already that not only very considerable Episcopal men but some Presbyterians too are so far from thinking that Governours requiring men to do an Act which they scruple or suspect the lawfulness of is a just ground for Separation that they deny it to be a just ground for non-performance of that Act and on the contrary assert it mens duty in that case to do the thing commanded So the French Presbyterian Divines and Professors at Saumur Thes Salmur de summo Controvers Judice Sect. 46. Sane quum demonstrari non potest id quod jubetur aut statuitur repugnare regulae à Deo traditae acquiescendum esse definitioni non negamus vel ob hoc ipsum quod sic ab iis qui ordine legitimo constituti sunt definitum est quos decet vero simile est esse reliquis prudentiores perspicaciores To the same purpose Baxter in his Disput of Church-Government p. 484. As an erroneous judgment will not says he excuse us from disobedience to our Governours so much less will a doubtfulness excuse us If upon advising with our Teachers we remain in doubt about the lawfulness of some circumstance of Order if it may not be dispens'd with without a greater injury to the Church or cause of God than our Dispensation will countervail then is it our duty to obey our Teachers notwithstanding such doubts for it being their Office to teach us it must be our duty to believe them with an Humane Faith in cases where we have no evidences to the contrary and the duty of obeying them being certain and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being uncertain and unknown and only suspected we must go on the surer side 'T is time now to return to our Apologists who I think have got nothing by tempting me by that Quotation out of Hales to consult the Author himself since the other Dictates which I met with on this occasion in the same Treatise involve their separated forbidden Meetings for publick Worship in Anti-Churches of their own in the guilt of Schism and make the worshippers there formal Schismaticks That some notions in the latter part of this very Pamphlet contribute very much to the proving those men Schismaticks whom the former part would excuse from that Crime For p. 31. thus we read It is not all separation or division is Schism but sinful Division Now the Supreme Authority as National Head having appointed the Parochial Meetings and requir'd all the Subjects of the Land to frequent them and them alone for the Acknowledging Glorifying or National Serving and Worshipping the one only true God and his Son whom we have generally receiv'd and this Worship or Service in the nature of it being intrinsically good and the external Order such as that of Time and Place and the like Circumstances being properly under his Jurisdiction it hath seem'd to us hitherto that unless there was something in that Order and Way prescrib'd which is sinful and that requir'd too as a condition of that Communion there 's no man could refuse his attendance universally on these Parochial Assemblies without the sin of disobedience and consequently his separation thereby becoming sinful proves Schism But says he if the Scene be alter'd and those separate Assemblies made legal the Schism in reference to the National Church upon the same account doth vanish Schism is a separation from that Church whereof we ought or are bound to be Members If the Supreme Authority then loose our Obligation to the Parish Meeting so that we are bound no longer the Iniquity we say upon this account is not to be found and the Schism gone From which premises this Conclusion does evidently follow That until the Supreme Authority loosens the Obligation of Parishioners to the Parish-Meeting they ought and are bound to behave themselves as Members of their respective Parishes and not to separate from them For if they do 't is an unlawful separation that is 't is Schism He says indeed that no man could refuse his attendance universally on Parochial Assemblies without the sin of disobedience To which I say 1. That however then they who do universally refuse their attendance which I presume a very great number if not much the greater part of Conventicles do must be accounted Schismaticks by his own Doctrine 2. If an universal non-attendance on Parish-Assemblies be a sinful separation and consequently Schism because 't is a sin of disobedience then every particular absence and non-attendance upon them is sinful and consequently Schismatical because 't is a sin of disobedience in Ecclesiastical Matters against that Authority which requires the Parishioners of this Nation not only frequently but constantly to attend their own Parish Churches Now if being thus press'd he shall think fit to fly off from his words and to say That if the Supreme Authority requires all the Subjects to frequent the Parochial Meetings and those only they who do not frequent them but be take themselves to other Assemblies are guilty of such a degree of disobedience as will amount to Schism then if any of those Subjects do but frequent Conventicles though they are not universally there but are sometimes present at their own Churches they must be granted to be Schismaticks and if so he agrees at last with that Doctor and that Sermon which he pretends to Answer In which for ought I observe the most that Dr. Stillingfleet contends for is That all who own our Parish Churches as true Churches would not either totally or ordinarily forbear Communion with them in those things which they judg lawful nor proceed to form separate Congregations under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the establish'd Religion allows p. 20. whereas as he complains p. 