Presbyterians do generally agree that the Disciplinary part or Form of Government Vid. Cawdry Indâ—pend Schisme page 172 173. is not Essential to a National Church yet they affirm that the Verity of a Natioanal Church consists in its Agreement in the same Doctrine and Worship and consequently though differences in Doctrine are not yet a breach of its Vnity and making divisions in a point of Worship is a plain Schisme from a National Church acording to the Principles of the Presbyterians Mr. Cawdrey spake not his own peculiar opinion when he said p. 178. I believe those men that raise differences in a Reforming Church he meant this National Church and persist in keeping open those Divisions Seperating also into other new Churches doe as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one Particular Church Upon the whole then you perceive how aptly you ask p. 42. Whether a Minister may not remove from one Parish to another or any man remove his dwelling into another Parish c. and be no Schismatick an old objection of Dr. Owens and answered by Mr. Cawdrey that they remove to Churches of the same Constitution a thing never questioned but alwaies allowed both by the Vnion and Custome of this National Church Again and alike pertinently you ask Whether a Seperation of one Parish from another be Schism or whether I mean by it a Local Seperation only as you gravely enquire p. 33. Or whether little differences in the modes of Worship particularly in the manner of the Ministers Prayer and he should have added in dividing his Text be Schism but he prevents my Answer by denying these himself Those that differ thus he saith and thereby doubtless very wisely and to general Satisfaction determineth these saith he p. 34. are not Seperated Churches any otherwise than Local and in such Modal Differences Thus what the Church of England and what Schism from it is But at the beginning of the discourse 't was hinted that if we would consider the Church of England not organice but entitative as some speak that is as it is a part or member of the Vniversal visible Church even in this consideration of it Separation and the present practice of gathering Churches is a Schism in the Church of England if not so from it And by those intestine Ruptures and rents it is causing in the midst of her gives her too much cause to complain O my Bowels my Bowels While it tears in pieces her Old and Stated Congregations tramples upon her Liturgy defies her Worship renounceth her Pastors throws down all her ancient Land-marks and laudable bounds of her particular Churches and endeavours every where to Erect new Altars and Seperate Churches that were never before heard of in the Christian world but amongst wild and desperate and Schismatical Sectaries But this will meet us in the next Chapter when we speak of Schism from particular Congregations CHAP. IX Gathering Churches a Schisme from particular Parochial Churches The general Nature of Schism THe present practice of Gathering Churches is not only a Schism from the Church of England but a Schism also from our particular Parochial Congregations This comes now to be evinc'd and I shall take my advantage for the doing of it from an Observation of Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen and the Independ great Schis p. 177. Independents There was saith he and is another Church-State in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them or they had been once of them Palpably Separated I am now to charge the present practice of our New Church gatherers and their Neâ— Churches with the like Schism from particular Parochial Churches whereof they are or lately were Members and ought so to have continued To cut our work as short as may be I shall confine my strength within one Argument which I conceive the cleerest and most likely to put an end to the matter in debate and 't is taken from the nature and definition of Schism wherein we shall shew what we are to understand by Schism and how the present gathering of Churches out of our Churches agrees with it not doubting but then the conclusion will find its own way well enough What is Schism then I shall give you the easiest and the least controverted definition of it and such as was never excepted against by any Presbyterian that I ever heard of 'T is this Schism is a causless or as others a voluntary unwarrantable separation from a true Church Here are two parts to be considered in the general separation from a true Church and the formal special and distinguishing part of it coucht in the words causless or unwarrantable and voluntary 1. Schism is a separation from a true Church it is so in the proper and peculiar notation of it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schism Cameron cap. de Schis is a stranger to prophane Authors and the Old Testament and is only to be found in the New Testament so that it only intends something about the Christian Church and what that is must be understood by the New Testament and Ecclesiastical Writers who have taken it thence It is commonly affirmed that in the Scripture-use of it it sometimes signifies division among Christians in opinion only but I have observed that usually those opinions were such as had a tendency to divisions in practice as I am of Paul c. but 't is generally acknowledged that differences in practice especially touching Divine Worship whether from the signification of the word which is properly a rent or division or whether from the more frequent use of it that way in Scripture or for some other reason I say difference in practice about Divine Worship hath long