly kept from the enjoyment of their right and the discharge of the Duties of their Relation And thus much appears from Mr. Bradshaw's Letter cited by the Dr. giving the Reason why they must leave their People and not Preach to them when deprived because this were to run upon the Sword of the Civil Magistrate who would not suffer himself to be so despised as that they whom he commanded to be silent should yet publickly preach in contradiction to his Command there is nothing of fear of Schism in the case but a prudent yielding to the times and of two evils chosing the less i. e. to do what good they could privately to their People and Neighbours as their own words cited do shew rather then by Preaching publickly to hazzard the bringing an open Persecution upon themselves and their people p. 1. Sec. Sect. 16 17. All that the Dr. hath quoted let it be considered it proves no more then this that they did not think it prudence in their Time and Circumstances to Preach publickly when silenced for fear of provoking the Magistrate against them and giving occasion to those that used to slander them especially to King James as Enemies to the Kings Supremacy They also modestly added that the word might be Preached as well yea perhaps better by others then by them though their Parishes seldom found it so All this was but a prudential Reason proves no difference betwixt their Principles and Ours Let us next consider their practice The Dr. tells us Ibid. That the Old Non-Conformists thought it unlawful for private Persons to endeavour Reformation of the Church contrary to the will of the civil Magistrate this he thinks condemns the practice of the present Non-Conformists But Bishop Bancroft giveth another account of this matter viz. That it was resolved amongst the Non-Conformists after many years waiting Dang posit book 3. chap. 3. and chap. 8. and when they saw their admonitions to the Parliament 1570 had no effect that then they should endeavour to reform each one in their own places yet so as by all means to preserve the peace of the Kingdom which accordingly they did pursue in their several Synods Classical Provincial and National from the year 1572 and forward having at length composed a Book of Discipline Ann. 1583 which was revised by several Synods and at length perfected and according to it they did order themselves and frame their Congregations till all was discovered and stopt by Arch Bishop Whitgift let us hear their own words Protest pos 30. We hold it utterly unlawful for any Christian Churches whatsoever by any armed force or power against the will of the civil Magistracy and State under which they live to erect and set up in publick the true Worship and Service of God or to beat down or suppress any Superstition or Idolatry that shall be countenanced or maintained by the same only every man is to look to himself that he communicate not with the evils of the times enduring what it shall please the State to inflict and seeking by all honest and peaceable means all Reformation of publick abuses only at the hands of civil publick persons Vid. 3B ch 1. chap. 10. and all practises contrary to these we condemn as Seditious and sinful Bishop Bancroft makes it the design of his whole 3d. Book to shew that the English Non-conformist did after the example of the Scots endeavour Reformation contrary to or without the will of the civil Magistrate By this it is manifest that the attempts for Reformation which they condemned were 1. Such as were by force and Armes Do we defend any such The Gospel was planted and must be propagated by Preaching the VVord and bearing the Cross 2. Attempts for publick reformation either throughout the Nation or in other Churches besides their own or to bring their practise and way of worship into the publick view contrary to the will of the Magistrate especially if he were a Christian And this is all that the example of the Primitive Churches under Heathen Emperours doth prove for they did keep their Assemblies and Worships in private and maintain them to the death against the Laws and will of those Princes but they did not ordinarily bring them into publick to affront the Magistrates to their faces yet when they lived under mild Princes and had a kind of tacite connivance they met publickly as appears by the question brought to Alexander Severus by the Cooks in Rome who laid claim to a publick Hall which the Christians used for their Worship and the Mild Emperour assigned it to the Christians saying it was better that any God should be worshipped there then that it should be a place devoted to Excess and Riot Euseb eccl hist Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2 and by degrees the Christians had many Beautifull Churches which Dioclesian caused to be demolished and the Christians much bewailed it yea Mr. Mead contends that even from Nero's time the Christians had Churches or publick places appointed for their Worship And Mr. Nich. Fuller maintains the same opinion in his Miscellanies grounding it on the fore-quoted place of Eusebius Tract an 1 Cor. Ch. 11. ver 22. They who maintained every Congregation to be a distinct Church having full power within themselves and their Ministers to be compleat Pastours must needs allow that every Congregation must have an intrinsick power of reforming and regulating themselves though it should be managed with all reverence and respect