22. Except some very few scarce any either of the dissenting Preachers or People in London come ordinarily to the publick Congregations upon which account he charges them with Schism in which guilt this very Author does for ought I see involve them in this very Pamphlet which was design'd to vindicate them from that Guilt To which Pamphlet I shall say no more at present because I have already reply'd to all that part of it in which the Doctor 's Sermon is concern'd For the following parts of it which are taken up in Apologizing for their Preachers Non conformity and their refusing to comply with those things which are impos'd upon them to make them Legal Ministers of this Church and Nation are perfectly alien and impertinent to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon In the 19th P. whereof he himself professes that he did not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the exercise of the Function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion that is those which are necessary for all Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Some of the most impartial of the Dissenters themselves confessing That very little is to be said on the behalf of the Peoples separating from whom none of those Subscriptions or Declarations are requir'd that are requir'd of those that would be Authoriz'd Preachers So that the People says he are condemn'd in their separation by their own Teachers But how they can preach lawfully to a People who commit a fault in hearing them the Doctor professes not to understand An opposite Answer to which one passage of the Doctor 's Sermon would have been more to the purpose than all that these Apologists say for themselves in this Pamphlet In which they have not been so kind as to assist the Doctor 's Intellectuals in this matter by making any other Apologies for the Peoples separating than what have been already Answer'd and therefore I have done the Task I undertook in reference to that Sermon and shall not at this time at least take any notice of the Objections made by this Author in behalf of their Preachers to the Re-ordination Declaration and Subscription requir'd in the Act for Uniformity nor manifest the Blunders Falshoods and Impertinencies contain'd in those Objections FINIS Henry Brome's Advertisement 1680. WHereas there are several Discourses and Pamphlets abroad in the World that pass for the Writings of Mr. Roger L'Estrange wherein he never had any hand at all This is to Advertise the Reader that he hath lately Published these following Pieces all but the Three last and no other Toleration Discuss'd in a Dialogue betwixt a Conformist and a Non-conformist and betwixt a Presbyterian and an Independent Seneca's Morals Abstracted The Guide to Eternity Tully's Offices in English Twenty Select Colloquies of Erasmus in English Tyranny and Popery Lording it over the Consciences and Lives of the King and People The Reformed Catholick The History of the Plot in Folio The Free born Subject The Case put for the Duke of York An Answer to the Appeal Seasonable Memorials The Parallel or The Growth of Knavery A Dialogue betwixt a Citizen and Bumpkin A Dialogue betwixt a Citizen and Bumpkin the second Part. A further Discovery of the Plot with a Letter to Dr. Titus Oats An Answer to a Letter of Libellers The Gentleman Apothecary Five Love-Letters Translated Discovery on Discovery in a second Letter to Dr. Titus Oats The Committee or Popery in Masquerade curiously done in a Copper-Plate Narrative of the Plot. The Way of Peace The Arts and Pernitious Designs of Rome The Conspiracy of Atheism and Schism
THE Charge of Schism Renewed against the SEPARATISTS IN ANSWER To the Renewer of that pretended Peaceable Design WHICH IS Falsly call'd An Answer to Dr. STILLING-FLEET's late Sermon LONDON Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1680. Doctor Stillingfleet Justified THere was lately put into my hand a thing call'd an Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon on Phil. 3. 16. by some Non-conformists The Sermon to which it pretends to be an Answer was chiefly design'd to shew that the Non-conformists Meetings in Congregations forbidden by Law are sinful Schismatical separations The design of this pretended Answer is to remove that Charge which it endeavours to do by giving 1. A modest account of the Non-conformists Meetings And 2. Some taste of their Reasons for Non-conformity These are two of the three things which we are told p. 3. were design'd in that Discourse As to the first The Pamphlet professes that the Composers of it are in the number of those Non-conformists who do not go from the Parish Church in opposition to it as if such Congregations were no Churches For they expresly acknowledg p. 4. That our Parish Churches are true Churches and That it is their duty to desire and endeavour the Vnion and Prosperity of those Churches And what says this Author p. 4. would the Doctor or any Conformist have of us more unless it be also to joyn with them there in the participation of the Ordinances As if the Doctor had not plainly enough told him and his Companions in Separation that he would have them so true to endeavour after Peace and Union with the Parochial Churches as to agree together with them not only in the same profession of Faith but in submitting to the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship This is that which the Doctor would have them do and he would have none of them guilty of either a total or a frequent forbearance of Communion with this Church or any of its particular Branches in what themselves judg lawful nor of forming separate Congregations