since obtained and appropriated to it self the name of Schism Sometimes such division in the Church when there hath been no actual separation from the Church is conceived to be called Schism in Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 10. And this notion exclusive of all other kind of Schism in Scripture Dr. Owen espoused contrary both to Scripture reason and the general apprehension of the Ancient and Modern Divines as Mr. Cawdrey hath sufficiently argued Separation from a Church is a more obvious division and consequently a more notorious kind of Schism and it seems more reasonable to argue if the Holy Ghost called the first buds and beginnings of seperation by the name of Schism it was to deter the dividers from the sin in its ripeness and accused fruits which more hainously mâ—rited that black title as our Saviour calls lust adultery Schisma seperat ab Ecclesia Schism seperates from the Church saith St. Hierom. To proceed this separation from the Church as a learned Presbyterian asserteth is from the Church as Catholick which he calls Donatism or from a particular Church and that faith he is properly Seperatism Lastly this Schismatical seperation is negative or positive the former
or Congregations and who knows not too well what is to be understood by Gathering-Churches by the former practices of the Independents but more especially by these Presbyterians since the Indulgence But to talk of gathering Churches and yet of holding Communion with us is a Juggle unworthy our Author who either doth or should know that it is protestatio contra factum questionem I mean 't is generally so I have as you cannot but see both in the Question as proposed and as stated and as prosecuted set gathering of Churches in opposition to our Parochial Congregations And what you say to any thing else is not to the point And the general practice of Church-gatherers too well satisfies the world what they intend and also that the Question was rightly propounded and clearly stated to any unbyassed and unprejudiced Reader what ever you say to confound it and with your wonted Elaborateness to render it unintelligible p. 40. and then complain that it is so But the Learning of some men is not ill compared to a Pedlars Pack though not so much for that there are many things that are difficult to be found but rather because if they look for any thing every thing comes to hand But this be far from our Author to whom we must now hearken dilligently He first sets down my Question verey honestly and intirely p. 26 27. then he nibles a little at it and at length bites and tells the World that I joyn two questions in one which we must look to have distinctly Answered But what those two questions are and where they are distinctly answered I have look't and find not Would he not speak distinctly to them because he hates Divisions or was it his prudence to leave out Conscience for he hath told us p. 21. that to decide this case is a work of meer Christian Prudence but where is Conscience then Excluded by what Law that shall be tried anon For I shall now address my self in earnest to review the whole Question not in two only but in the several Cases depending upon it A just examin whereof will give me occasion sufficient to consider all that he hath said to the purpose against me as I find it scattered up and down his Book CHAP. VII Gathering-Churches charged with Schism from the Church of England and proved to be so from the Definition of this Church Wherein he is told what the Church of England and Schism from it is THe General Question betwixt us is this Whether it be Lawful for the Presbyterians to refuse Communion with our Parish Churches and to gather themselves into Distinct and Separate Churches And upon a Serious review of it and Consideration of all that the Answerer hath said against me and my Discours upon it I do renew my Charge and possitively affirm that it is Vnlawful and as it is generally practised 't is a great and dangerous Schism both against the Church of England and Particular Churches 't is a Schism in its own nature and sinful in it Self 'T is a Schism in the Judgment of the old Nonconformists called Puritans and also in the Judgment of the Presbyterians before 1660. and lastly that both in Conscience and Prudence it ought at present to be avoided or deserted by all such especially as are called Presbyterians And all this in in its several parts and in their order as here set down I undertake to make good 1. Thus to Separate and to Gather Churches is a Schism with respect to the Church of England Now as Divines speak of a Schism in a Church and a Shism from a Church so in a diverse respect this practice is guilty of both For if you consider the Church of England as particular Organized Church 't is a Schism from but if as part of the Vniversal Visibe Church only as the Nonconformists use to term it then 't is Schism in it It is a Shism from the Church of England as such by dividing from its Governours Members Worship and Assemblies as I more than Intimated in my Book p. 8. and this ought to have been distinctly observed at least by my Answerer but instead thereof how he stumbles and blunders looking carefully and making great Outcries after that which I laid just before him You charge us saith he p. 37. with Schism from the Church of England Again p. 38. Tell us what you mean by Schism from the Church of England Again p. 35. We are told of Schism from the Church of England as if it were a Monstrous and unheard of thing and then puzzles pittyfully puzzles himself and his Reader in an impertinent pursuit of