II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
way faulty yet I cannot choose but be something ashamed But to come to the contents of your Letter I cannot express to you with how much grief I understand that your divisions continue at a time in which there are such pressing reasons for being Reunited Above all that which you tell me of writings that are at this time published to make men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private persons without sinning seems to me a thing so unreasonable in it self and so very unseasonable now that I should scarce believe it if it were not attested by a person of your merit and consideration My Lord you know well what my sentiments are and always have been in this matter and the way which I used two years ago when I was in England in frequenting your assemblies and preaching too in a Congregation that is under the jurisdiction of the Church of England sufficiently shews that I am very far from believing that her Communion is unlawful And this also proves very evidently that my opinion in this matter is the same that is holden by our Churches because it is not imaginable that I would without any necessity have done a thing which would have drawn the displeasure of my Brethren upon me and which at my return would have exposed my self to be blamed if not to be censured by them My Lord I would to God that all the mistaken Christians that are in the world would receive your Reformation I would with all my heart spend all the blood I have to procure them so great a good And I am sure with what an exceeding Joy our Churches would enter into their Communion if being pure in their opinions for Doctrine they differed no more from us than by Surplices and innocent Ceremonies and some diversity of Orders in the Government of the Church And by this my Lord you may perceive what I have to answer to your second question For since the Church of England is a true Church of our Lord since her Worship and Doctrines are pure and have nothing in them contrary to the word of God and since that when the Reformation was there received it was received together with Episcopacy and with the establishment of the Liturgy and Ceremonies which are there in use at this day it is without doubt the duty of all the Reformed of your Realm to keep themselves inseparably united to the Church And those that do not do this upon pretence that they should desire more simplicity in that Ceremonies and less of inequality among the Ministers do certainly commit a very great sin For Schism is the most formidable evil that can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this Christian charity obliges all good men to bear with their Brethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the dispute is ought to seem even in the eyes of those that have the most aversion for them And this was so much the opinion of our great and excellent Calvin that in his Treatise of the necessity of the Reformation he makes no difficulty to say That if there should be any so unreasonable as to refuse the Communion of a Church that was pure in its Worship and Doctrine and not to submit himself with respect to its Government under pretence that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours is there would be no Censure nor rigour of Discipline that ought not to be exercised upon them Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatear si qui erunt qui non eum revereantur summaque obedientia observent And Beza himself who did not in the general approve of the Episcopal Government makes such a distinction of yours and is so far from believing that one may or that one ought to take occasion from thence to separate from your Church that he prays earnestly to God that she may always remain in that happy estate in which she had been put and preserved by the blood by the purity of the Faith and by the wise conduct of her excellent Bishops Quod si nunc Anglicana Ecclesia instaurata suorum Episcoporum et Archiepiscoporum authoritate persistat quemadmodum hoc nostrâ memoriâ contigit ut ejus ordinis homines non tantum insignes Dei Martyres sed etiam praestantissimos Pastores et Doctores habuerit frautur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ quae utinam illi sit perpetua But my Lord although the first Authors of the Separation which troubles you be extraordinarily to blame and though those that continue it and strengthen it by their unreasonable and passionate Writings be extreamly so too it is certain yet that among the multitude that follows them there is a very great number of good-men whose faith is pure and whose piety is sincere and who remain separate from you only because their simplicity is surprized and because they have been frightned with the bugbear words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist which are continually beaten into their ears I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom St. Paul said they were of the Body for all that And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops such as you ought to say of them though in something a different sense as Optatus Milevitanus said of the Donatists of his time Si Collegium Episcopale nolunt nobiscum habere tamen Fraâ—res sunt In the name of God then my Lord do all that possibly you can to bring them back to their duty by sweetness and charity which is only able to do great things on these occasions For men who have always something of pride do commonly oppose every thing that seems to them to act by bare Authority only but they scarce ever fail to yield themselves up to forbearance and condescension Mansuetus homo cordis est medicus I do not pretend My Lord to thrust my self in to give you any particular advice in this case you that see things near at hand and that have a heart deeply affected with Christian Charity will judge better than any man what remedies are the most proper for so great an evil and I am sure that if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the a staining from some expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the colour of some habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great pleasure And I think I have read in some part of the Vindiciae of Mr â—ean of Windsor that these were the
Harrison His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown and the Defence of that Admonition When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament viz. Vnlawful Ministry Antichristian Government and False Worship Gifford a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex undertook to Answer them in several Treatises And it is observable that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile Notorious and Damnable Schism because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches and set up New Ones of their own Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks but saith They make a Vile Schism Rending themselves from the Church of England and condemning by their Assertions the Whole Visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time and he adds That the end of Brownism as it was then called is Infinite Schismes Heresies Atheism and Barbarism And the same Author in his Second Book reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People hath these remarkable words Now look also on the People where we may see very many who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues and Godly Duties as namely to be Meek to be Patient to be Lowlie to be full of Love and Mercy to deal Vprightly and Iustly to Guide their Families in the Fear of God with Wholsome Instructions and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them give themselves wholly to this even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion namely to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church against Bishops and Ministers and one against another on both sides Some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher but not to the Prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gone further and fallen into a Damnable Schism and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in these matters But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists appears by his Stating the Question in the same Preface For I shewed saith he in express words that I do not meddle at all in these Questions whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods Word whether they be many or few whether they be small or great but only thus far whether they be such or so great as make our Churches Antichristian Barrow saith That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist and he is joyned with Cartwright Hildersham Brightman and other Non-conformists by the Prefacer to the Desence of Bradshaw against Iohnson and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison Browns Colleague against Separation proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence through his being and placing in a particular Church and justly required of him by the Church or Spiritual Body through that same inforcing Law of the coherence and being together of the parts and members which is the express Ordinance of God So that saith he unless I hold the Congregation whereof I am now disanulled and become no Church of Christ for the not separating an unworthy Member I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises or yet depart away being come together without Breach of the Bond of Peace Sundring