under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the established Religion allows p. 20. Whereas on the contrary of late Years the Non-conformists says he have fill'd the People with greater prejudices than formerly against our Communion and gather them into fixt and separate Congregations which have proceeded to the choice of new Pastors upon the death of old ones and except some very few scarce any either of their Preachers or People in London come ordinarily to the publick Congregation p. 22. Which says the Doctor we lament as a thing which unavoidably tends to our common Ruine if not in time prevented for by this means the hearts of the People are alienated from each other c 'T is this obstinate and destructive course of Separation which the Doctor design'd his Sermon against In which he has made it his business to enervate the strength of those Pleas which are made use of by their best Writers to justifie their Separation To which this Pamphlet pretends to be an Answer And yet the Author of it has not thought fit to reply particularly to any one passage therein contain'd or to shew that what the Doctor has oppos'd to their Pleas is either impertinent or unsatisfactory But instead of that he endeavours an Apology for those Schismatical Practices by hinting or holding forth for I cannot say proving these Principles 1. That 't is the duty of those who are set apart to the Office of the Ministry supposing them every way to be fit and call'd to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of that Office. 2. 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 3. That Hearing and Preaching being relata which do mutually put and destroy one another the Peoples meeting is authorized by their Preachers commission And unless those Preachers do set and keep up Conventicles the whole generation of the Nonconformist Ministers must be laid aside from the exercise of their Office. 4. The People are bound to meet and hear those Preachers because they are convinced in their Consciences that they do edifie more by hearing them and so they also have the Plea of greater Duty The first of these he pretends to prove by the Apostles express Authority and Example Who when they were threatned and commanded to speak no more in Christ's Name have left us their Answer on record We ought to obey God rather than man. Which reason is impertinent and insufficient Impertinent 1. Because the Apostles there spoken of St. Peter and St. John. had an extraordinary Commission and Command to preach the Gospel which our Non-conformists have not and therefore supposing they were forbidden to preach it by men that instance would not justifie the preaching it not withstanding that Prohibition For they can produce no Command of God which requires them to preach it and therefore their not preaching it would be no disobedience to God's Command But 2. 'T is more impertinent upon another account because neither are they forbidden by the Magistrate to preach the Gospel but allow'd to do it to their own Families and to five more and therefore they may if they are lawfully set apart to the Office of the Ministry exercise their preaching Talent This instance therefore being thus impertinent to their Case 't is insufficient to justifie their Practice As for his precedent of the three first Centuries When said he the Gospel was never preach'd but contrary to the will of the Magistrate I deny that that was well done unless the Preachers could produce some Command of God for so doing And therefore for my part I do very much approve that which this Writer calls A slip of the Pen in Dr. Tillotson's Sermon That any pretence of Conscience warrants any man that is not extraordinarily Commissioned as the Apostles and first publishers of the Gospel were and cannot justifie that Commission by Miracles as they did to affront the Establisht Religion of a Nation though it be false and openly to draw men off from the profession of it in contempt of the Magistrate and the Law. This is a very great and useful truth and I was right glad to meet with it in a Sermon preached by that Eminent Person And the Author of this Pamphlet hath said nothing to the purpose against it He says that Affirmative Precepts bind semper but not ad semper Which we would fain have pass for a Reason why Protestants do not use to preach under the Inquisition And tells us There 's Prudence therefore to be used and Preachers need not be cast where they will be certainly trampled on He means where they that cast them will be certainly trampled on And the truth is if these Pearl-casters did foresee they should be Rent and Trampled on as they deserve I doubt not but they would be brought by degrees
of their Ecclesiastical enjoyments To these Apologies of theirs for preaching against Law they presume it will be said by the Episcopal Party But you may Conform If so say they we must then desire one or both of these Learned Moderate and Judicious Doctors Stillingfleet and Tillotson to contribute but this one thing towards it to answer the ensuing Objections those especially which concern the Political part of Conformity about the Oxford Oath and Subscription For say they If there be but one particular impos'd upon us as a condition of Conformity which we prove to be sinful and they cannot refel it there 's no man has been more forward than Dr. Stillingfleet to let us know out of Hales That 't is not the Refuser but the Imposer is guilty of the Schism That which Mr. Hales said is this That there is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick for where the cause of Schism is necessary there not he that separates