in your own practice and let the World and your brethren know it and propose your advice and example to your brethren so seasonably in it I cannot but a little reflect upon those words of yours p. 100. But though I will not bind my self take heed of that I here tell the World if opportunity I would sometimes pray freely without forms and sometimes use some part of the Common Liturgy and sometime use the Reformed Liturgy which in 1600. was agreed on by Commissioned Non-Conformists though being done in exream hast it should be review'd and perfected But why would you not use all these at once then 't is like some body would be pleased In earnest must the Liturgy established by Law and so long practice obtain no more with you than the other two waies mentioned Speak plain were the Non-Conformists then Commissioned for that purpose to make a new Liturgy as you do more than intimate Really me thinks untill this new one be amended you should prefer our Liturgy which was made by as good men and with less haste and more deliberation But you may have some peculiar reason why you would honour this Reformed Liturgy as you call it pray what is it Because it is new or because you are for change or for a third reason you wot of Indeed Novelty Change and Property are three great Arguments with some men that are no small pretenders to Antiquity Resolution and self-denial But all this concerns not you pray what are your reasons for the use of it you have told us nothing of it yet but its imperfections and I do not hear of any one hitherto that from the worth and excellency of it hath been induced to practise it your reasons may possibly draw some one or other to joine with you in that new Liturgy In the mean time pardon me in the mention of an odd passage I heard in the times of our late Confusions what Church are you of pray one askt another I am quoth he of Mr. Barbers Church Mr. Barbers Church a Church I have not heard of before pray how many members have you truely saith he very gravely we have none yet but him and I but we hope we shall have more CHAP. XVII More direct proof that this practise is Schysm With considering the principles upon which they seperate I Shall fix my foot and prove more directly that such seperation without Just ground is plain Schysm in all the Notion of Schysm we have hitherto received in the Church of God without any such consideration of the Brownists principles denying the truth of the Churches or Ministery or lawfulness of the worship from which such seperation was made 1. First in the Scriptures Schysm is condemned with dividing the Church into parties forsaking the Assembling of our selves together seperating themselves drawing disciples after them creeping into Houses and leading silly women Captive and the like without any such thing as cuestioning much less denying the truth of those Churches Ministry or Worship as is evident beyond all dispute and to a plain Demonstration in those Schysmaticks in the Church of Corinth who kept in their publique Assemblies and indeed preferred one of their Ministers in the same Church before the rest but denied not any of them except to hear them and that was their Schysm though they complained not against either the Constitution of their Church or the corruptions in it which yet were great and many both in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as is well known Yea though the Ministers in Corinth walked in love together and carried on the same work of Christ as you pretend with us and made no such attempts of drawing parties from their brethren to themselves and had no hand at all in the Schysm that we read of but the great Apostle himself dislikes and protests against it because only the people too much admired some to the dislike of others of their Ministers they are charged with Schysm as before was noted 2. Shortly after we have an account of Schism from Ignatius and what was it but a not owning or submiting to the Government of their proper Bishops and Pastors without any ill reflections or denials of their office or the truth of their Churches or any such thing 3. Next we read of that great Schysm both of the Eastern and Western Churches for neither could be freed from the charge of it about the time of the celebration of Easter upon this slight occasion without any of the said Brownistical principles they seperated from by refusing Communion with one another for many years together and though the occasion was so very slight it is noted for a great yea therefore for the greater Schysm in Church story 4. After this we read of the Schysm of Donatism this though it spread and run very deep into Naughty and much like to our later Seperation-principles about the Church at last yet at first it was occasioned by a contention about the Bishoprick of Cecilianus and therefore branded with the name of Schysm especially when the Donatists much like our late Sectaries refused Communion with the Church because corruptions were tollerated contending that they were the only pure Church and spouse of Christ and this is little otherwise than what at present is pretended by such as would not be called Separatists 5. The great ground of Schysm observed from Church story by Mr. Hales was generally contention Of Schysm p. 12. about Bishops as it is now without any Brownistical principles He notes that at first there was but one Cathedral Church in one Diocess afterwards some had two some more and it happen'd many times that these Cathedrals had distinct Bishops and these by their differences many times came to have distinct Churches and these Churches refused to communicate with one another for the sake of their Bishops which was called Schysm though