the Cement of Love empairing the growth of the Body of Christ and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere Richard Bernard calls it An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of But I need not mention more particular Aâ—thors since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists in the Name of the Non-conformists it is said That because we have a True Church conâ—â—ting of a Lawful Ministery and a Faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation they say We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate as long as they continue in this Schism Sect. 9. But for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie we must consider What things were agreed on both sides and where the Main Points of Difference lay 1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it In their Apology presented to King Iames thus they speak We testifie by these presents unto all Men and desire them to take knowledge hereof that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation between Iohnson and Iacob saith That the first Separatists never denied that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them to be true Christians and in the state of Salvation but always held professed and acknowledged the contrary Barrow saith That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs and deemed them saved notwithstanding the false Offices and great corruptions in the Worship exercised And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death he saith He had Reverend estimation of sundry and good hope of many hundred thousands in England though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church in the present Communion Ministry Worship Government and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies 2. The Separatists granted That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it Thus they express themselves in their Apology Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for blemishes and imperfections which every one according to his Calling should studiously seek to cure and to expect and further it until either there follow redress or the Disease be grown incurable And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith written by Iohnson and Ainsworth they have these words None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and Corruptions which may and so
the Gospel against those of the Separation which was part of that Book afterwards Published by W. R. and called A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists The Ground-work whereof as Mr. Ainsworth calls it is thus laid That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself Cutteth himself off from Christ. If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days those who live in ours ought well to consider it if they regard their Salvation And for this Assertion of theirs they bring Three Reasons 1. For that they Enjoy and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church i. e. Preaching of the Gospel and Administration of the Sacraments 2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith and Hold and Teach c. all Truths Fundamental So we put their Two Reasons into One because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith which say they is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church and admitted to the Priviledges thereof even by the Apostles themselves So the Church of Pergamus though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it yet because it kept the Faith of Christ was still called the Church of God 3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation the Position he laid down was this That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God Which he proved by this Argument Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation that is sufficient to make a Company of Men so gathered together to be a True Church But the whole Doctrine as it is Publickly Professed and Practised by Law in England is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation and our Publick Assemblies are therein gathered together Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assemblies True Churches And in the Defence of this Argument against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson that whole Disputation is spent And in latter times the Dispute between Ball and Can about the necessity of Separation runs into this Whether our Church be a True Church or not concerning which Ball thus delivers his Judgment True Doctrine in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith though mix't with Defects and Errors in other matters not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance though in the manner of Dispensation some things be not so well ordered as they might and ought are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church though somewhat crased in health and soundness by Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in Life and Manners The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on was Sect. 11. 2. That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it This will best appear by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery To which Giffard thus Answers The Church of England in the time of Popery was a Member of the Vniversal Church and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome nor took not her beginning of being a Church by Separating her self from that Romish Synagogue but having her Spirits revived and her Eyes opened by the Light of the Heavenly Word did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist with his Abominable Idolatry Heresies and False Worship and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith and True Service of God and so is a purer and more faithful Church than before Others add That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church and so to make a visible Church Neither were sufficient means wanting in our Case for the due Conviction of Mens Minds but then they add That the Question must not be Whether the Means used were the Right Means for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith but Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors whose Fellowship they had forsaken which they Iustifie by the Examples of Jehoshaphat and Josiah Asa and Hezekiah II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers using Popish Ceremonies c. To this they Answer 1. That it is evident by the Word That the Church hath used and might lawfully use in God's Worship and Prayer a stinted Form of Words and that not only upon Ordinary but Extraordinary Occasions which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit Nay they say They are so far from thinking them unlawful that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church they are many times more fit than those which are called Conceived Prayers 2. If Formes thus devised by Men be Lawful and Profitable What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church to Command that such Foâ—ms be used or for us that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them to use them unless they will say That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word Receive the Sacraments Believe the Trinity and all other Articles of Faith because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do Whereas indeed we ought the rather to do good things that are agreeable unto the Word when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate 3. It is true the Non-conformists say The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book but it followeth not thence that either it is or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil we cannot more credit the Man of Sin than to say That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichristian for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ to read the Scriptures to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book and yet be free from all fault and tincture from all shew and apperance of Evil though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass that both cannot possibly stand together Yea so many points saith
