Church Catholick Visible Do we break Charity with our Brethren do we Revile them or Reproach their Persons or Societies Let them bear the blame who do it we plead not for them in the mean time let not all other Non-Con be called Schismaticks for their sake We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by those three famous Authors of the Friendly debate Ecclesiastical Polity and of Knowledge of Communion with Christ have they rendred reviling for reviling though the Masters of Morality have so treated their Brethren as if Veracity Comity and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues When the Author opens himself a little plainer and tells us what he meaneth by a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the Church Catholick Visible we shall better understand him § 23. But he saith we sinfully separate from the Organical National Church of England and indeed this he must mean or nothing by what he said before for it is not possible to separate sinfully from a National Church considered only as a large part of the Church-Catholick Visibles while they keep in the profession of Christ and his Gospel and in the practice of the same Acts of worship with them and in the same Doctrines of Faith unless they fail in love refusing all kind of occasional Communion with their Brethren condemning them as no parts of the Church of Christ The worshipping of God by different phrases and forms of Prayers in different habits of Vestment by different rites and ceremonies c. will not do it for these are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Christ left no Liturgy to his Catholick Church nor any such rites and ceremonies and habits nor was ever the Catholick Visible Church uniform in them our Brethren themselves confess these mutable things wherein several parts of the Catholick Church differ each from other These things proceed from the Church considered as Organical not as a part of the Catholick Visible Church for then the major part of all particular Christians must consent to the imposition of them § 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church it is possible we may have separated from it for we never knew there was any such Creature and at last our Author doth confess that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree That the Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to a National Church he should therefore first have proved that there is such a thing under the Gospel as A Stated National Organical Church and we should then have tried whether the same Arguments would not have served the Papists to have proved a Catholick organical Church and that something better than they serve our Author because they have found out a single head for it which we find our Author p. 43. at great loss to find for his particular National Organical Church § 95. He knows not whether he should fix it upon the King for he is to be considered as a mixed person Or The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury because he is Primate of all England or all the Bishops and Pastors That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governour of the National Church of England is our of doubt to all Protestants but such a one as will not claim Authority to any one strictly called Ecclesiastical act neither to Preach nor administer a Sacrament nor Ordain Ministers Are we discoursing of such a head think we The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury indeed may do all these but may he execute any acts of Discipline in the Province of York must the Arch-Bishop of York be taken in Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads yet that is better than 26. for so many must be if all the Bishops make the head and that yet is better than 9000 heads as must be if the Pastors of all Parishes be the Head In short none of these can by an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction influence the whole body and what kind of head is that The King indeed as Political Head of the Church may influence the whole with his commands relating to Ecclesiastical affairs but surely we have no Arçh-Bishop Bishop or Pastor can Excommunicate from Dan to Beershaba Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point at last tells us It is not material for it is a certain Vanity to say 43. Because I cannot find the the Head I will deny the Body Is it so can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head It is not the body we are discoursing of but an Organical Body We may know our Mother as our Author saith though we do not know our Father but we must know we had a Father and that Father is or was a visible Creature or else he could not be known § 26. Well but what is this same National Organical Church of England He p. 42. gives us this Description of it It is a community consisting of professed Christians united in the same Doctrine Government and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worship of God And p. 45 Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or dissolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governours Worship Members or Assemblies We can neither allow his descriptis on of the National Church of England nor yet of his description of Schisme or sinful separation from it and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reason either of them can be made good § 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church we deny the description of it for Non eus non potest definiri Now we do believe that under the Gospel there never was nor can be a stated National governing Church unless what is indeed somtimes though far from the sense we are now speaking to and perhaps