it was no Brownism it was a seperation very like to ours in our parish-Parish-Churches this was saith St. Cyprian Erigere altare contra Altare and to this doth that father impute as Mr. Hales further observes all Church-disorders and if you read him you would think he thought no oâ—her Church-tumult to be Shysm but this Indeed Schysm is any unwarrantable breach of unity in the Church of God where you find this you find Schysm let the occasion be what it will t is a sinful practice dividing the Church by our selves or others and lies not in the reason of that practice unless it be considerable for the excuse of it as all Divines consent Heare St. Austine Schysma Contr Faust l. 20. c. 3. de fid oper c. 3. contr Cres gr l. 2. c. 7. est c. Schysm is a late dissention or disagreement of a Congregation arising from some Diversity in â—pinion no matter what it be And again more full to our purpose Shysmatieos facit non diversa fides sed Communionis disrupta societas Do you ask what is
any think it more proper to Radicate this Vnion in his Grace of Canterbury as Primate over all England or whether in both the arch-Arch-Bishops who hold Communion in the same Doctrine Worship and Laws and in whom both the Provinces are Vnited or lastly whether we are not rather United in all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England as the Pars Regens and our Government in the Church considered purely and abstractly from the Civil Government be not rather an Aristocracy than a Monarchy Whether this or the other be the true to know it is not necessary nor of any use that I can perceive in the present Controversy But it is a certain Vanity to say because I cannot find the Head I will deny the Body though I must withal deny my own Senses Because you cannot know certainly who was your Father will you deny your Mother which is the surer side There is a Church of Englâ—nd and what it is I have endeavoured to shew and by the Nature of it we may more easily conclude what Schism from it is and who are guilty of this whether such as Separate and Gather Churches or not CHAP. VIII What Schism from the Church of England is and whether gathering of Churches aâ— now is practised be not guilty of it 1. WHat is Schism from the Church of England sure it is not a denying its Doctrine or holding any thing contrary thereunto he that holdeth perversum Dogma only is an Ad Tit. cap. 3. Heretick no Schismatick as St. Hierom teacheth Mr. Newcomen a learned Presbyterian as I observed in my last le ts the Separatists know that their agreeing with us and the Reformed Churches in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity so long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For he cites Beza another learned Annotat. in 1 Cor. 1. 10. Presbyterian So that you may be willing to subscribe to the 39. Articles and yet be Schismaticks from the Church of England It remains therefore that such Schism relates to the other Bands of our union and fellowship with this Church to wit her Government and Worship and consequent to the latter her Members and Assemblies Thus you see we must return to our first determination that Schism from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or a dissolving our union and communion with her in her Governors and Members Worship or Assemblies This is the least that we mean by Schism from the Church of England and is called Separation or Schism negative which is made positive and more formally such when those that have so separated set up their Altar against hers and erect other Congregations in opposition to hers The Schismatick by Dr. Hamond Of Schism Epist 40. out of Ignatius is described to be Filius impius c. An impious Son which having contemned the Bishops and forsaken the Priests of God dares constitute another Altar And again Epist 57. the Schismaticks are they that having left their Bishop set up for themselves abroad another false Bishop and all their adherents are involved in the same guilt who joyn with the Schismaticks against their Bishops Two things here must be supposed 1. That we are the pars subdita and do ow this communion and obedience to these Governors of the Church 2. That they impose no unlawful conditions of this communion upon us though if they should how far we may separate must take its measure from such impositions which is another Question to be discussed anon in another place and at present I shall only add that so far as I understand my Answerer so far as the people are concerned in the conditions of our communion we are not likely to differ much in this point But for the first of these suppositions if there be any force in Scripture precepts requiring obedience to our spiritual Guides or in Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws which are very severe to that purpose nothing can be more evident than that all English Christians do owe communion and obedience to the Governors of the Church of England whose Government stands established by both sorts of Laws and is so acknowledged by the Declaration it self And your Friend Mr. Baxter is Defence of his Cure p. 76. not obscure in this point We must own saith he a National Church as it is improperly so denominated from the King that is the Civil Head and as it is a community of Christians and a part of the Universal Church Vnited by the Concord of Her Pastors who in Synods may represent the whole Ministry and be the means of their Agreement He saith we must own the National Church I say then we must not disown Her And must we not likewise own the King as the Head thereof and all the Bishops and Pastors and Governors under Him And then what liberty is left us to disown deny or renounce their Persons or