Bâ—ll are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery that it is not possible Popery should stand if they take place And saith he it is more proper to say the Mass was added to our Common Prayer than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World 4. As to the Fasts and Feasts and Ceremonies retained they Answer That what was Antichristian in them was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome which being taken away by the Reformation the things themselves are not Antichristian As namely saith Giffard the Remission of Sins and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross and such like things which the Papacy is full of but rejected by us III. That our Ministery was Antichristian To this they Answer 1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture not by his unlawful outward Calling or Office that he should exercise in the Church but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp to give Laws to Mens Consciences and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God Which two Marks of Antichrist as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised were faulty and unwarrantable by the Word yet you in your own Conscience know that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience neither is any thing among us urged to be done upon pain of Damnation but only the Word and Law of God 2. That the Office which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office which the Law alloweth is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently so by our Laws he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do and forbidden to Teach any thing as required of necessity to Salvation but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture yea it Commandeth him with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines that are contrary to Gods VVord Doth the VVord Authorise him to Administer the Sacraments So doth our Law Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach but also oversee and look to the Peoples Conversation Exhorting Admonishing Reproving Comforting them as well privately as publickly So doth our Law Lastly Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ our Law doth also command the same So that although many to whom the execution of these things appertain do grievously fail in the practice thereof yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister is the same in substance with that which the VVord layeth upon him Tell us not then That the same Name is given to our Office as to the Popish Sacrificers Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists And Shall the Holy Office and Calling which is so agreeable to the VVord be misliked because it is called a Priesthood considering that though it agree in Name yet it differeth in Nature and Suâ—stance as much from the Romish Priesthood as Light doth from Darkness IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church To which they Answer 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ which concern the Discipline of his Church and the outward calling of his Ministers is no such sin as can make either the Ministers or Governors of our Church Antichrist or our Church an Antichristian and False Church And Mr. H. adds That no one place of Scripture can be found wherein he is called an Antichrist or Antichristian who holding the Truth of Doctrine and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental as we do doth swerve either in Iudgment or Practice from that Rule which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture whose Doctrine is sound If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation through no other door than Christ How dare you that say you are Christ's refuse to be guided by them If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock How can you deny them to be True Churches 2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord and Administration of Sacraments as well as the Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor which say they by Law ought to be in all our Assemblies and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ which is most substantial do want the other and so exercise it not rightly that is to say not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed And farther they add That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table all such as are Vncatâ—chised and out of Charity or any otherwise publick offenders as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion and in that which is after Confirmation 3. That although it were granted That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign The Church of Corinth was a True Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they Condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline which we want be to the Beauty and Well-being or preservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a True Church may be without them
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the new-New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
the sign of the Cross at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images 2. For Circumcision which he tells us may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law that he saith If ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing which was never said of any of our Ceremonies And whereas he saith it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony he is much mistaken if their Emperour Claudius say true for he saith it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia and boreing the ear among the Indians And Ludolphus proves it to be no other because it is done by a woman in private without any witnesses 3. As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation But why are things never used by the Primitive Church for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false it is nothing to us brought to parallel our Ceremonies when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church which observed the same kind of Ceremonies The only remaining pretence for the present Separation is that there is a parity of reason as to their Separating from us and our Separating from the Church of Rome For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable then this will hold for themselves because they think so and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike When 1. They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true we reject all their additional Articles in Pius 4. his Creed not only as false but some of them as absurd and unreasonable as men can invent viz. that of Transubstantiation which is made by them the great trying and burning point But what is there which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine as new as false as absurd nay they all yield to the Antiquity to the Truth to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it You may be sure it is some mighty thing for he saith presently after it that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice Alas for him that his modesty should ever hurt him But what is this dangerous Secret that they have hitherto kept in out of meer veneration to the Church of England Let us prepare our selves for this unusual this killing charge Why saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church this Doctrine is contained It is matter of Doctrine then I see although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles as far as they concern Doctrine But what is this notorious doctrine It is saith he that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Did I not fear it was some dreadful thing some notorious heresie condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils But is it said so in plain words or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Consequences No it is plain enough for the Question is What is required of Persons to be baptized Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament Quest. Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform But I pray doth it hence follow that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Are not the words express that they promise both by their Sureties And is promising and performance all one I do not find it so by this Instance For here was a great matter promised and nothing performed It is true the Catechism saith Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptized which supposeth the persons to be baptized capable of performing these things themselves And then comes a Question by way of objection why then are Infants baptized c. to which the sense of the Answer is that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised And now let the Reader judge since this horrible Secret is come out whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church And I know nothing can do them greater Service than such Parallels as these 2. We charge them with those Reasons for Separation which the Scripture allows such as Idolatry perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ and Tyranny over the Consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so But not one of these can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God we worship no Images we invocate no Sains we adore no Host we creep to no Crucifix we kiss no Relicks We equal no traditions with the Gospel we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christs and to dispence with his Laws and Institutions We mangle no Sacraments nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a