to the Magistrate and publick order But the Non-Conformists judgment in this will better appear by their practise under the restraints that were laid upon them by Laws and Canons in the beginning of Q. Eliz. about 5 years Conformity was not pressed the Liturgy seemed to be put as a bound to extravagant humors as many Civil Laws be but not as a Snare to the Conscientious But when it was perceived that the Non-Conformists encreased in number and power with the people subscription to the 39 Artic. without any limitation was urged 1562 and many who had been Sufferers and Exiles in Q. Maries Days refused to subscribe amongst whom was the pious Mr. Fox as saith Dr. Fuller and from this time Mr. Ball dates the Miseries of our Church Ball agst Can. saying whilst they walked in peace God blessed them with peace there was no division Papists came to our
help their People and in the mean while Popery Arminianism Atheism and prophaness break in like a torrent now whether there is as much reason that the present Non-Conformists should keep as private as the former did the Reader must judge Obj. But the Dr. saith the old Non-Conformists earnestly opposed the Brownists Answ And so do many of the present Non-Conformists also the Brownists had two dangerous Positions or Principles peculiar to themselves 1. That there was no true Church in England nor indeed in the whole world but that all Churches in respect of their Doctrine Worship Ceremonies Constitution and Order or some of these were Idolatrous and Antichristian and that therefore no man that minded his Salvation ought to continue a member of them or to hold Communion with them as Churches though they might Communicate with particular Members or with the Society as a Company of private men Praying or otherwise Worshipping God together provided nothing was then used or done which they disliked 2. The Brownists taught that the people had the whole power of Government of the Church and that the Ministers were but the Peoples Deputies in Preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments or exercising of Discipline and must be accountable to them These Principles destructive of all Churches the Non-Conformists earnestly opposed especially the first sc separation from all the Reformed Churches as Antichristian For by preventing of this they would prevent the other mischiefs but in maintaining the Churches of England to be true Churches did they the Prelaticall Nationall Church in respect of the Established constitution which themselves had so often called Antichristian It is manifest by their Books and what is forequoted of their opinions that they meant it of the several Parishes or Congregations in England that they were true Churches both in respect of their Constitution and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship and that there was in them no such intolerable corruptions as that all Christians should fly from them nevertheless when the Ministers in particular Parishes were more then ordinary defective and unprofitable they allowed and encouraged the people to resort to Neighbour Parishes for better means of edification which Mr. Hildersham defends to be Lawful Lect. upon John Page 227. All this is the sence of the present Non-Conformists and I do verily believe there are no more Brownists among the present Non-Conformists Ministers then there were amongst them in those days for some there were then that went further then the rest in Principles of Separation and so it is in all times and all matters of controversie and what considerable difference is there betwixt their allowing people to go to other Parishes or Gentlemens Chappels and our allowing them to go to private Meetings seeing one takes them off from their own Pastor and Church as much as the other The Dr. saith they still kept the same Liturgy and so they held Communion with the National Church nay but many times they did not that for some the Old Puritan Preachers used it not in their Parishes or Chappels others but little of it others would Baptize without the Cross give the Sacrament without kneeling Marry without the Ring c. which made people resort to them who could not have such Liberty at home and so they varified from if not omitted the Liturgy of the Church but can a man be a Member of the National Church of England and hold Communion with it without being a Member of a particular Parish and if they be allowed to continue members of their own Parishes and not to make a Schism who did in cases of necessity and pro tempore mostly Communicate with Neighbour Parishes why may not the same be said now yea it is said and beleived by most of the Non-Conformists that the Parishes are true Churches of Christ and they do not separate from them or break off Membership though pro tempere and for the present necessity they do ordinarily Communicate in private Meetings where the same Doctrine and Worship is used only some circumstances and ceremonies omitted but no contrary or new ones used in their room or in opposition to those in the Parishes and thus much for the Old Non-Conformists from whom I do not conceive those that are now living do considerably differ in judgment or practise but only as time and circumstances do direct them only they that are dead are out of the way and so best spoken of and they that are living crossing the humours or interests of their opposites are