the Head of the Church of England as if without a certain and infallible knowledge of that there could be no such thing as a Church of England or Schism from it Wearying himself for five or six pages at his old game of nothing to the purpose But methinks he labours with a very vehement desire after this great truth and could he be sure to have it he will not say how much Money as well as Pains he would give for it yea he roundly offers me how consistent with his gravity I do not observe but he roundly offers me all the Money in his Purse to make him understand but what the Church of England is p. 35. Well if you will promise me to be humble and teachable and that you are not too old to learn though I have no mind to your money I will shew my readiness and charity at least to relieve you in so great a Streight though my Judgment may fail and my Definition be as despicable as my silly Arguments The Church of England is a Community Consisting of professed Christians Vnited in the same Government Doctrine and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies Her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worshipping of God Might such a Notion of the Church of England have superceded all his Finesses of Wit and Distinctions about the Constitutive Ecclesiastical Head as he speaks how learnedly I leave to his Friend Mr. Bagshaw I think his labour might have been well enough spared For he may Consider we are Vnited in the same Government and the Pars Regens is the only part he himself requires to be added to the Pars Subdita to Constitute a Church Organiz'd in a proper political sence p. 38. Now you will not deny either of these parts and consequently you have found the whole of the Church of England as you say Organiz'd in a proper political Sence And it hence follows that 't is material to our point to determine certainly what is the Ecclesiastical Head of this Church whether we that are Members of it are all united in the King as Persona mixta cum Sacerdote and not meerly a Civil head as you insinuate he being Supream in all Causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Or whether
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
with us in our publick Assemblies and gather New Churches for themselves out of them This they do though you know we generally have not given them Cause to do it And they do it Rashly and Totally and all your little devices will never alter the Nature of things or excuse it from gross Schism in the Judgment of all that were not Seperatists and spake their mind before the present Temptation dazled mens eyes 'T is in vain to flie to your Common Refuge the strength of this Argument will not suffer you to be quiet in it who ever before you made this a warrantable ground of Seperation that they might Serve God better if finding positive faults in our worship would not excuse them heretofore much less will negative ones excuse you from Seperation But they thought those were faults and Just Causes of Seperation which were not true and they were mistaken but yet they had more to say for themselves it seems than you have who do the same things without alledging so much ground and think to be wholly free from the same charge Sir Schism consists in practice and whatever you think on 't or however you would palliate the matter where that practice that truly answers the definition of Schism is found it will be Schism do what you can Is there any Institution of Christ that they must gather Churches out of true Churches to make a purer Church Ans Mr. Cawdrey Indep p. 198. But I prevent my design Shism we have shewed is a causeless unwarrantable Seperation and 't is true and so my Answerer might have understood me and his Brethren in my last I spake in the language of the Presbyterians and a little Candour would have supposed that both I and they intended by gathering Churches out of Churches such as was causeless unwarrantable and unnecessary for that they were still ready if need required to prove the Independant Separation such as I shall be anon to do yours It is therefore some trouble to me to hear you ask as if somthing of Argument were lodg'd in it Whether a persons removal from one Parish to another to inhabit there were Schism p. 48. and yet I conceive you have it more than twice over in your book You ask again must no Churches be gathered out of Rome I fear not many for you but for a full and plain answer to this I remit you to Mr. Baxters Cure of Church Divisions p. 81 82 83. Which if it seem not plain and full to you it is because you understand not Christian Sense and Reason Again p. 44. did not the Parliament take a Church out of a Church when they seperated Covent-Garden from Martins Parish doubtless 't was either with cause or not 't was warrantable or not 't was necessary or not but the jest is spoiled if it were a Church of the same Constitution with consent of the persons concern'd by lawful Authority Had you no place to argue Schismatical but Covent-garden I would advise you as a friend to take a little more heed what you say about that place for fear of one of those Schismaticks which in other places you honor as Vsurpers concern'd in your next Section But behold the Man at Arms fully Accoutred without all fear but a great deal of wit and courage makes a challenge to the factions Disputers as his Catholick language is and 't is this as you may read it under his own hand Obj. I undertake saith he to prove that Dr. Manton Dr. Seaman c. with the People subject to them as Pastors were true Churches Prove you if you can that on Aug. 24 62. they were degraded and these Churches were dissolved in any reason which any Churches for 600. years after Christ would If not you seem your self to accuse their Successors of Schism for drawing part of the people from them meerly by the Advantage of having the Temples and Tythes and so gathering Churches out of true Churches Ans A Marvellous Undertaker he will undertake to prove one Proposition and let the rest shift for them selves Dr. Manton and Dr. Seaman and their People were true Churches and this he will prove but what if a man should venture to disappoint him and not deny it Again prove if you can that these Pastors were degraded and these Churches dissolved Aug. 24. 