not so properly called a Church according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Messengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation in an Assembly for deliberations advice and determinations in some weighty emergent cases to obviate which we put in the term stated for this is only an Occasional National Church or Synod which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ and meets and acts at the pleasure of the Prince the Supreme Political Head § 28. When we speak of a Church we understand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious usage of it applicable to no body of people but such a one as the Scripture calleth so So that if there be any such body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church we must either find it in the New Testament or at least find some directions there for the constitution ordering of it some
Or more Implicit when though they have not first called him nor so explicitly declared their consent to him yet they have ordinarily and statedly walked with him in the fellowship of all Ordinances But here must be considered 1. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt desiring consenting to and accepting of one as a Minister of the Gospel to Preach to the Parochial Society where a Christan lives as it is a part of the Catholick Church and consenting to such a one to be his or their Pastor in order to a Church Organical It must be a consent of the latter Nature I may consent and desire one to Preach to the people in the precinct where I live and yet have no thoughts of consenting to him as my Pastor 2. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt an occasional hearing and it may be receiving the Sacrament with a Minister and a slated ordinary fixed doing of it If a Christian that is of a particular Church at London goeth down to York and be to stay there 6 or 9 moneths and ordinarily hears and receives the Sacrament there while he is there this will indeed prove his owning the Church of York as a true Church having communion with it but not that he is a Member of it Suppose many Christians who were formerly stated Members of Churches but for 10 or 12 years last past have not been able to walk with their Pastors and Brethren in all Ordinances meeting in the same place to worship God have in the time ordinarily or often heard a Parochial Minister nay sometimes received the Lords Supper This indeed proves their Charity that they lookt upon that Society as a true Church but it doth not prove them Members of it nor their consent to such a Membership no not to such a Minister as their Pastor though it may be they consented to him for the good of the place where they lived as a Preacher of the Gospel to them If indeed they were of no other stated particular Church before and did ordinarily joyn in Sacramental Communion with such a Minister it goes far to prove an Union by implicit consent and we think such cannot plead They were not United § 48. It is true these Notions about particular Churches Worship and Government especially the first and last were very dark and little understood by many good men Anno 1641. and no wonder if it be considered 1. How very few Books were then wrote of them on the Presbyterian side 2. And how poenal it was made to have or read them and how little hope before that time appeared of reducing any thing had been said to practice Some of our Congregational Brethren having had more rest and freedom and opportunity of exercise in N. England and Holland were better studied in them As also our Brethren of Scotland This for a few years occasioned great animosities Yet I could never read nor hear quoted that even then any judicious Presbyterians ever granted 1. That all Parochial Societies were true Organized Churches 2. Nor that living in a Parish did more than give the Christian a liberty to claim admission into that Society But some few years passing and mens heats abating and peaceable converse each with other better advantaging them to understand one another than at first they did they began to be far more clear and unanimous in their Notions and more charitable in their practices § 40. I cannot speak for all but I can speak for a very competent number so many as in one County would be perswaded to meet in 1657. 58. They agreed in the following Character of a person fit for Church-fellowship in all Ordinances and Priviledges I have by me also the Scriptures affixed to prove this 1. One that is indued with some competent knowledge in the principles of Religion 2. Whose life conversation is free from all gross and scandalous evils both of Omission and Commission 3. Who maketh such a profession of Faith and Holiness as may give unto the Church a probable hope in the judgment of true Christian Charity that there are some seeds of some spiritual work of God in his soul 4. Who professeth a willing subjection to the Gospel and all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and so giveth up himself to the Lord and his Church to walk in all duties of Obedience and Love according to the Will of God To which they added and then subscribed We acknowledge such Churches to be true Churches as consist of such persons coming together as are here described and such to be true Ministers as are called by and unto such a people And we further acknowledge such to be Churches and their Ministers to be true Ministers though some bad with the good agreed to the call of those Ministers or to own and embrace them and although there were some disorder and failing in the Ordination and coming in of such Ministers By this these Presbyterians judgments easily appeared what Parochial Societies they judged