always ill spoken of Obj. 2. The Dr. next objects that we contradict the Principles of the Assembly of Divines who did disapprove and gave reasons against the toleration desired by the Congregational Brethren as tending to endless Separation Answ The Toleration desired was that all men should have liberty to joyn with what Congregation and Pastor they pleased without respect to Parish or place of abode or any other civil distribution or settlement of men amongst us Their chief reasons was that Christians being not originally bound to Nations places or any other Civil Distribution but left free to joyn with those Congregations that they should find most convenient and edifying and now Episcopal Government in England being dissolved and no other set up in its room the People were again free and therefore might make what Congregations or Societies they found most for their own edification see Dr. Owen of Schism This the Assembly thought not reasonable that things should be unravelled into their first Principles and that we should begin to lay the Foundation of Churches again seeing our Parishes at least those that have good Ministers have all things necessary to a Church and it is most convenient for Christians Living in a Vicinity and under the same Civil Officers to make the same Congregation for Worship nor did they think the former Relation of Parishes to be dissolved by the dissolution of the Hierarchy who were no essential parts of the Parishes but general Supervisors or Visitors over them of the same mind are the most part of the Non-Conformists still and all the Congregational men went not that way some allowing all those Parishes that had good Ministers and some Christians fit for all acts of Church Communion to be true Churches Mr. Cotten adds way of the Churches of New-England that it is great presumption to say that the Church of England was faulty in its first Constitution and therefore to be pull'd to pieces and new-built seeing all Histories agree that some of the Apostles or Apostolical men were the first Planters of the Gospel in England who did certainly constitute the Churches in a right manner But where is the Consequence to our purpose that because the Assembly and we as well as they maintain that the Parishes of England are true Churches and not to be subverted therefore when Thousands of their Ministers are violently thrust out from them without any cause given and if they had
meet within the City the people assisted in carrying the Materials and setting up the Church in the Suburbs yea saith Socrates the people would have been admitted into their Communion if the Novatians had been willing and we may observe in History the Novatians never ceased till the clamours against them as dangerous and intollerable persons were at end and little or no notice were taken of them Indeed could it be proved that any particular Church under the Gospel whether National Diocesan or Parochial was of the same constitution with the Church of the Jews that all Christians were bound to be Members of it or all that live within their Precinct or at least all that once have been Members are indispensably bound to continue so then it were a damning sin to separate from them But when it is Originally as free for every Christian to choose his Church as to choose the place of his abode and nothing but the convenience of his own edification in the first place and next the edification of the Neighbourhood obligeth him to joyn with and to continue in this or that particular Church it can be no sin of so high a nature though it be blame-worthy for him to withdraw without just reason 3. Say that all Separation is as great a sin as our Author would insinuate what means doth he prescribe to prevent it why he saith all men are bound to do and submit to all things that are lawfull to preserve the peace and to prevent the dividing of the Church True all things that are really Lawfull but not to all that the imposers say are lawfull if men must judge for themselves what is Lawfull absolutely and what not and what is Lawfull or not in their circumstances will not this open a door for Separation as much as any thing his opposites have said he blames them for allowing people to separate upon pretence of their Ministers insufficiency or scandal or interruption on them againist their wills for doubtfull ceremonies for modes of Worship for want of Discipline or right Constitution of the Church and saith which is his most plausible arguments that some of these the Papists might have retorted upon our first Reformers and all such pretences would justifie the Ancient Schismes and make way to endless Separation for the future But he wrongs these Authors which is a common shift almost to all that write on this subject when he intimates that they allow Separation upon any pretence of such causes Is there no difference betwixt pretending and really proving the gross insufficiency errours or scandals of a Minister or gross usurpations over mens Consciences and Liberty do any prudent men allow Separation without good cause full proof all endeavours of amendment patient waiting and mature advice and consideration of all circumstances what then is there no preventing endless Separation but Tyranny over mens Consciences that they shall be compell'd to approve and do whatsoever their Rulers please as the Papists teach yes the Dr's final