62. But what if a man has a mind to be friends with him here too and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded then but only ejected and inhibited the exercise of their Ministry within the Church of England and that those Churches were not dissolv'd by having New Pastors no more than the Kingdom when the King dies And yet certainly the King and People are as much the Constitutive parts of a Kingdom as Pastor and People of a Church Who will say that considers what he saith that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor The River is the Same though the Lands on each side change their Proprietors But what then Suppose all this be quietly granted him what then then those that succeeded them are Schismaticks or you seem to accuse them of Schism how so for drawing away part of the people from them Whither to another manner of Worship which the Laws required and which the Ejected refused But how did they draw the People by doing their duty in the Temples as by good Authority Instituted and Inducted thereunto Instituted as Pastors to have the Cure of Souls and Inducted into the Temples and Tythes But lastly why do you say they drew a part of the people onely and not the whole Ought not the whole worship God undivided and with one accord in the Temples or must the place be removed with the Pastor I quire not who made the difference but I know who makes the Division let them answer it how they can to God and the King the Church and their Successors Those Pastors were Ejected out of the Temples by lawful Authority the People are bound to worship God in the Temple as they have opportunity and no where else in opposition to the publick Worship the Consequence here I think may vie with yours above therefore these Pastors had no opportunity to exercise their Pastoral Office to those People and where there is no opportunity there is no duty in Mr. Baxters Divinity Second Admon to Bagsh 96. But you say you must Preach the Reverend Dr. Gouge saith No. The Inhibition of Idolators and Infidels made simply against preaching of the Gospel because they Whole Armour of God 570. would have it utterly Suppressed in this case he saith no sufficient inhibition to bind the Conscience it is directly and apparently contrary to Gods Word But when Christian Magistrates inhibite Ministers to Preach it is because they think them unfit and unmeet either for some notorious Crimes or for some Erronious Opinions to exercise their Ministerial Functions In these Cases Such as are so inhibited
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-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
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
his thoughts to the state of our Church heretofore as in the former he struck at the Popish The learned Amesius whose Principles were somewhat Congregational hath said much to the same purpose in a few words Separation from a true Church Cas dâ— Schism is sometimes lawful if one cannot remain in its communion sine communicatione in peccatis without communicating in her sins if there be manifest danger of seduction and if we are compell'd to depart by oppression and persecution Thus he And we may suppose he thought he made a full enumeration of all the just causes of departing from a true Church and that in any other case seperation was unlawful Others indeed have more compendiously and fully drawn all the rules in this case into one point Seperation is unwarrantable if communion with the Church may be without sin And indeed what can justifie a practice so contrary to love and peace and of so dangerous consequence but the avoiding of sin Our general Answer to the charge of Schism by the Papists is we must not partake with your sins and I think all parties consent in this common proposition where the conditions of communion with a Church are sinful we are not bound to that communion for we must obey God rather then man I am sure this was current Doctrine with the Non-conformists His â—â—fence 2. Par. 22. called Puritans heretofore in the defence of communion with the Church of England Let the abuses saith Mr. Ball be many or great yet if I may be present at the true worship of God without sin consent unto or approbation of such abuses or corruptions in voluntary seperation I sin against God his Church and mine own soul This was also undoubted by the late Presbyterians in stead of many let Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen Independ a great Schism be heard for methinks he speaks to the purpose It is saith he no duty of Christs imposing no priviledg of his purchasing either to deprive a mans self of his Ordinances for other mens sins or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some reformation in lesser matters And Mr. Corbet and the Author of Evangelical Peace and Vnity if I understand him puts the whole debate upon the same issue with us So Bagshaw also c. Among these light causes which