True Churches and also what they judged necessary to make up the Union of a Member with a particular Organical Church § 50. I think I can from a Friend also assure the Author that the person whom this Author doth somewhere declare not only a Presbyterian but one of great judgment and Worth as indeed he was I mean Mr. Brinsley of Yarmouth was the man drew up this Writing recommended it to his Brethen himself agreed in it and they also and made it a great foundation for an Agreement betwixt them and their Congregational Brethren For my own part I am much of his mind We say many of the Ministers and people he reflects upon as Schismaticks neither were actually thus united to Parochial Societies nor we in capacity so to be because formally Pasters and Members else-where § 51. But the Author thinks the Law forbidding Ministers to Preach in the Parochial Temples hath dissolved this Relation In this we differ from him and desire a better proof of it both de facto then he hath given us and de jure Then Solomons putting Abiathur from the Priests Office who had deserved to dye as Solomon tells him first but more of that by and by I do not profess strictly to Answer the Authors Book about Schisme It is directed against an Author able enough to speak for himself but something I must say to this and some other passages only as they come athwart me in maintaining the Negative part of my Question and justifying my self and others from the clamour of Schisme Therefore in Doctrine of Schisme p. 75. I find these words What if a man hath a mind to be Friends with him that we desire for we are for peace c. and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded discommissioned he should have said or unordained as to their Ministry within the Church of England and that those Churches were not dissolved by having new Pastors he forgets the
or Account do we need more but this only Is there not a cause They are the words of David to his surly Elder Brethren that are offended only for his being about the business he was sent And David said what have I done Is there not a Cause I am very sensible that there is much more may be said or that there are other Pleas which may be made by the Non-Conformist for their Meetings then this I offer I have I know proposed my self a little in another Paper towards some Catholick Healing of us even under our stated Separations if they cannot be helpt If they can or if this be enough it is this Plea I choose as the most indifferent between the Conformist and us the most fair and conducive to our Uniting again if God give that Grace to the Nation And this under pardon I will be so bold as to name my Plea Mr. H's Plea Of Greater Duty The Church is a number of such as own or believe in the Lord Jesus and joyn in Society for the glorifying his Name in submission to his Ordinances These Societies are either Particular or that which consists of them all the Church Vniversal Of the Church as Vniversal Christ is the Head from whom we have these Ordinances when the Congregations which are Parochial others that meet separately from them do both consent or unite in his Ordinances that is in the same Doctrine so far as is necessary to Salvation and in the same Worship required in the Word who can deny them to be both Parts of the Universal Church Visible and so true Churches As for going to diverse places if there be no breach of the great Commandement which is Charity in other respects it is a matter of indifferency can be no ground to charge Schisme upon one more then the other There must be some other consideration than of the Church found out if they will accuse us of Schisme And that is not as it is Vniversal or Particular but as it is National and Parochial As it is Vniversal and Particular it is ex praecepto of Divine as it is National and Parochial it is ex providentia of Humane and prudential institution There are some things required to the Church ad esse and some things ad bene esse That which is required ad esse is named a due administration of the Word Sacrament and Prayer and we divide not in it That which is required ad bene esse is either necessary to that bene or melius esse being of Divine Authority and that is some Discipline in general though for the Sort I will not say which is such or that which is accidental and accumulative from man as to have the Supreme Magistrat Christian and a Nursing Father to it with his People generally of that Religion The one of these I say is of God's Praeceptive we speak it not simpliciter but in regard to the Constitution of the Church of Christ the other of his Providential will only In this accidental regard as the Church is National do we acknowledg that the King is head of it and hath his Ordinances in respect thereunto to be obeyed as Christ hath in regard to the Vniversal That the Magistrate hath Authority to Protect the Church of Christ by seeing that Christ's Ordinances be observed in every Congregation according to their way and in looking to the whole that they do nothing but what shall make to the Peace of the Nation is out of question The King here governs by his Laws and the Laws of this Land have appointed the constitution of particular Churches to be of Parishes as most convenient to that purpose If we consent not to these Laws we break the Vnion which is of Humane institution though we preserve that which is Divine Disobedience to the wholesome commands of our Superiours is sin and when that separation therefore which is a thing indifferent otherwise does become sinful through that disodedience unless we have somthing to justify the disobedience such separation by Analogy is Schisme And here do I verily think must the bottom