but at last the way of Separation prevailed as the more pure and perfect way But this was not thought sufficient by these busie Factors for the Church of Rome unless they could under the same pretence of purity and perfection draw off Protestants from the Communion of this Church too To this purpose Persons were imployed under the disguise of more Zealous Protestants to set up the way of more Spiritual Prayer and greater Purity of Worship than was observed in the Church of England that so the People under these Pretences might be drawn into Separate Meetings Of this we have a Considerable Evidence lately offer'd to the World in the Examination of a Priest so imploy'd at the Council-Table A. D. 1567. being the 9th of Q. Elizabeth which is published from the Lord Burleighs Papers which were in the hands of Arch-Bishop Usher and from him came to Sir James Ware whose Son brought them into England and lately caused them to be Printed Two years after one Heath a Jesuit was Summon'd before the Bishop of Rochester on a like account for disparaging the Prayers of the Church and setting up Spiritual Prayers above them and he declared to the Bishop That he had been six years in England and that he had laboured to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer When he was seized on a Letter was found about him from a Jesuit in Spain wherein he takes notice how he was admired by his Flock and tells him they looked on this way of dividing Protestants as the most effectual to bring them all back to the Church of Rome and in his Chamber they found a Bull from Pius V. to follow the Instructions of the Society for dividing the Protestants in England and the License from his Fraternity There is one thing in the Jesuits Letter deserves our farther consideration which the Publisher of it did not understand which is that Hallingham Coleman and Benson are there mentioned as Persons imploy'd to sow a Faction among the German Hereticks which he takes to be spoken of the Sects in Germany but by the German Hereticks the English Protestants are meant i.e. Lutherans and these very Men are mentioned by our Historians without knowing of this Letter as the most active and busie in the beginning of the Separation Of these saith Fuller Coleman Button Hallingham and Benson were the chief At which time saith Heylin Benson Button Hallingham and Coleman and others taking upon them to be of more ardent Zeal than others c. That time is 1568 which agrees exactly with the Date of that Letter at Madrid October 26. 1568. And both these had it from a much better Author than either of them Camden I mean who saith That while Harding Sanders and others attacked our Church on one side Coleman Button Hallingham Benson and others were as busie on the other who under pretence of a purer Reformation opposed the Discipline Liturgy and Calling of our Bishops as approaching too near to the Church of Rome And he makes these the Beginners of those Quarrels which afterwards brake out with great violence Now that there is no improbability in the thing will appear by the suitableness of these Pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practices of the Jesuits For they are professed despisers of the Cathedral Service and are excused from their attendance on it by the Constitutions of their Order and are as great admirers of Spiritual Prayer and an Enthusiastick way of Preaching as appears by the History of the first Institution of their Order by Orlandinus and Maffeius They who are acquainted with their Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer will find that which is admired and set up here as so much above Set-Forms to be one of the lowest of three sorts among them That Gift of Prayer which Men have but requires the Exercise of their own Gifts to stir it up they call Oratio acquisita acquired Prayer although they say the Principle of it is infused The Second is by a special immediate influence of the Holy Ghost upon the Mind with the concurrence of infused habits The Third is far above either of these which they call the Prayer of Contemplation and is never given by way of habit to any but lies in immediate and unexpressible unions All these I â—ould easily shew to be the Doctrine received and magnified in the Roman Church especially by those who pretend to greater Purity and Spirituality than others But this is sufficient to my purpose to prove that there is no improbability that they should be the first setters up of this way in England And it is observable that it was never known here or in any other Reformed Church before this time and therefore the beginning of it is unjustly father'd by some on T. C. But by whomsoever it was begun it met with such great success in the zeal and warmth of devotion which appeared in it that no Charm hath been more effectual to draw injudicious People into a contempt of our Liturgy and admiring the Way of Separation When by such Arts the People were possessed with an Opinion of a more pure and Spiritual Way of Worship than was used in our Church they were easily drawn into the admiration of those who found fault with the Liturgy and Ceremonies that were used among us and so the Divisions wonderfully increased in a very short time And the Papists could not but please themselves to see that other Men did their VVork so effectually for them For the Authors of the Admonition 14 Elizab. declared They would have neither Papists nor others constrained to Communicate which although as Arch-Bishop Whitgift saith they intended as a Plea for their own Separation from the Church yet saith he the Papists could not have met with better Proctors And elsewhere he tells them That they did the Pope very good service and that he would not miss them for any thing For what is his desire but to have this Church of England which he hath Accused utterly defaced and discredited to have it by any means overthrown if not by Forrein Enemies yet by Domestical Dissention And What fitter and apter Instruments could he have had for that purpose than you who under pretence of zeal overthrow that which other Men have builded under color of Purity seek to bring in Deformity and under the Cloke of Equality and Humility would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over your Parishes as ever the Pope did over the whole Church And in another place he saith They were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave whereby they intend to overthrow this Church by our own Folly which they cannot compass by all their Policy Arch-Bishop Grindal as I find a Letter of his expressed his great fear of two things Atheism and Popery and both arising out of our needless Divisions and Differences fomented he doubts not by
up Scholars or to teach Gentlemens Sons University Learning because this may be justly looked on as a design to propagate Schism to Posterity and to lay a Foundation for the disturbance of future Generations II. As to the Case of the ejected Mininisters I have these things to offer 1. That bare subscription of the Thirty six Articles concerning doctrinal Points be not allowed as sufficient to qualifie any man for a Living or any Church-preferment for these Reasons First Any Lay-man upon these Terms may not only be capable of a Living but may take upon him to Administer the Sacraments which was never allowed in any well constituted Church in the Christian World And such an allowance among us in stead of setling and uniting us will immediately bring things into great confusion and give mighty advantage to the Papists against our Church And we have reason to fear a Design of this Nature under a pretence of Union of Protestants tends to the subversion of this Church and throwing all things into confusion which at last will end in Popery Secondly This will bring a Faction into the Church which will more endanger it than external opposition For such Men will come in triumphantly having beaten down three of the Thirty nine Articles and being in legal possession of their Places will be ready to dâ—fie and contemn those who submitted to the rest and to glory in their Conquests and draw Followers after them as the victorious Confessors against Prelacy and Ceremonies And can they imagin those of the Church of England will see the Reputation of the Church or their own to suffer so much and not appear in their own Vindication Things are not come to that pass nor will they suddenly be that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause We do heartily and sincerely desire Union with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it If any Expedient can be found out for the ease of other Mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it But if the Design be to bring them in as a Faction to bridle and controll the Episcopal Power by setting up forty Bishops in a Diocese against one if it be for them to trample upon the Church of England and not to submit to its Order and Government upon fair and moderate terms let them not call this a Design of Union but the giving Law to a Party to oppose the Church of England And what the success of this will be let wise Men judge Thirdly If a subcription to Thirty six Articles were sufficient by the Statute 13 El. c. 12. I do not understand how by virtue of that Statute a Man is bound publickly to read the Thirty nine Articles in the Church and the Testimonial of his Subscription on pain of being deprived ipso facto if he do not For the L. Ch. I. Coke faith That subscription to the 39 Articles is required by force of of the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. c. 12. And he adds That the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto and that a conditional subscription to them was not sufficient was resolved by all the Judges in England But how a Man should be deprived ipso facto for not subscribing and Reading the 39 Articles as appears by the Cases mentioned in Coke and yet be required onely to subscribe to 36 by the same Statute is a thing too hard for me to conceive 2. But notwithstanding this if any temper can be found out as to the manner of Subscription that may give ease to the scruples of our Brethren and secure the Peace of the Church the desired Union may be attained without that apparent danger of increasing the Factions among us And this I suppose may be done by an absolute subscription to all those Articles which concern the Doctrine of the true Christian Faith and the Use of the Sacraments and a solemn Promise under their hand or Subscription of Peaceable submission as to the rest so as not to oppose or contradict them either in Preaching or Writing upon the same penalty as if they had not subscribed to the 36. Which