determination is Page 208. A prudent and due submission in Lawfull things is a medium betwixt Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation what is here more then any Brownist will grant that understands himself viz. that as Rulers must not Tyrannize over Mens Consciences so the people must not be given to endless Separation and that the way to prevent both is that the Rulers rule with due and prudent Discipline and that the people yield prudent and due submission and that this Government and submission be exercised only in Lawfull things But still must not the people in submitting as well as the Governours in Ruling judge whether things be Lawfull or not whether submission be due and how farr and in what cases it is prudent to yield or to deny it if the people must not judge then you establish a Tyranny over their Consciences that they must approve what ever their Rulers command or Hobbisme that they must do what ever their Rulers command though they beleive it to be sinfull or inconvenient if the people must judge for themselves in the things that concern them then they must judge of the insufficiency of their Minister the Legallity of his call and the like but how then hath the Dr. put a stop to Separation more then they may not men pretend things required to be unlawfull submission not to be due nor prudent and so without end Their Arguments therefore are but Sophismes like those that plead against all certainty of sense or reason because many men are certain i. e. confident when they are mistaken that a man cannot be sure he seeth heareth or feeleth because he hath many times thought he did so in his dream when it was no such thing as there is a certain way of proving that men are awake and use their sences so there is as certain a way to prove by plain Scripture when Ministers are insufficient when impositions are unlawfull when it is necessary to withstand usurpation on the Churches Priviledges c. what ever Sophisters will cavil against it and if men will pretend cause of Separation when there is none or manifestly insufficient or but dubious they may be convicted and if they separate bear their blame but whilst men are subject to mistake to passion and partiallity which will be till our Lord come what shall put a stop to Separation but necessary moderation in Rulers in imposing one reverence in the people in submitting and meekness towards those who notwithstanding all care weakly or peevishly may dissent in things that are tolerable This Learned man hath not shewed us nor the experience of Fifteen Hundred Years the Popish Cruelty could not prevent Separations Episcopal Authority could not prevent them The Donatists and Novatians had their Bishops imposing Uniformity in Ceremonies could not the First Division in the Christian Church rose about the keeping of Easter-day if people offend against the plain Rule of Scripture or the plain Rule of good Government and Order let them be punished according to their Offences but not for things doubtfull in Scripture or burthensome in Government if men offend in lesser matters and cannot be convinced let them be born with till inconvenience be seen to arise from such Clemency and then it is time enough to retract or retrench it if this were not dayly done in Nations and Families no Civil Society could stand how then shall the contrary severity establish the Church Obj The Dr. objects the Reformers taught that where there is soundness in Doctrine and Worship people ought not to separate from a Church for lesser defects real or apparent and that they insisted on the corruption of Doctrine and Worship as the only cause of their Separation from Rome Answ 1. Doctrine and Worship are indeed the chief things in a Church for if God be truly worshipped and his knowledge be truly taught mens lives will be bettered and their Souls saved by it but then it must not
Preferment that is not Episcopally Ordained besides all other Subscriptions Now the Communion of Churches lieth in admitting of Ministers to officiate in each others Churches sometimes as well as in admitting the People to lay-Communion as in the famous instance of Victor and Polycarpus at Rome celebrating the Sacrament together Let us unite at home and then there may be hope we shall unite with our Neighbours CHAP. IV. The grounds of the Non-Conformists present practises THE Dr. spends the whole 3d. part of his Book in confuting the Pleas for Separation from the Church of England and gathering new Churches which I shall leave to those whom it concerns and shall only say that all these disputes do really increase and not hinder Separation by laying open the first Principles of Government to the People and filling their heads with Notions and Disputes about things whereof they are not competent Judges Moderation in Governing and not disputes about Governments doth most dispose the People to Obedience and quiet Submission and as in Commonwealths when People have not the Protection of their Governours or the Benefit of their Laws and just Priviledges rigorous proceedings dispose them to defection and to study Arguments to defend it from the natural principles of self-preservation and the peoples interest in all Government by their Primitive consent to it and their successive approbation of it So rigorous Impositions in the Church without any condescention in Governours upon just complaints will at