but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick But with the leave of that great man and of another that opines according to that dictate I do deny that there can be any necessary cause of Schism for all Schism is sinful and there can be no necessary cause of Sin. 2. The Paragraph is non-sense if we should accept of Mr. Hales his own definition of Schism For says he Schism if we would define it is nothing else but an unnecessary separation of Christians from that part of the Visible Church whereof they were once Members The Paragraph then must be thus Paraphras'd There is a Schism in which only one party is the Schismatick for where the cause of Schism that is of unnecessary separation of Christians is necessary there not he that separates but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick The Non-sense whereof appears in its own light 3. 'T is absurd upon another account for himself grants that what Sedition or Rebellion is in the State and in reference to Civils that Schism is in the Church and in reference to Ecclesiastical union He may as well say therefore that where cause of Rebellion is necessary there not he that Rebels but he that is the cause of rebellion is the Rebel which is very pretty when it happens at any time that the Supreme Governour proves a Tyrant And so upon that or any other less account is the pretended cause of his Subjects Rebelling Indeed a necessary cause he cannot be let him be never so great a Tyrant But that makes that Dictate which this Author would persuade us the Doctor makes so much use of but does not nor I believe can he tell us where so much the more absurd That Tract of Schism tells us That when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for truth and acts either unlawful or ministring just scruple are required of us to be perform'd in these cases consent were Conspiracy and open contestation is not Faction or Schism but due Christian Animosity I shall not stay to question the truth of this Assertion as to those parts of it or uncertain and or ministring just scruple But though I should allow him that in those cases consent were Conspiracy yet open contestation against our proper Governours may be sinful He has not told us what he means by the Expression nor what sort and kind what measures and degrees of open Contestation he intended but I affirm there 's a medium between Consent and open Contestation and that is an humble and modest Refusal to comply with those impos'd Propositions or Actions which upon due enquiry and diligent examination we judg untrue or unlawful and humbly and meekly tendring our Reasons if required why we so judg That any greater Contestation then this amounts to of Subjects against their Governours is in any case necessary or lawful is more than I believe can be prov'd I am sure if the Contestation be so open and proceed so far as either to set up another Bishop in opposition to the former or to erect a new Church or Oratory for the dividing Part to meet in publickly Mr. Hales himself pronounces such separations compleat Schisms and till this be done the Schism he tells us is but yet in the Womb. And as he goes on In that famous Controversie in Holland De Praedestinatione Auxiliis As long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats the Schism was all that while un-hatch'd but as soon as one Party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the separating Party there to meet Now what before was a Controversie became a formal Schism Whence it follows that even in this man's judgment our Non-conforming Barn-sweepers and in them Pulpit erectors in order to meeting and preaching against Law are formal Schismaticks To the same purpose Arthur Jackson aforesaid in the same Letter before quoted has these words I confess I dread the falling upon the Rock of Separation but as long as I desire not to set up a new Church but am willing to joyn with the Publick Assemblies in Hearing and Prayer and only withdraw from what is not of Scripture-Institution I hope this partial Non communion cannot be justly called Separation In the same Tract Mr. Hales asserts That it is not lawful no not for Prayer or Hearing for Conference or any other Religious Office whatsoever for People to assemble otherwise than by publick Order is allow'd neither says he may we complain of this in times of Incorruption For why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private which may warrantably be perform'd in publick And in another part of the same Treatise ' What says he if those to whom the execution of the publick Service is committed do some thing either unseemly or suspicious or peradventure unlawful What if the Garments they wear be censured which indeed be superstitious What if the gesture of Adoration be us'd to the Altars What if the Homilist have preach'd or deliver'd any Doctrine of the Truth whereof we are not well persuaded A thing which very often falls out yet we may not Separate except we be constrain'd personally to bear a part in them our selves The Priests under Eli had so ill demean'd themselves about the daily Sacrifice that the Scripture tells us they made them to stink yet the People refus'd not to come to the Tabernacle nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest For in those Schisms which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. Thus he which passage by the way may serve for a rebuke to these mens greater edification-Argument before insisted on But because that expression or suspected Act comes trumping in our way again I shall here take so much notice of it as to acquaint the Reader if he know it not