may be a more probable means to keep the Church in quiet than forceing a more rigorous subscription upon them or leaving them at their full liberty 3. As to the other subscription required 1. Jac. to the 3 Articles The first is provided for by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy The third is the same with the subscription to the 39 Articles And as to the second about the Book of Common Prayer c. It ought to be considered 1 Whether for the satisfaction of the scrupulous some more doubtful and obscure passages may not yet be explained or amended Whether the New Translation of the Psalms were not fitter to be used at least in Parochial Churches Whether portions of Canonical Scripture were not better put in stead of Apocrypha Lessons Whether the Rubrick about Salvation of Infants might not be restored to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so the present exceptions against it be removed Whether those expressions which suppose the strict exercise of Discipline in Burying the Dead were not better left at liberty in our present Case Such a Review made by Wise and Peaceable Men not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far from being a dishonour to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it 2 Upon such a Review whether it be not great Reason that all Persons who Officiate in the Church be not only tied to a constant Use of it in all Publick Offices as often as they administer them which they ought in Person frequently to do but to declare at their first entrance upon a Parochial Charge their approbation of the Use of it after their own Reading of it that so the People may not suspect them to carry on a factious Design under an outward pretence of Conformity to the Rules of the Church they live in 3 Whether such a solemn Using the Liturgy and approbation and promise of the Use of it may not be sufficient in stead of the late Form of declaring their Assent and Consent which hath been so much scrupled by our Brethren These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union and which I suppose may be granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church There are other things very desireable towards the happiness and flourishing of this Church as the exercise of Discipline in Parochial Churches in a due subordination to
are built Sect. 19. The advantages of National Churches above Independent Congregations Sect. 20. Mr. B's Quaeries about National Churches answered The Notion of the Church of England explained Sect. 21. What necessity of one Constitutive Regent part of a National Church Sect. 22. What Consent is necessary to the Union of a National Church Sect. 23. Other Objections answered Sect. 24. Of the Peoples power of choosing their own Pastors Not founded in Scripture Sect. 25. The testimony of Antiquity concerning it fully inquired into The great disturbances of popular Elections the Ganons against them The Christian Princes interposing The ancient Rights of Nomination and Presentation The practice of foreign Protestant Churches No reason to take away the Rights of Patronage to put the choice into the peoples hands Objections answered Sect. 26. No unlawfulness in the Terms of our Communion Of substantial parts of Worship The things agreed on both sides Sect. 27. The way of finding the difference between their Ceremonies and parts of Divine Worship cleared Sect. 28. The difference of the Popish Doctrine from ours as to Ceremonies Sect. 29. The Sign of the Cross a Rule of Admission into our Church and no part of Divine Worship Sect. 30 No new Sacrament Mr. B's Objections answered Sect. 31. His great mistakes about the Papist's Doctrine concerning the Moral Casuality of Sacraments Sect. 32. Of the Customs observed in our Church though not strictly required Sect. 33. Of the Censures of the Church against Opposers of Ceremonies and the force of Excommunication ipso facto Sect. 34. Of the Plea of an erroneous Conscience in the case of Separation Sect. 35. Of scruples of Conscience still remaining Sect. 36. Of the use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism Sect. 37. No ground of Separation because more Ceremonies may be introduced Sect. 38. No Parity of Reason as to the Dissenters Pleas for separating from our Church and our Separation from the Church of Rome An Appendix containing several Letters of Eminent Protestant Divines abroad shewing the unreasonableness of the present Separation from the Church of England Letter of Monsieur le Moyn p. 395 Of Monsieur le Angle p. 412 Of Monsieur Claude p. 427 Errata in the Preface Page 14. marg r. Church History l. 9 p. 81. p. 17. l. 24. after find insert in p. 34. l. 18. for S. Paul r. the Apostle p. 36. l. 5. r. follows p. 53. l. 21. for our r. one In the Book p. 59. l. 5. for 1 r. 3 p. 71. l. 27. r. secession p. 72. l 8. r. as will l. 28. r. for which l. ult r. Cameron p. 101 l 12. dele for before say they p. 102. l. 11. r. their teachers p. 378. l. 2. dele whether AN Historical Account OF THE RISE and PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Separation PART I. Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controversie it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things 1. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation 2. That when Separation began it was most vehemently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked many things in our Church and wished for a farther Reformation And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then it will appear that the Principles owned by them do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us In the making out of these I shall give a full account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie about Separation from the Communion of our Church I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation By Separation we mean nothing else but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on by those who pretend to justifie these Practises and those are such as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful And not one of all those which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation For our Church stands on the same Grounds useth the same Ceremonies only fewer prescribes the same Liturgy only more corrected hath the same constitution and frame of Government the same defect of Discipline the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers and at least as effectual means of Edification as there were when the Reformation was first established And what advantage there is in our present circumstances as to the Number Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies and the Explication of the meaning of others as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation do all make it much more unreasonable now than it had been then Sect. II. It cannot be denied that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Reformation but they were such things as are the least scrupled now Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap and Tippet c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits but he submitted afterwards to the use of them Bucer and some others disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth which were Corrected in the Second So that upon the Review of the Liturgy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church at least as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separation For we read of none who refused the constant use of the Liturgy or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained as the Cross in Baptism and Kneeling at the Communion which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such a dreadful manner of the Mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insupportable Ceremonies Now we are told That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion By Whom At what Time In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion or alter'd the Old Ones No the same Author saith It is perpetuating the old Conditions and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom wherein it must certainly miscâ—rry Not to insist on his way of Expression in calling the Reformation An Old Worm-eaten Bottom which ill beâ—omes them that would now be held the most