of all that can be charged upon us about Schisme be placed If the Parliament should Legitimate these separate Meetings by an Act they would immediately become parts of the National Church no less then our Parishes and that would put an end to the Schisme the Evil chargeable upon us any otherwise being like to be found the Fault of the Persons not of our meetings or of the Thing But so long as they are against Law it is the Obligation of humane Laws I perceive and the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion are the points must come into Plea These have been treated and put together in a Book entituled Two points of great Moment Discussed The substance whereof as to my present purpose will resolve into this Distinction Laws which are Wholesome Laws that is for the Common Good in Civil's and for Edification in Spiritualls do bind us under Pain of Sin Such is the law I count for Parochial Union but there are two Cases wherein we are exempted from such Laws and which justify the Non-Obedience One is when that which is commanded is against a man's Conscience The other is when that which is commanded cannot be done but some other Duty which is of greater Concern must be thrust out and in this Case I say the omitting that which is the lesser Duty is no sin In this Point ye see before I have placed our Apology I must add that forasmuch as it is no Sin to omit a lesser Duty for doing a greater when both cannot be done but to omit the greater Duty consequently must be sin it follows that supposing it to be Schisme to refuse Communion when we may come to Church without sin it must be no Schisme to wave it or not to come when if we come we should sin as we must when we shall omit a greater Duty by coming Schisme is a Voluntary Departure without cause given from that Christian Church whereof he was a Member or a Breach of that Communion wherein a man might have continued without Sin sayes that late Author of a Serious and Compassionate Enquiry into the causes of men's contempt of the Church and the remedies A Book two fine I count to bear a Dispute or uphold so large a design he undertakes I would fain know sayes another by what Authority this separating practise can be justified from the guilt of the most Horrible Schisme that ever was heard of in the Christian World A sober Answer to the new Separatists Pa. 156. again Pa. 157. Distinguishing of a Voluntary desertion of ones Ministry and choosing silence in case of Non-Conformity The second says he is the Illustration of four Cardinal Vertues Humility Meekness Selfe-denial Obedience I cannot but quote these Passages as pleasant to my Humor nor can I forbear Laughter at the Reading of them Not because that worthy
Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them
where the High-Priests Office was to be Executed at Hierusalem and to confine him to Anathoth where he could not execute the Office of the High-Priest and so he was in effect turned from the High-Priests Office 4. And Zadoc to whom that Office was due is invested with it But Abiathar remains a Priest still is so called after and joyned next to Zadoc but the High Priesthood could not truly belong to him but to the Elder House from Aaron and besides God had declared his Will that this should be done he is said to have done it that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord and he that did it was a man inspired by God and a Pen-man of Holy Writ What will follow from hence think we therefore Kings and Magistrates may remove 1. The chiefest Priests from their Preferments Dignities and their own Courts 2. That in case they have deserved death and the Magistrate thinks fit to shew mercy but yet to punish them with Banishment to remote places where their flock cannot come he may thus in effect turn them out from their Pastoral Relation 3. That in case he finds them no true Ministers of Christ he may forbid them to Minister 4. That if God from Heaven by a revelation or by any plain Scripture commands them to turn true Ministers out of Office they may do it I can see nothing more let the Author make his best of this § 55. But he had thought the distinction of the Office and the exercise of it had been uncontrouled by the Presbyterians and that they had granted that though the Magistrate could not degrade them yet as to the exercise of their Office he might and that he had power to silence such as he judged unmeet to Preach Presbyterians can without the help of this Authors Logick distinguish betwixt the Office and the exercise of the Office and make one distinction more between the exercise of the Office in publick places undoubtedly in the Magistrates disposal and in their own private Houses or in the private Houses of others They do believe it in the power of the Magistrate though not to take away their Office or Relation to their Flock Yet to hinder the exercise of it and that they ought to obey him commanding them to forbear the exercise of it in publick places belonging to the Magistrates and accordingly have generally been so obedient though the Law so far be not so plain that any are prohibited to Preach except such as are disabled which is the case of very few They know Paul Preached in his hired House at Rome Act. 28. and in the School of Tirannus when the Jewish Rulers forbad them the Synagogues the Office not taken away nor to be taken away they conclude the Relation attending the Office abiding But hitherto we have only justified our first Plea It is no separation because there never was an Union nor could be of very many of us to a Parochial Ministerial Governing Church And considering it only as a part of the Catholick Church we are in all points one with it § 