Authority Let such especially as have taken the Oath of Supremacy and received Ordination from Episcopal hands yet better consider those solemn Obligations upon them added to the Laws and take heed in earnest of Perfidiousness and Perjury Let them consider what is to renounce all foraign Jurisdiction and to their power to assist and defend all Jurisdiction Spiritual as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness and how well a renouncing Obedience to the Government of the Church consists with that which we have sworn therein It is true all are not called actually to take this Oath yet it is as true that the Ministers and Officers of all Sorts generally are and all Graduates in the Vniversity and for others as they are the Kings Subjects they are unquestionably taken to be under the same Obligation as to the matter of it and are born to the Duty as well as the Priviledge of Subjects of this Realm and therefore we find that this Oath is Administred not only to Oblige but rather as a Test to trie and also to secure the fidelity of such as take it as is evident in the Statute Again let all Ministers Ordained by Bishops I hope I have now to do with one in the Name of God seriously consider what they promised to do at their Ordination being most solemnly interogated by the Bishop in the Name of God and of his Church as the words are More particularly the Bishop demands Will you then give your faithful diligence always for to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath Commanded and as This Church and Realm hath received the Same according to Commandments of God so that you may teach the People committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the Same What Answer did you make hereunto I will do so by the help of the Lord. And thus you at once acknowledge that the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline
of Christ as received by this Church are according to Gods Commandments and that you would give your faithful diligence always so to Minister them as this Church hath received them and lastly that with all diligence you would teach your People to observe the Same Again the Bishop demands Will yoll reverently Obey your Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom is committed the Charge and Government over you following with a glad Mind and Will their Godly Admonitions and submitting your selves to their Godly Judgment What did you Answer to this I will do so the Lord being my Helper Wherein you both acknowledge the Government of the Church over you and promise Obedience thereunto And it is no pleasure to me to observe that one that I dare not suspect not to be thus Ordained should notwithstanding these sacred Obligations seem even to Print to Glory that he never took the Oath of Canonical Obedience which is to obey his Ordinary in all honest and lawful things Thus for the Ministers and for the People were they not generally Baptized by the Ministers and according to the Order and in the Publick places of the Church of England Have they not since given their Consent as Members by their publick attendance upon the Worship of the Church of England Have they not generally owned for a considerable time together some many years that relation to their particular Churches and Pastors Is all this nothing to signifie their Vnion with our Church and Obligation to her Government Is it nothing in our Authors Judgement I cannot believe it I am sure 't is something in Mr. Baxters Opinion as I shall shew anon But wherein are we obliged to obey our Governours as we are Members of the Church of England The measure of this Obedience are the Laws and Canons and the Rubrick in the Liturgy and the main Scope and intention of all these is to direct you how you are to Worship God in our Parochial Assemblies as also to demean your selves in all due Reverence to your Superiours and Brotherly love and fellowship together as Members of the same Body the Church of England And to dissolve or renounce this our Communion with our Brethren as well as with Governours in those Assemblies and in that Worship is so far to renounce that Communion which we ow and is due from us all to the Church of England and is that thing which is deservedly branded with the black Name of Schisme from the Church of England which is the other Branch of that Schisme before mentioned especially if the Deriders proceed to the Erecting of Anti Churches as Mr. Baxter properly calls them For our several Parochial Assemblies are Parts and Members of the Great Body of our Church into which the Church is divided for our Convenient Worshiping of God as you heard in the Definition wherein all individual persons are bound to attend upon Gods Worship according to the foresaid Rules quatenus Members of this Church of England But I shall have an occasion to speak largly of Schisme from particular Congregations in another place and at present would fain hope that some thing hath been said to shew what Schisme from the Church of England is This is the Sum. Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from Her in Her Governours Members Worship or Assemblies Which and much more is done by those that dispise her Government renounce her Worship and Communion with Her Mombers in the Publick places of it and Erect New Congregations for a new manner of Worship and Discipline under other Governours in opposition thereunto according to the Laudable practises now on foot By this time I hope my Answerer sees after his long and ranging Scrutiny for the discovery of this Schism and all in vain how pertinently he demands p. 38. Is every difference in things unnecessary from the Major part a Schism from them Again p. 39. 