that not only occasionally and at certain seasons but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it Sect. 3. Thus matters stood as to Communion with our Church in the days of Edward VI. but as soon as the Persecution began in Queen Mary's time great numbers were forced to betake themselves to foreign parts whereof some went to Zurick others to Basil others to Strasburg and others to Frankford Grindal in a Letter to B. Ridley saith they were nigh 100 Students and Ministers then in Exile These with the people in all other places Geneva excepted kept to the Orders established in our Church but at Frankford some began to be very busie in Reforming our Liturgy leaving out many things and adding others which occasioned the following Troubles of Frankford The true ground whereof is commonly much mis-represented Mr. Baxter saith The difference was between those which strove for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free-way of praying i.e. as he explains it from the present sense and habit of the Speaker but that this is a great mistake will appear from the account published of them A. D. 1575. by one that was a Friend to the Dissenting Party From which it appears That no sooner were the English arriv'd at Frankford but the Minister of the French Congregation there came to them and told them he had obtained from the Magistrates the freedom of a Church for those who came out of England but especially for the French they thanked him and the Magistrates for so much kindness but withal let them understand this would be little benefit to the English unless they might have the liberty of performing all the Offices of Religion in their own Tongue Upon an Address made to the Senate this request was granted them and they were to make use of the French Church at different times as the French and they could agree but with this express Proviso that they should not dissent from the French in Doctrine or Ceremonies lest they should thereby Minister occasion of offence But afterwards it seems the Magistrates did not require them to be strictly tied up to the French Ceremonies so they did mutually agree Upon this they perused the English Order and endeavour'd to bring it as near as they could to the French Model by leaving out the Responses the Letany Surplice and many other things and adding a larger Confession more suitable to the State and Time after which a Psalm was Sung then the Minister after a short Prayer for Divine Assistance according to Calvins Custom was to proceed to the Sermon which being ended then followed a General Prayer for all Estates particularly for England ending with the Lords Prayer and so repeating the Articles of the Creed and another Psalm Sung the People were dismissed with the Blessing By which we see here was not the least controversie whether a Liturgy or not but whether the Order of Service was not to be accommodated as much as might be to the French Model However when they sent to the English in other places to resort thither by reason of the great Conveniencies they enjoy'd and acquainted them with what they had done it gave great offence to them which they expressed in their Letters Those of Zurick sent them word They determined to use no other Order than that which was last established in England and in another Letter They desire to be assured from them that if they removed thither they should all joyn in the same Order of Service concerning Religion which was in England last set forth by King Edward To this the Congregation of Frankford returned Answer That they could not in all points warrant the Full Vse of the Book of Service which they impute to their present Circumstances in which they suppose such Alterations would be allowed but they intended not hereby to deface the worthy Lawes and Ordinances of King Edward These Learned Men of Strasburg understanding their resolutions send Grindall to them with a Letter subscribed by 16 wherein they intreat them To reduce the English Church there as much as possible to the Order lately set forth in England lest say they by much altering of the same they should seem to condemn the chief Authors thereof who as they now suffer so are they most ready to confirm that fact with the price of their Bloods and should also both give occasion to our Adversaries to accuse our Doctrine of Imperfection and us of Mutability and the Godly to Doubt of that Truth wherein before they were perswaded and to hinder their coming thither which before they had purposed And to obtain their desire they tell them They had sent Persons for that end to Negotiate this Affair with the Magistrates and in case they obtained their Request they promised to come and joyn with them and they did not question the English in other places would do the same Notwithstanding the weight of these Reasons and the desireableness of their Brethrens company in that time of Exile they persist in their former resolutions not to have the Entire English Liturgy for by this time Knox was come from Geneva being chosen Minister of the Congregation However they returned this Answer to Strasburg That they made as little Alteration as was possible for certain Ceremonies the Country would not bear and they did not dissent from those which lie at the Ransom of their Bloods for the Doctrine whereof they have made a most worthy Confession About this time some suggested that they should take the Order of Geneva as farthest from Superstition but Knox declined this till they had advised with the Learned Men at Strasburg Zurick Emden c. knowing that the Odium of it would be thrown upon him But finding their Zeal and Concernment for the English Liturgy he with Whittingham and some others drew up an Abstract of it and sent it to Calvin desiring his Judgment of it Who upon perusal of it being throughly heated in a Cause that so nearly concerned him writes a very sharp Letter directed to the Brethren at Frankford gently Rebuking them for their unseasonable Contentions about these matters but severely Reproving the English Divines who stood up for the English Liturgy when the Model of Geneva stood in Competition with it And yet after all his Censures of it he Confesses The things he thought most unfit were Tolerable but he blames them if they did not choose a better when they might choose but he gives not the least incouragement to Separation if it were continued and he declares for his own part how easie he was to yield in all indifferent things such as External Rites are And he was so far in his Judgment from being for Free Prayer or making the constant use of a Liturgy a Ground of Separation as Dr. O. doth that when he delivered his Opinion with the greatest Freedom to the then Protector about the best method of
themselves from the Society of other Christians they not only Condemned them but also the whole State of the Church Reformed in King Edward's dayes which was well Reformed according to the word of God yea and many Good Men have shed their Blood for the same which your doings Condemn Have ye not saith he the Gospel truly Preached and the Sacraments Ministred accordingly and good order kept although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies and in indifferent things which lie in the Princes Power to Command for Order sake To which one of them Answered That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached and the Sacraments Administred without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it they never assembled together in Houses but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Non-conformity they be thought themselves what was best for them to do and calling to mind that there was a Congregation there in the dayes of Queen Mary which followed the Order of Geneva they took up that and this Book and Order saith he we hold Another Answered That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it and set them up before it so that no Man may Preach or Minister the Sacraments without them Things being come to this height and Separation beginnâ—ng to break out the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther till they had Consulted their Oracle at Geneva Beza being often solicited by them with doleful Complaints of their hard usage and the different Opinions among themselves what they were to do at last resolves to Answer but first he declares How unwilling he was to interpose in the Differences of another Church especially when but one Party was heard and he was afraid this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more rather than Cure this evil which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured but Precibus Patientiâ by Prayers and Patience After this General Advice Beza freely declares his own judgment as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers and the Peoples Separation he expresses his Mind in that manner that the Dissenters at this day would have published their Invectives against him one upon the back of another For 1. As to the Silenced Ministers he saith That if the Pressing Subscription continued he perswades them rather to live privately than to yield to it For they must either act against their Consciences or they must quit their Imployments for saith he the Third thing that may be supposed viz. That they should exercise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops we Tremble at the Thoughts of it for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them What! Is Beza for Silencing and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful and able Ministers and at such a time when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it when St. Antholins St. Peters St. Bartholomews at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was were like to be left destitute of such Men Would Beza even Beza at such a time as that be for Silencing so many Preachers i. e. for their sitting quiet when the Law had done it And would not he suffer them to Preach when they ought to have done it though against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries but that he was of the contrary it appears plainly by this That before he Perswades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe and that he expresses no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws 2 As to the case of the People his Advice was As long as the Doctrine was sound that they should diligently attend upon it and receive the Sacraments devoutly and to joyn Amendment of Life with their Prayers that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation So that nothing can be more express against Sâ—paration than what is here said by Beza for even as to the Ministers