56. But we will suppose that this is not the case of all our Brethren but some have been United to the Parochial Societies wherein they lived and implicitly consented to be one body with them by not only hearing the Ministers there but receiving the Communion with them What shall be said for them We say they are not sinfully separated 1. Are they separated They now indeed meet for worship in other places and that statedly but do they condemn the Ministers or Churches from which they are come do they not own them as true Ministers and such Churches as true Churches Do they not pay to the Ministers love the Brethren where 's the Schisme then For when men have said all they can Schisme is a sin against the command of Love to our Neighbour It is no command of God you shall be of this Congregation or another other then it falls under general precepts commanding us to use the best means for our Souls Now cannot I love my Neighbour except I dwell in his Family or chuse her for my Wife or him for my Husband Besides it is most certain I am bound to love my own Soul in the first place and as an Evidence to that I am tied to use the best means I can not contradicted by God's Word according to my own Conscience which certainly must judg for me in my highest concern for the Salvation of it § 57. I am a-ware of what this Author hath said That a man may not depart from a Congregation to which he was United either to enjoy the Ordinances of God more powerfully or purely or perfectly administred in another convenient enough for me to joyn with This is the substance of what he hath said and quoted from others as their Opinion But this will never enter into my thoughts Let them speak plainly to this Is it not the duty of every Christian to use what appears to his Conscience the best and most probable means for his Salvation The light of Nature as well as Scripture will evince this Now I would fain know of any person what it is under Heaven except the bare Word and Sacraments that God hath appointed as means for the Instruction Edification and Salvation of my Soul but the gifts of his Ministers or People with which in order to these ends his holy Spirit works not miraculously but in a national orderly way secundum quae nactus est Organa There is nothing more evident than that in Ministers there is a great diversity of Gifts and as much a diversity of Wills Humours and Fancies and also a great variety of peoples Capacities There 's nothing more evident than that our Ministers parts method of Preaching c. is really more fitted to the Instruction and Edification of some people than the Gifts and Methods of others are as we say every good Man makes not a good Husband for every good Woman so it is demonstrably true that every able and good Minister is not a fit and good Instructor for every good Christian they possibly understand not his language nor cannot learn his method possibly 't is Cryptick and requires a Schollar to understand it Shall these people be perpetually staked down in the case that let their Souls be never so much concerned they must not ordinarily joyn with another Minister and hear him though their habitations be convenient enough for it or must these persons possibly to the loss of their Trade and Livelihood which in Towns lyes much upon their habitation be forced to remove into that other Parish where hath God required any such thing § 58. Besides that I understand not much those of my Brethren that are so Zealous in this point In my little dealings in the World I use always to be afraid of that Trades-man whom I perceive using arts to tye me to his Shop and upon that Work-man that I see
endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of
his Answer is 1. That the Presbyterians do not acknowledg it so to whom he spake 2. This was a current Argument of the Presbyterians against the Independents 3. He meant such true Churches as our Parochial Congregations 4. They prove the Communion of Rome is corrupt we only say theirs is 5. Many do hold the Church of Rome truely a Church not a true Church true as to the Essence but not Morally true as to her Doctrine and Worship 6. We did not separate from Rome for we really were never of them we reformed our selves without separating from Rome Notwithstanding all these Answers except the last which I shall shew weak enough Thus much we have gained That it is Lawful in some cases to separate from a body that is Metaphysically a true Church that is truly a Church which is all was intended to be gained That the general Notion of the Truth of a Church should be no more a Medium to prove us Schismaticks now let us examine his particular Answers § 62. The Presbyterians do not acknowledg Rome a true Church and therefore he argued ad homines Indeed I find Mr. Caudry to his Adversary granting something of the Truth of a Church to Rome crying Viderit ipse but he is not the mouth of all Presbyterians did ever any know a Presbyterian Ordaining a Minister the second time because he was the first time Ordained by the Church of Rome yet he was there ordained to offer Sacrifice but also to Preach the Gospel which makes them afraid of it or Baptizing any that turn'd Protestants from Papists Till he had known this he should have forborne this Answer it may be that many of them will grant she hath something of the Metaphysical Verity of a Church A rotten House and falling but yet an House still and we think Christians from such a Church may with-draw § 63. But this was an Argument against the Independents Produce a place where they ever said It was unlawful for Christians to depart from a Church that had the least of truth in it But he says he meant such as our Parochial