'T is our disobedience to the Church that is our Schism This he saies and then quickly wipes it off with his own pleasant Answer But Fidelity to our King commandeth the disowning of Vsurpers But I might spoil his Mirth should I examine his meaniâ—g Again p. 40. he cries out Whoever took any Act of Disobedience in a Circumstance to be a Schism But in earnest had not these little frisks and extravagancies been happily prevented had he heeded me at first is a sinful dividing from the Church in Her Government and Worship and setting up Churches in opposition to Her in both is this no more than a difference in things unnecessary from the Major part or than a bare Act of Disobedience in a Circumstance I know you will not say it and 't is vain to say that you intend no more I wrote against those that do What has he more to Answer Why the Schism I mention p. 39. is not such as Martin and Gildas made what then if it be worse it is not such You should rather have compar'd your Brethren in this new Worke to the other Martin called Mar-Prelate But this Martin you say Renounced Communion with the Bishops and their Synods all his life who had prosecuted the Prissillianists with the Secular Sword and Gildas pronounced him no excellent Christian that called the Brittish Clergy in his time Priests or Ministers and not Traitors as he did himself yet neither of these holy men are called Seperatists or Schismaticks What follows might they not be Schismatickâ— though they were not called so You will find some advantage by the Argument for I have not called you so yet Perhaps Gildas might be bold with his Brethren and call them Traitors but if unjustly 't was ill done though no Schisme If justly there may be Proditores found of your acquaintance too I make no doubt though if you do not urge me much I shall not call them so You do not think that time is returned upon us and that he hath not the Character of an excellent Christian that hath not the gift of calling the Priests Traitors So much for Gildas But for his Companion Martin I might have given him Courser Entertainment had it not been for the kindness of Another Gildas that not long since spake more in his favour than you do now His words on his behalf are these I have told you in the story of Martin how he seperated from the Synods of those Individual Baxters Defence p. 76. Bishops and from their Local Communion without Seperation from the Office the Churches or any other Bishop And then for ought I know Martin might be a good honest fellow Do you all the rest that he did and by my consent you should be excused from sitting in Synods For Martin it seems denied not Communion with the Churches much less set up an Altar and Church of his own in opposition to them If he had done so I would have said he had been a Rank Schismatick though I spare you It is confest that the
is only Cameron de Schis simplex secessio when men do peaceably and quietly withdraw their communion from the Church in part or in whole to enjoy their consciences in a private way The other called positive seperation is when persons thus withdrawn do gather into a distinct and opposite body setting up a Church against a Church to worship God in a seperated way themselves which St. Augustine calls a setting up Altar against Altar alluding to that act of King 2 King 16. Ahaz in setting up an Altar of his own making after the fashion of that which he saw at Damascus besides the Lord's Altar And this is it saith Cameron and most that write upon the point which in a peculiar manner and by way of eminency is and deserves to be called by the name of Schism Thus we see that gathering our selves into new Churches is the complement and perfection of Schism the very Apex extrema Schismatis linea as Cameron speaks This evil as I lately hinted hath its beginnings and usually goes on by degrees to this perfection In the Church of Corinth it first began with a factious esteeming of one Minister above another One saith I His Def. of Prin◠of Con. p. 2. am of Paul c. at length it came to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Mr. Baxter renders emulation strife and separation or factions or dividing into several parties This appeared somewhat higher Chap. 11. for they would not eat their Love-Feasts and Pareus thinks they would not eat the Lord's Supper together but those that were for Paul would communicate among themselves so those that were for Apollos and those that were for Peter And though they did not gather themselves into stated Congregations or absolutely seperate into several Churches for they came together though to little Chap. 11. purpose yet their divisions are not only called Schism but a despising the Church of God But if this progress of Schism was so smartly rebuked we may the less wonder to find the Apostles so very severe against the Gnosticks and those more perfected Schismaticks that afterwards drew Disciples after them wholly from the Church and made false Apostles and Anti-Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extra terminos Ecclesiae educentes Oecumenius segregantes fideles a fidelibus and Clem. Alex. making distinct and seperate and opposite parties and meetings for the worship of God Mr. Hale observes these two things make Schism compleat the chusing of a Bishop in opposition to the Tract of Schism p. 3. former a thing very frequent among the Ancients and which many times was the cause and effect of Schism and then the erecting of a new Church for the dividing parts to meet in publickly and this he calls Ecclesiastical sedition and Ames peccatum gravissimum a most grievous sin both in its nature and effects For Division so far as it proceeds whether in Natural Civil or