he saith Though he did not approve the Ceremonies yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves he doth not think them of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them or that the People should forsake the Ordinances rather than hear those who did Conform Than which words nothing can be plainer against Separation And it further appears by Beza ' s Resolution of a case concerning a Schism in the French Church then in London That he looked on it as a Sin for any one to Separate from a Church wherein Sound Doctrine and a Holy Life and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up And by Separation he saith he means Not meerly going from one Church to another but the Discontinuing Communion with the Publick Assemblies as though one were no Member of them Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissenting Brethren at that time seems to have put an effectual Stop to the Course of Separation which they were many of them then inclined to But he was not alone among the Foreign Divines who about that time expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used For Gualter a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talke of the Difference then about these things and he extremely blames the Morose humor of those who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely 1572. he tells him How much they had disswaded them from making such a stir in the Church about Matters of no moment and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church which they had sent Men on purpose to possess them with both at Geneva and other places Zanchy upon great Sollicitation wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies but withal he sent another to Bishop Iewel to perswade the Non-conformists if the Queen could not be moved not to leave their Churches on such accounts which for his part he did not understand how any could lawfully do as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments although they were forced to do something therein which did not please them as long as the things were of that kind which in themselves were neither good nor evil And the same Reason will much more hold against the Peoples Sâ—paration Sect. 7. But about this time the dissenting party much increasing and most of the old and peaceable Non-conformists
long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men will fall out and arise among them even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof But in the case of our Church they pleaded that the Corruptions were so many and great as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church So Barrow saith They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election or from Christ but from being Members of a True Constituted Church On the other side the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary or lawful So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions 1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrew the being or constitution of it 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversie 1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it Barrow and his Brethren did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separation unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches For here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be Want of a right gathering our Churches at first False Worship Antichristian Ministery and Government These Reasons say they all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate especially when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied but resisted blasphemed persecuted These are the words of the First and Chiefest Separatists who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles We condemn not say they their Assemblies barely for a mixture of good and bad which will alwayes be but for want of an orderly gathering or constitution at first we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry but for having and reteining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government or Discipline but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections but because their Worship is Superstitious devised by Men Idolatrous according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book according unto which their Sacraments and whole Administration is performed and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well that nothing but such a Charge which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound could justifie their Separation not meer promiscuous Congregations nor mixt Communions not defect in the Exercise of Discipline not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church as they supposed Idolatrous Worship and an Antichristian Ministry to do If Mr. Giffard saith Barrow can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches then we would shew him how free we are from Schism The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames by Ainsworth Iohnson and the rest of them Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God ought not by any true Christian to be continued or Communicated with but must be forsaken and separated from and a true Church sought and ioyned unto c. But the Church of England is before proved not to be the true Church of Christ and of God therefore it ought to be separated from c. By which we see the Greatest Separatists that were then never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches if they were true On the other side those who opposed the Separation with greatest zeal thought nothing more was necessary for them to disprove the Separation then to prove our Churches to be true Churches R. Brown from whom the Party received their denomination thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright the Ringleader of the Non-conformists to prove the Necessity of Separation because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here he made our Church not to be a true Church and consequently that Separation was necessary T. C. Answers That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing as giveth an utter overthrow and turning upside down of the truth His meaning is wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church or Iustifie Separation from it For he addeth although besides Faith in the Son of God there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being and not simply to the being of the Church And in this respect saith he the Lutheran Churches which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies which beside the maym of Discipline which is common to our Churches are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God Was not Jerusalem saith he after the Return from Babylon the City of the Great King until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City To say therefore it is none of the Church because it hath not received this Discipline methinks is all one with this as if a Man would say It is no City because it hath no Wall or that it is no Vineyard because it hath neither Hedge nor Ditch It is not I grant so sightly a City or Vineyard nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church his Defender saith He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church with respect to Censures but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People Afterwards as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation their main Business was To Prove our Churches to be True Churches As in a Book Entituled Certain Positions hâ—ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of
4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Consent of the Christian Magistrate and Governors of the Church Nay they declare that in so doing they should highly offend God Giffard saith That the Fetters and Chains can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience and the Fear of God from presuming to take upon them Publick Authority And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together and choose a Minister and Ordain him it would make him no more a Minister before God then if all the Apprentices in London taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor and Minister an Oath unto him should make him a Lord Mayor But of this more afterwards V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under as they speak an Antichristian Hierarchy To which they Answer First They deny that our Bishops can be called Antichristian since they do and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Fundamental yea some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks that have gainsay'd it some have not only by their Doctrine and Ministry Converted many to the Truth but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel Secondly Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke which they deny yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church or Miâ—istry under it Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches have frequently born such a Yoke and yet have been the True Churches of God still Thirdly That there is nothing unlawful or Antichristian in the Office of Bishops if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners to see that the Pastors do their Duties And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church to cast many particular Churches under one Provincial or Diocesan Government Yea Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this not only