will by no means warrant a seperation Mr. Baxter hath laboured to Cure of Church Divisions 291. throw down these four Superstitious as he calls them which some religious people have brought up 1. That we are guilty of the sins of all unworthy communicants if we communicate with them though their admission is not by our fault 2. That he whose judgement is against a Diocesan Church may not lawfully join with a Parish Church if the Minister be but subject to the Diocesan 3. That whatsoever is unlawfully commanded is See Cure of Church Divisions p. 194. not lawful to be obeyed 4. That it is unlawful to do any thing in the Worship of God which is imposed by men and is not commanded it self in the Scripture But enough of the false grounds of seperation that render it causless for that they are either really none or else light or insufficient The Second Exception against Seperation was taken from the undue manner of proceeding in it for which it is termed Rash and therefore Schismatical though the ground be Just. That is as Mr. Brinsly explaineth himself p 25. When it is sudden and heady without due endeavour and expectance of Reformation in the Church it is then Rash and consequently an unwarrantable Separation in as much as it is opposite to Charity Mr. Baxters Advice is excellent here If Corruptions blemish and dishonor the Congregation doe not Cure of Church Div. p. 80. say let sin alone I must not oppose it for fear of Division but be the forwardest to reduce all to the will of God And yet if you cannot prevail as you desire be the backwardest to Divide and Seperate and do it not without a certain Warrant and extream necessity Resolve with Austine I will not be the Chaff and yet I will not go out of the Floor though the Chaff be there Never give over your just desire and endeavour of Reformation and yet as long as you can possible avoid it forsake not the Church which you desire to Reform As Paul said to them that were to forsake a Sea-wrack'd Vessel If these abide not in the Ship ye cannot be saved Many a one by unlawful flying and shifting for his own greater Peace and Safety doth much more hazard his own and others 3. Ames gives me occasion to hint one thing more Secessio vero Totalis c. A Total Secession or Seperation with absolute renouncing or rejecting all Communion cannot be lawfully practiced towards a True Church but partial only quatenus Communio so far as Communion cannot be exercised without sin Cas de Schis 307. I Wish heartily my Brethren would consider whether not only renouncing all Communion with but setting up other Churches against our Churches be not in his sence a Total Seperation and consequently Sinful Or whether you that so use us do yet retain Communion with our Parish-Churches so far as you know you may without sin But this by the way The Summe is when the Church gives no such cause of offence as may justifie Seperation when the Conditions of her Communion require nothing of her Members whereby if they Communicate they shall be Actual Sinners when persons let the cause be never so just shall unadvisedly without due endeavours and patient expectance of a Reformation lastly when they shall for some few things at which they take offence totally forsake Communion with a True Church and gather themselves into Anti-Churches they are in all these Cases guilty of Schisme in the judgment of the most Non-Conformists of all sorts and indeed of all men that have considered the Point and the Nature of Schism The Assumption we shall make hereafter and at present only take notice of what the Answerer hath said to prevent it He gives us p. 16 17. eight Differences betwixt the Old Seperatists and the Present Non-Conformists and then concludes in all these they differ from Seperatists though they gather Churches These differences are particularly considered hereafter The first three of these Differences are a Complement to us and our Parishes the four next are a Complement to themselves in the last I think he is in earnest for himself but he hath to do with a head-strong party that will not obey either his Word or Example in desiring nothing more than with Love and Concord to carry on with us the same work of Christ But what is all this to excuse them from being Seperatists that run away from us and draw Desciples after them that refuse I am sure in fact what ever some may say the least Communion
so far forth as they are inhibited Ought not to Preach Neither are particular and private men much less the parties inhibited to Judge of the Cause of the inhibition whether it be just or unjust but as they who are appointed by the present Government to Ordain Ministers are to judg of their fitness thereunto so likewise of their unfitness I have thought hitherto that distinction of the Office and of the exercise of that Office had gone uncontroled among Presbyterians and that though the Ministers of Christ depend not even upon the Christian Magistrate for their Office and he cannot degrade them yet quoad Exercitium as to the Exercise of it within his Dominions they did and that he had power to Silence such as he Judged unmeet to Preach Mr. Baxter doth much encourage me to persist in the same Opinion more than once The Authority of the King and lawful 2d Admon to Bag. 117 Magistrates saith Mr. Baxter is more about the Circumstantials of Worship as whether Abiathar shall be High Priest c. then the False Teachers were about that Doctrine He more than Intimates that the Magistrates Power extends to the Appointing who shall be High Priest and who doubt but that he hath equal power to appoint who shall be