Ecclesiastical Bodies is the dissolution and destruction of it CHAP. X. The differencing Nature of Schism The Answerers Objections answered especially the Preaching of the ejected Ministers I Will suppose we are agreed that the general nature of Schism is such a seperation from a true Church as we have shew'd but to make it unlawful and to merit the evil and usual sence of the word it must be causless unwarrantable and as Mr. Hales term is unnecessary when it is so is to be carefully stated for this indeed is the punctum difficultatis and the very hinge upon which this controversie turns Herein that I may prepare to argue with due closeness I shall continue to aim at the sence of Presbyterians And as I have before I shall here also follow the steps of Mr. Brinsley late Minister of Yarmouth not only because his Book of Schism seems to me judicious and exact as to our point and he therein follow so excellent a person as Cameron but likewise for that he was an eminent Non-conformist as a Minister only for I have been well informed that though he ceased preaching at Bartholomew 1662. yet he kept no private meetings but ordinarily attended on the publick worship in the place where he lived besides his Book was licensed by Mr. Cranford with a sufficient commendation and was Preacht and Printed in the Presbyterian Service against the Sectaries and no doubt his Brethren of that perswasion did then heartily concur with him in the point This Mr. Brinsley p. 34 35. states the matter thus Seperation is unwarrantable either for the ground or manner the former an unjust the latter a rash seperation each a Schism wherein he follows Cameron I shall vary his method a little but keep close to his sense and then an unjust separation is two-fold either when there is no cause and it is absolutely causless or when the cause is light and not sufficient to warrant it Seperation is rash when there being cause supposed sufficient yet it is done in an undue manner 1. Separation is unjust when it is without cause given by the Church and as he enlargeth When there is no Persecution no spreading Error or Heresie no Idolatry no Superstition maintained or practised but the Church is peaceable and pure and that both for Doctrine and Worship and in a good measure free from scandals which no Church ever wholly was now in such a case to seperate is an unjust seperation and Schism If this be indeed the state of the case whether the parties think they have cause to seperate or not I think it is not much material except to aggravate their crime For if they think they have cause they are plain Seperatists and if they do not think so and yet divide the Church by a seperation causeless in their own opinion as well as truth they are far worse Neither will any wantonness of spirit of this kind though boy'd up by a distaste taken at our Guides or an higher esteem of other Teachers or pretences of greater purity much less an ill will to the state of the Church from which we shall thus seperate admit an excuse from any sober and wise man 2. There may be some causes of offence given us by our Church but they such as may by no meanes warrant a seperation cause of offence is not always cause of seperation which our Author calls a light cause He enlargeth Possibly some sleight opposition or persecution it may be by some small pecuniary Mulcts some lesser errors in Doctrine not fundamental nor near the foundation some corruptions in or about the worship of God but those not destructive to the Ordinances being not in substance but in ceremony and those such as the person offended is not enforced to be active in scandals few and those only tolerated not allowed All tolerable evils such as charity may well bear with this ground is not sufficient to bear a seperation You see he is full and particular and in all this I believe he referred in
they have hitherto set about this new experiment which it seems renders the case so difficult in your own opinion that I fear you will have cause enough to censure the rashness of their unadvised undertaking of it But now to the Scales wherin we must weigh 1. The Benefits to be hoped 2. The evils to be feared will follow such gathering Churches You pitch upon three great Benefits 1. The pleasing of God when we know it is his will and the profit of mens souls by the most regular manner of discipline and Worship But be sure you know it is his Will you your self make it very difficult to know this even for the Teachers how much more for the people The same Argument will put us upon the Reformation of the State too when we know it is Gods will This we know to be Gods will that we serve God the best we can in our places that we move for a Reformation in a peaceable and regular way that we preserve the unity and Communion of the Church That we obey our Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors these things we know to be Gods will and we know that he is not the God of Confusion but of order in his Churches and what tends to disorder and confusion we know it is not Gods will but how we shall know that it is his will we should reform the Church upon our own heads and therefore Seperate from true Churches and gather Churches in order to better Worship and discipline if so it prove this we know not 2. The second Benefit is the setting up an imitable Example of right Discipline and worship to other Churches i. e. Setting up a Standard with the former Narrative of the grounds of the War But heads severely then woe to them that set up a worse And in your Conscience is not this woe likely to be generall how many hundred years hath our Discipline been exposed to examination and for the substance of it what part can envy it self