last make the People weary of forbearing and search for all pleas whereby they may defend themselves in shaking off the Yoke and then it will little avail their Rulers either to their profit honour or peace of their Consciences to cry out upon Rebellion or Schism when they have lost the people Our present practise in Preaching though ejected and forbidden is not grounded on nor need be supported by these or any other pleas for Separation The general sence of the Non-Conformists both Ministers and People leaving to particular Persons their particular sentiments as the Church of England also doth to many of her Members is this 1. That the Parishes of England generally are true Churches both as to the matter of them the People being Christians and not to be excluded from Church-Communion and as to the form of them their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine or manners do not deserve to be degraded 2. That the Doctrine Worship and Sacraments in these Parishes are for substance sound and wholesome though there are some offensive things mixed in them and annexed to them 3. That they are still Members of these Parishes the people of those where they live and the Ministers so far as not to be obliged to set up distinct and permanent Churches nevertheless they think themselves bound to joyn together for the Worship of God according to their own Consciences and publick allowance for some years past desiring and waiting for an opportunity to return fully to the Parish-Communion when ever it shall please their Rulers to condescend to their reasonable request in relaxing or removing those things which are so offensive to them and in this their practise they judge they do no more then the Primitive Churches often did when erroneous or otherwise unfit Pastours were obtruded on them or other differences arose amongst them whereupon the Congregations were often divided as in Rome Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople with divers other places and then when those offences and differences were removed they returned to full eommunion again or as did the Church of Israel when by Jeroboams Apostacy they could not go up to Jerusalem with safety or other times could not communicate there because of Corruptions under some Kings of Judah who then held private Assemblies for the present necessity and when all obstacles were removed again went up to Jerusalem even many of the Ten Tribes in Hezekiah and Josiah's time when their own Idolatrous Princes were removed and they could do it without danger though they were still subject to Idolatrous Conquerors but such who lived remote and gave them more Liberty of Religion then their own Princes did We judge our case to be like a case of necessary self defence where present necessity is the Guide and Law-giver and ordinary Laws and orders which are proper for times of peace are in a great measure supersedent When a Kingdom is invaded or divided within it self all things threaten ruine it is lawful for the people to gather into several Bodies to possess Garrisons to chose them Leaders and for fit men to undertake their conduct though without though contrary to some present commands that may be unduly obtained and given yet they shall incur no guilt of Sedition nor Rebellion so long as they design nothing but the preservation of themselves and the whole as far as they can and are ready to return to their own places so soon as peace shall give them leave When an Army is in danger to be betrayed by the falsehood or division of the principal Officers or when it hath lost its Generals in some defeat it would not be accounted mutiny for the Soldiers to run together as they can and with the help of inferiour Officers to preserve themselves from being sold or destroyed provided they still retain a resolution of returning to the Body of the Army when they may with safety to the whole and to themselves Thus the Non-Conformists lie under such a necessity they conceive for the Reasons laid down in the former part ch 6 and 7. which it may not be amiss for a conclusion briefly to sum up 1. There is now no reason to be pretended for the imposed Conformity In K. Edw. dayes the Bishops their Clergy and People made it necessary to retain what was then retained now 't is not so generally desired In Queen Elizabeths days there was hopes of winning of the Papists by our moderation now there is none but more danger of their incroaching upon us by it 2. The Dissenters from this Conformity were heretofore but few now they are a very considerable part of the Church I will make no comparison Formerly the Ministers were generally censured as Puritans and were but few the people likewise but two or three in a great Town now they are Multitudes and those who are zealous for Conformity appear fewer then those who would be glad to have it reproved at least in all places that are most civilized 3. Conformity hath occasioned a woful Division and Scandal in our Church ever since the Reformation and therefore ought not after so much Experience of the evil of it and also after plain evidence of benefit and advantage to Religion by the removal of it for some years to have been again so rigorously enjoyned 4. The things in Question though not of the highest nature in themselves yet by occasion of the Division they cause at home and the advantage the Papists make of it have endangered our