Pastor of Covent-Garden Again hear Mr. Baxter what he saith more largly upon the Point Disput 223. Doubtless the Magistrate himself hath so much Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs that if he Command a qualified person to Preach the Gospel and Command the People to receive him I see not how either of them can be allowed to disobey him though yet the Party ought to have recourse also to Pastors for Ordination and People for Consent where it may be done And Grotius commendeth the saying of Musculus That he would have no Minister question his Call that being quallified hath the Christian Magistrates Commission And though this Assertion need some limitation yet it is apparent that the Magistrates Power is great about the Offices of the Church For Solomon put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood and put Zadock in his place 1 King 2. 27 35. David and the Captains of the Host Seperated to Gods Service those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and Jeduther who should Prophesie with Harps c. 1 Chron. 16. 4. And so did Solomon 2 Chron. 8. 14 15. They were for the Service of the House of God according to the Kings Order 1 Chron. 25. 1 6. And methinks those those men should acknowledge this that were wont to stile the King in all Causes and over all Persons the Supream Head and Governor So far He. And indeed I durst almost challenge this Answerer or any man to prove that ever any learned Protestant in this Church whether Episcopal or Presbyterian did make it a question I mean before the Kings happy Return whether Solomon had not sufficient Authority to put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood and put Zadock in his place Or whether any might modestly say such must Preach and that those were Schismaticks and Vsurpers that did exercise their Offices according to Law in the places of such as were removed by the Vertue of an Act of Parliament of unquestionable Authority and we must Preach though the Law forbids us As for Dr. Gunnings Dr. Wilds preaching fourteen or fifteen years ago which you so often hint at it is sufficiently known it was in such a time when the Case was far otherwise both with the Church and State in many Notorious Circumstances both as to Persons Law Government and Worship and they could easily answer their so doing if it be not a matter too much below the Eminency both of their Persons and Places We must proceed CHAP. XI Provision for the proof of the Assumption by four Propositions THat Schism is a Causeless Seperation from a True Church and what Seperation from a True Church is and when it is Causeless hath at large appeared And there seems nothing left to prevent or remove the charge of Schism from the Practices we oppose but to plead either that our Churches are no true Churches or that you are not of them and ow them no Communion or that you do not Seperate from them or if you do you have Cause sufficient and your Seperation is not Rash or Groundless That the Contrary to all these is the very Truth I am now to manifest The Propositions accordingly are these four Pro. 1. That our Parochial Congregations are true Churches 2. That the people of England are or ought to be members of our Parochial Congregations 3. That the present practice of gathering Churches out of them is Seperation 4. That such Seperation is Rash and without just grounds And all these shall be proved not only from the Nature of the things and the judgment or others but from the Publique judgement of the former Non-Conformists and Presbyterians and then I hope my bold undertaking will be found excusable CHAP. XII Parochial Congregations true Churches His Exceptions espâ—cially about parish bounds examined FIrst I affirm that our Parochial Congregations are true Churches They have the matter of true Churches Professed Christians Baptized They have the fâ—rm of true Churches being Societies of such as Ames saith in order to the worship of God and these fix'd and Stated and ordinarily assembling actually together for that end According to our Author they have generally both the Essential and constituent parts of true Churches Pastors to govern and people to be govern'd by them in order to Gods glory and their Salvation And as their end so the means and their work in their publick Assemblies is such as is proper and peculiar unto and true and undoubted indications and notes of true Churches the Ordinances of God and their ordinary attendance thereupon in known publique and fixed places consecrated and set a part for that end Wherein also there is nothing practic'd much less allow'd that is contrary to these means or doth pervert that end or with any pretence or colour of reason can be thought to destroy their being or their truth as Churches of God For this we have abundant Suffrage voluntarily given by Non-Conformity it self from time to time and that not only in the acknowledgement but even in the defence of them against their enemies of the Separation and what need more If Mr. Ball Mr. Hildersham of old and Mr. Bagshaw and his friend the Answerer be heard for the rest Mr. Ball is express for himself and his Brethren The Non-Conformists saith he can not only acknowledg but prove the Religion and worship of the Church of England to be of God not by petty reasons and colourable Ans to Can. part 2. p 3. shews which they leave to them which maintain a bad Cause but by pregnant evidence from the word of Truth even by plain Texts of Scripture and sound reâ—son deduced therefrom against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail Mr. Hildersham comes not a