find fault with this are the short Counsels of our new Reformers likely to mend it besides how will you do that are for Episcopacy you will not regulate that by having none or by making other Bishops I hope As for our Worship I presume the Reformed Liturgy will not take place except in yâ—ur own Congregation and sure that we have already is better than none at all as it is with your brethren of the new Churches 3. Your last benefit is a marvellous one indeed the satisfying the Consciences of honest mistaken people who think it unlawful to communicate with us i. e. we must break the Churches in pieces to feed the mistakes and ill humours of honest people if they are honest remove their mistakes teach them truth and wisdome and peace and duty and perswade them to keep their Station and Communion with us and I doubt not but that yâ—u and they will find this to be the greater benefit of the two at last as well as we You may see there is no good to be done by the practise and you in the next place see what a swarm of mischiefs attend it I shall observe the things you fear your self and indeed they are more in number weight and measure too then the benefits you mentioned 1. This mischief is likely to follow their gathering-Churches as you well observe the exasperating the minds for number and quality considerable and so alienating from their brethren and hindring them 2. Thereby weakning the Protestant Interest in a time which requireth â—ur greatest concord 3. Then setteng of parties against parties and Churches against Churches and turning of Religion into contentions and mutual oppâ—sitions 4. The countenanceing of unlawful Seperations which will all shelter themselves under such examples and the Dividers will not see the different principles on which we go while our practice seemeth to be the same 5. And so it may be injurious to future ages by seeming to give them Presidents for unlawful Seperatiâ—n 6. And it is not the least evil consequent that we shall cherish not only the error of tâ—ose that think worse of the Parish-Worship and Assemblies than there is cause but we shall also accidentally nourish their pride who will think themselves a holier people because they erroniously over-censure the persons and practices of others These are they evil consequents which you wisely forâ—see will follow these new Churches and you cannot I think prudently avoid them but by forbearing that practice and perswading your brethren to do so likewise For you confess when the publique good forbids it as no doubt it now dâ—th p. 22. The Tolerated Ministers must not gather distinct Church-Assemblies but joyn with the publique Churches and help the people by their instructions at other times And not to bâ—y up the people in their weakness which you well observe p. 23. inclineth them to causeless seperations and disâ—unctions But who shall now hold the beam let any hand but your own and I am sure the inconveniences you have mentioned must needs preponderate those shadows of benefit that the practice pretends to 'T is the known and stated judgment of the Church in all Ages that defects yea and many corruptions which you charge us not withal are far more tollerable and not so hazardous to the Church as Seperation by the breach of unity and then what shall we think of the formal and positive Schysm in gatherâ—d Churches The Novatians Audeans and Donatists had all the same pretence of better discipline and worship than the publique therefore they gathered themselves into distinct Churches for reformation and greater purity in Religion but for this they stand recorded for Schysmaticks and Pâ—sts of the Church in the writings of the Fathers and Church-Historiâ—ns You acknowledge our errors are Tollerable else you would not Communicate with us and this is a standing rule in the Church si error est Tolerabilis non â—pâ—râ—et â—erâ— Secessionem If the errors or scandals of the Châ—rch be Tolerable we ought not to leave it and what 's the reason because of the dangerous consequents that have ever followed Seperation and the beauty and Cameron de Schys holiness of unity in Religion Sir I perceive I need not endeavour to quicken your sense of the fearful effâ—cts of seperation and should I begin to speak of them there would be no end God grant we may never feel them and therefore that you and I and every man may do our proper endeavour to prevent and heal them Schysmate luxantur Pareus membra Ecclesiae Membra luxata inepta sunt ad sua muncra obcunda membra luâ—â—ta gravissimo dâ—lore corpus afficiunt P. Mart. Schysm in the Church puts the members out of joynt members out of joynt are unfit fâ—r service and cause great dolours and disquietment to the whole body What sharp contâ—nâ—ions and ruptures in the bowels of the Châ—rch what Wars and desolations in Nations hath Schysm been
I could shew to have as many real Soloecisms in it as you have noted in my whole Book But I am not careful for these things you deal more hardly with me when you lay presumption and cruelty to the Non-conformists at my door cannot I imagine that they do not only desire to escape the penalty of the Laws but erect seperate Churches to themselves but I must be an Ithacian Master and make you feel my meaning and give occasion to cry out as you do but my Brother what good will our sufferings do you do you feel your self ever the more at liberty when we are in the Common-Goales are you the fuller because some Non-Conformists want bread Is this reasonable charitable or candid what ground have you for it either in my words or deeds would you not think you had wrong'd me if some Non-Conformists should tell you that I have run some hazards and suffered in my Name for their