Congregations this is a general what doth he mean by such 4. They prove the Communion of the Church of Rome corrupt we only say it of theirs And he only says that we only say it We think that many have proved that we cannot Communicate or Minister in it under some present circumstances without what we judge sin Who shall determine betwixt us as to our practice Hath this Author made or can he shew us a strict Answer to Calderwood Gillespy and Dr. Ames and yet much more is to be said in our case then they could speak § 64. Many do say that the Church of Rome is Vere but not Vera Ecclesia that will not do we can shew him vera that is true as well as Vere Truly but his meaning is True in Essence not Morally True what is the meaning of that Not true in her Doctrine and Worship This kind of truth admitts many degrees We would fain know of our Author to what degree of moral truth that Church must be arrived from which he judgeth it sinful to separate for we shall find that divers of his Brethren and Fathers have acknowledged a great degree of moral truth in the Church of Rome from which yet they separated and we believe died in their separation from it Died they as Fools dyed Let me shew this a little Was not the Church of Rome morally true because an Antichristian-Church and the Seat of the Antichrist So indeed Bishop Downame Bishop Abbot and many Bishops were wont to say but since that time Bishop Mountagne hath called their Arguments Apocaliptycal phrenzies Dow saith it is doubtful Dr. Heylin saith it cannot be for Antichrist must be a single man a Jew that must kill Enoch and Elias Star Chamber Speech p. 32. Bishop Laud confesseth therefore he hath raced out of the Liturgy the scandalous term Antichristian Sect. § 65. Is the fault in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it may be some of us think there is fault enough there I trust our Author himself thinks so but neither all former Conformists nor present Conformists believe that she differs from us in any Fundamentals I my self have been told so within few years the Author could not but know that Bishop Laud Dr. Heylin Bishop Potter and many others have thus far asserted her Moral truth again and again as to Doctrine Now may not that be put for a Problem amongst those who are so Zealous in this point Whither it be not Schismatical to separate from a Church upon the account of Doctrine which errs in no fundamentals Yet those great men confessed the latter and did the former If we loose this stand I know not where we shall find a boundary to stop us from separation from a true Church for any one false Proposition of Doctrine maintained in it But what Doctrine is there as to which we cannot shew them that some or other our conforming Fathers or Brethren have not either acknowledged true in their terms or so far true as would make separation for it dangerous yet all these separated from it and died many of them in that black Schisme if it were so Let the Author instance and he shall hear what we can say to it he will I hope spare the Arminian points The Doctrine of Faith as an assent only to the Proposition Justification by Works c. but let him instance § 66. But it may be the business is they have acknowledged and proved her Communion unlawful as to Worship we indeed do so think it sufficiently sinful But have all those Conformists separated from her thought so we think so because we judge her idolatrous in her Adoration of the Eucharist The Saints departed Reliques Images Altars c. and we know that many of our conforming Brethren are of the same mind with us Dr. Brewynt Dr. Stillingfleet and many others have sufficiently told us so but the question is whether all our conforming Brethren who have separated thus judged her thus morally not a true Church What meant Dr. Heylins four bowings at his taking up and setting down the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist Heylins moderate Answer p. 137. What saith the Author of Weights and Measures as to the point of Veneration of Images What saith Bishop Mountague Antig. p. 318. and in his Antid p. 30. and in his Orig. p. 40. he says the Ancient Church did Venerate Reliques Antid p. 44. but I will enlarge no further till I have particular instances given § 67. We see it was the judgment of these men and they were learned men that we may separate from a Church that hath a great degree of moral truth But it may be they thought they did not separate because they and their Fore-fathers were really never of them but reformed themselves But were not our Fore-fathers Baptized into that Church Did
not the Laws of England once tye us to them Were we not United to the Governours Worship Members and Assemblies of that Church Did not our Fore-fathers shew their consent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions c. This is all our Author saith for our Vnion to the National and Parochial Church or Churches of England § 68. Again they have proved it he saith that Communion in that Church is corrupt How Because we cannot communicate with it without sin How have they proved it Demonstratively so as the Adversaries cannot deny it Nothing less they do deny it and yet dispute it but so as we probably judg it sinful We grant this is proved and so we think we have proved it too though it may be more sinful to communicate with the Romish Church But we know Magis minus non variant speciem But we think we ought not to do the least sin § 69. But we do not say it is sinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances Why do we not communicate with them so far as we can without sin Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledg so much But Communion is either stated and fixed or Occasional They conceive themselves obliged statedly and fixedly if they can to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of God For occasional Communion they neither have denied it nor shall deny it to their Brethren in such actions wherein their Consciences will allow them so to communicate without sin as occasion offers it self they acknowledg many of their Ministers and of their Churches true Churches true Ministerial Churches they many of them hear them Preach and Pray and bring their Children to them to be Baptized especially if any of them will abate what in that administration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally necessary and they judg sinful what would the Author have more unless a perfect communion § 70. As to which though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men because they never touch the Conscience nor ad homines because they are single Bullets and hit but one person yet once let me use one Because our Author in his Doctrine of Schisme p. 28. assures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods mind I know not that Reverend Person but I take him to be the same Mr. Fulwood that was sometimes Minister at Staple Fitzpane in Somerset-shire and anno 1652. published a Book called The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches and a true Ministry if he be not the man intended I beg his pardon if it be he he saith thus of the Church of England For matters of Government indeed of late we were under Episcopacy all whose appurtenances savoured of Antichrist and in the same page a little after our Episcopal Courts Service Tyranny c. were very gross This was Mr. Fulwoods judgment I think we may easily argue according to his principles It is Mr. Fulwoods assertion not ours From a Church all whose appurtenances as to Government savour of Antichrist Fulwoods Churches Ministry of England true c. p. 12. and whose service is very gross Christians may and ought to separate so far as to that Government all whose appurtenances so savour and whose service is gross But saith Mr. Fulwood Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an answer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood we will further examin it But there is no end of these things § 71. In the mean time I must mind the Author of too little candor as to his Adversary who wrote the Reflexions in saying the sum of what he offered was reducible to these two propositions 1. That the Conformists held the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet did separate 2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches when as he never said the latter at all but the clean contrary and had acknowledged 1. All of them true Churches that is true parts of the Catholick Church 2. Many of them true Ministerial Churches 3. Some of them true Organical Churches Besides this He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will see these two things were not the sum of what he said and that how little soever Reason was in those Reflections there was yet more then this Author in his Remarques was pleased to take notice of for that Author had then insisted on their not being united to Parochial Churches § 72. To shut up this discourse I from my Soul wish all the Lords Ministers and People of England were of one heart and mind I am not of Gravity or Learning sufficient to Advise either Conformists or Non-conformists but shall only propose my own thoughts and not mine alone The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dissertations de Episcopatu hath these passages which I shall translate The learned may read them in the Printed Copies If men were every where as sollicitous for forming and reforming men and fitting them for the sacred Ministry to which they profess to give up themselves the disputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more easie and less evil need be feared from that which we judge not so good Here saith he We must begin that men may be made worthy for the work and Parag. 4. Here we must lay on our help We see the Apostles in their Writings were more sollicitous about the Vertues than the degrees of Ministers Parag. 9. Before saith he we divide into parties about other things we should joyntly agree about these things A confession of common Doctrine according to truth and piety should be either set forth or confirmed then exact Canons should be made about the whole life and manners of Ministers and then a disputation about the form of Church Government should follow Thus far he § 73. I shall conclude with delivering my Opinion That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed which concern Ministers Lives and Office And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed and those men might have nothing to do in the debate Who are dead in Law according to those Canons that is such as ought to be Excommunicated or deprived and who had declared or should declare themselves contrary to the Doctrine so expoundâ—d and declared The remaining part would quickly so well agree with other things as we should be no more troubled with clamours of Schisme and Separation and tell somthing of that Nature be I see no medium but either Dissenters must be indulged and Schisme clamour'd and never proved or suffering for Conscience-sake must be imposed and patiently endured Fiat Voluntas Dei ERRATA PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare r. curaes p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians r. Arminius p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus r. Generalibus p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical r. Juridical p. 70. l. 2. r. one Ministers parts p. 74.