Liberty and if a peaceable silenc'd Minister should testify that he and his Family have many years together had the greatest part of their livelyhood from my Charity But I must forbear though you provoke me least you should have just cause to impeach my Modesty and think you have cause to say that I in a sense call you Persecutor But who am I when alas the whole body of Conforming Clergy though you have said that many of them are pious able and faithfull in their places yet you more than seem to load them p. 74. with the unchristian like charge of perjury perfidiousness and persecution proud contending who shall be greatest and Covenanting never in certain points to obey Christ against the World and the Flesh And you cannot but know this is no way Argumentative unless you design'd to weaken the Affections of the people towards us and so to prepare them for a seperation which I am not willing to beleive for that I find you in many other places so earnestly perswading to the contrary Sir I do not presume to advise you but Sir if you shall think to write any more upon this matter let me beseech you seriously to consider whether your own principles and the present vile practises of seperation contrary thereunto would not more worthily and more seasonably draw your studies another way I know that the peace and reputation and Integrity of our Parochial Churches are dear to you however you were tempted to mistake me and to let some things fly some things that may chance to prejudice them more than you would There are two principles scattered up and down your Answerer that I here mainly aim at and into these indeed all its strength resolves 1. That the Non-Conformists must preach 2. That to the end the people may serve God better they may gather themselves into other Churches The first of these would not concern me in the defence of my other Book neither doth the allowance of it draw a necessity of gathering Churches as we have made to appear above the latter of them indeed lies at the bottom of all that you say against me and I have often spoken to it even where ever I met it I am now making my Petition in the Churches behalf that you would lay to heart the certain Divisions and confusions that must needs follow upon the practise of both these principles jointly received and improved by the skill of Dividers and the cunning craftiness of such as lie in wait for that purpose The first of these that they must preach give me leave to say as it is the present Engine for division is a plain cheat put upon the World and not to be countenanced by an honest man They must preach but why because of the Text because of the necessities of the people and lastly because of their Relation to their old Flocks of each a little They must preach because the Text saith there is a necessity laid upon us and wo be to us if we do not preach Ans But my Brethren what if you have no opportunity and the Churches are all full must ye preach still We have before noted from Mr. Baxter that where there is no opportunity there is no duty and consequently there is no necessity no Woe is it not plain enough that while you have no particular flock especially while the Law forbids you to have any you have no opportunity to preach publiquely can have no opportunity to be so busie in another mans Diocess nor warrant in Conscience without leave from the Laws which are still obliging notwithstanding c and the License of the Bishop or the Parochial Minister to whose people you would preach It ought to be remembred this Doctrine is perfect Brownâ—sm and condemn'd as such by the Old Non-Conformists who held and defended against the Brownists that though themselves were only suspended and had yet by Law the possession of their places and no other could lay claim to their flocks yet being only thus suspended they ought not to preach publiquely to their own people Whether suspended or degraded their Doctrine was not the necessity to preach as you and the Brownist say but to keep silent For so long said they as the Bishops suspend and deprive according to Law we account of the Action herein as of the Act of the Church if they do otherwise we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them Obj. But we think in our Consciences that the causes of our Silencing are not sufficient to justifie it This very Objection also the Brownists used to the Non-Conformists of old and received this Answer from them Ans It lies say they in them to depose that may ordain and they may shut that may open And that as he may with a good Conscience execute a ministry by the Ordination and calling of the Church who is privie to himself of some unfitness if the Church will press him to it so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserves Deprivation cease from the execution of his Ministry when he is pressed thereunto by the Church And indeed if a guiltless person put out of his charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it what proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceits are alwaies guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they also will be ready alway to object against the Churches judgment that they are called of God and may not therefore give over the execution of their Ministery at the will of Man Obj. But how shall we answer the Text woe be to us if we dâ— not preach Thus also the Brownists urged against the Non-Conformists and were thus solidly answered Ans The case now and in the Apostles times is far different First they that inhibited the Apostles were known and professed Enemies to the Gospel Secondly the Apâ—stles were charged not to teach in the name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of