l. 9. r. he Preach some p. 75. l. ult r. probably ERRATA in the Two last Sheets PAge 10. l. 14. after the word Apology I pray add this That which is of Divine is undeniably greater than that which is of Humane Institution p. 4. l. 10. f. act r. acts p. 27. l. 19. f. page 4. l. 34. r. B. 4. c. 34. p. 29. l. 22. f. Affirmations r. Affirmatives AN Account of the Non-Conformists Meetings for Divine Worship by Mr. H. according to his Middle-Way against Dean F's charge of Schisme and of the freedome of Conscience from unusefull Laws and the power of constraint against his Exceptions HAving written four Papers which being bound together I call Mediocria and finding in the end of one of them an Advertisement about a Book Entituled Two Points of great Moment which was the Obligation of humane Laws and the Authority of the Magistrate in the matters of Religion by me discussed I think it but civill to take an opportunity while it is in my mind of returning my acknowledgments to the Reverend and worthy Dr. Dean the Author of Tolleration not to be abused for his respectful Animadversions in referrence I count to both these Points in his Advice to Conformists and Non-Conformists I confess my self obliged to him for it and to requite the obligation I will present him with two things my answer to what he hath put in against me and an Apology according to my Middle Temper for the Non-Conformist in the matter above named I will begin with the Last first both because it is of most present import and it is also fit I should preferr that of the Publick before my Private Vindication There are diverse sorts of the Non-Conformists and they have their Meetings we know not all on the same Reasons There are some who have been and are for our Parochial Churches who are satisfied with their Constitution and if they might have freedome would still choose them And there are others that are in their inclinations for the Congregationall way only For my part I profess my Self of the former Sort and do here declare in the behalf of my Self and many others of my Brethren that we do not go from our Parish Church or Minister in opposition to them as if such Congregations were not Churches No we are sensible when our Lord hath commanded that the Tares should not be pluckt up for fear of endangering even but Some of the Wheat what a grievous displeasure it may like to be to him if we should go to Root up all the Wheat for fear of the Tares which to Unchurch whole Parishes were to do Nor is it out of Pride Vanity Ostentation Faction or Self-advantage that we do it We could not answer a lesser Man s then a Dean's charge against us if we did so Two things therefore I will acknowledg That our Parish-Churches are true Churches And that it is our Duty consequently to desire and endeavour their Union and Prosperity And what would any Conformist have of me more unless it be also to joyn with them there in the Participation of the Ordinances which I refuse not neither upon convenient occasion Well! Upon what ground then shall I offer my Apology for the Cause I have here undertaken Why I will give it very impartially As I grant these two things to be our duty so must I assume that which will not and cannot be denied me that it is the duty likewise of those who are set apart to the office of the Ministry supposing them in every respect fit for the Work to have a call to it and prudent Sincerity does not at present otherwise direct to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of that office We have the Apostles express authority and example for this who when they where Threatned and Commanded by the Magistrates to Speak no more in Christ's name they have left us their answer on record Whether it be meet to obeâ— Goâ— or You judgâ—â—e Now I must lay down this rule that when two duties come together so that we cannot perform the one but we must omit the other the greater duty must take Place of the less The rule appears in it's own light and also from Scripture I will have Mercy sayes God and not Sacrifice What is the meaning but that when act of Righteousness and Mercy fall in such duties as that of Sacrifice which are less must give way Here then is our case plainly which of these is the greater duty We are to seek Unity and to Preach the Gospel If we keep our Parish Churches we must not Preach the Gospel If we Preach the Gospel we must go to these Private Meetings Which of these is indeed of greatest concernment to the glory of God and the Peoples Salvation In General which is the greatest Matter that the Gospel of Christ Jesus be Preached Or the Union of our Parish-Churches be promoted In Particular whether shall I or any other Non-Conformist who have a call upon occasion to Preach at such a time place or Company do more Service unto God by going doing it or by refusing and going to my Parish-Church for the sake of Unity for which I have still other Seasons And which is the greater Evil to have a people of a Parish divided into several places to hear the Ministers of both Perswasions Preach to them when this too shall not hinder them being parts still or Members of the same Church Or that all the Preachers or Ministers in the Nation but those only who Conform should have their Mouths stopped or their Talents buried How when there is so many of them So many of them truly serious and painful Labourers So many of them that actually do so much good and the ever-lasting welfare of thousands of men's Souls depend upon it What is Parochial Vnion in comparison I will appeal to the Conscience of every upright equal man whether Conformist or Non-Conformist that fears God to give Judgment For the charge then of this Dean which he seems to have managed so strenuously I answer Schisme is a Causless Breach of the Churches Vnion or a causless separation from her Communion the Communion of a Church whereof we are Members or should be Let this learned man or any other that hath read any thing about Schisme tell me if I do not define it right by a Separation that is Causless for if there be a cause the Separation will be justified as it is between us and the Church of Rome Now when the case between the Conformist and us is so open and in the face of the Sun that unless we Countenance or allow of those Meetings which are Locally Distinct from our Parish-Congregations the whole generation of the Non-Conformist Ministers must be laid by from the exercise of their office for ought I see as long as these men do hold whatsoever becomes in the mean time of the Souls of so many multitudes what apology defence