lawful but expedient to that degree that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches within his Dominions without it as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them this saith he doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do and by the Laws cought to do These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness from the Authors of best reputation on both sides that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation between the Old Non-conformists and the Separatists of that time Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie by those who were called Independents and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism or rigid Separation And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation or the Steps by which it was carried on and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way and what the True State of the Difference was between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren and how far the Reasons then used will hold against the present Separation When those who were called Brownists for the fâ—eer Exercise of their new Church way withdrew into the Low-Countreys they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves A. D. 1582. Robert Brown accompanied with Harrison a School-Master and about 50 or 60 Persons went over to Middleburgh and there they chose Harrison Pastor and Brown Teacher They had not been there Three Months but upon the falling out between Brown and Harriâ—on Brown forsakes them and returns for England and Subscribes promising to the Archbishop To live Obediently to his Commands Concerning whom Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause Mr. Brown hath cast us off and that with open manifest and notable Treacheries and if I should declare them you could not believe me Only this I testifie unto you that I am well able to prove That Cain dealt not so ill with his Brother Abel as he hath dealt with me Some of the words of Browns Subscription were these I do humbly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment whose Authority under Her Majesty I wâ—ll never resist or deprave by the Grace of God c. But being a Man of a Restless and Factious Temper no Promises or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered For although he promised to frequent our Churches and to come to Prayers and Sacraments yet living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years in all that time he never did it and when he was like to have been question'd for it he withdrew into another Parish Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons but that he accounted no act of Communion and declared to his Friends That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do Notwithstanding this he Preached in Private Meetings and that in the time of Publick Assemblies when he thought fit Which this Author though a Non-conformist and Friend of T. Cs calls a Cursed Conventicle who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings and Iesuitical Aequivocations in his Subscription By the Bishops Authority he said he meant only his Civil Authority by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God he understood the Church of his own setting up by frequenting our Assemblies according to Law he meant the Law of God and not of the Land he declared his Child was Baptized according to Law but then told his Followers it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton of New England hath this passage concerning Brown The first Inventor of that way which is called Brownism from whom the Sect took its Name fell back from his own way to take a Parsonage called Iâ—ourcâ— God so in a strange yet wise Providence ordering it that he who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England as no Church should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them and it called A Church But upon the Dissention at Middleborough between Brown and Harrison that Congregation soon broke to pieces Ainsworth cannot deny the early Dissentions between Brown and Harrison Brown and Barrow Barrow and Fr. Iohnson but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs notwithstanding as Dr. O. well observes We are to distinguish
and the necessity of Christ ' s Flock and Disciples must necessarily if truly followed lead on to and inforce a Separation Notwithstanding all this Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches but then he saith There is no Church Communion in Hearing but only in giving the Seals Mr. Williams urgeth That there is Communion in Doctrine and Fellowship of the Gospel Upon which Mr. Cotton grants That though a Man may joyn in Hearing and Prayer before and after Sermon yet not as in a Church-state Yet after all he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches But if they remain true Churches it appears from the former Discourse they can never justifie Separation from them upon the Principles of either Party So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate as to some of their Principles then the old rigid Separatists yet they do not consider that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable The Dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration to avoid the imputation of Brownism deliver this as their Judgment concerning our Parochial Churches And for our own Congregations viz. of England we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World that all that Conscience of the Defilements we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein did never work in us any other thought much less opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the True Churches and Body of Christ and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery much less did it ever enter into our hearts to Iudge them Antichristian we saw and cannot but see that by the same reason the Churches abroad in Scotland Holland c. though more Reformed yet for their Mixture must be in like manner Iudged no Churches also which to imagine or conceive is and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts Yea we have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually overspread with Defilements or in the greatest danger thereof and when our selves had least yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren but then the difficulty returns with greater force How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles all the Dispute had been about the truth or falshood of them but their truth being supposed the necessity of Separation followed whereas now upon altering the State of the Controversie by the Independents though their Principles seem more Moderate yet their Practice is more Unreasonable It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day to justifie the Separation That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches and that therein they differ from the old Separatists It is true in that Opinion they do but in Separation they agree which is the more unjustifiable in them since they yield so much to our Churches And yet herein whatever they preâ—end they do not exceed their Independent Brethren whose Separation themselves Condemned But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren and thought it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism because 1. They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government Which they say is inconsistent with the Civil Peace as may be seen say they in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there 2. They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches as the Separatists did and think such a Confinement Unlawful 3. They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members as the Separatists did Whereby say they they confound the Visible and Invisible Church and make the same essential form of both 4. They renounce the Ordination received in our Church but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry is by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant with such a Man as their Pastor For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church after the New Model at Rotterdam Ward was chosen Pastor and Bridges Teacher but they both Renounced their Ordination in England and some say They ordained one another others That they had no other Ordination than what the Congregation gave them Sect. 13. And now new Congregations began to be set up in Holland upon these Principles but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former Simpson renouncing his Ordination was admitted a private member of the Church at Rotterdam but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members as to the exercise of Prophecying and so he and those who joyned with him complaining of the Mischief of Impositions were ready for a Separation if that restraint were not speedily removed Mr. Bridge yields to the thing but not as to the time viz. On the Lords Day after Sermon this gives no satisfaction for they must have their will in every thing or else they will never cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions And so Mr. Simpson and his Party set up a New Church of their own Which I. Goodwin doth not deny for Mr. Simpson saith he upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor might seek and make a departure from it But were these Churches quiet after this Separation made So far from it that the contentions and slanders were no less grievous saith Baylie than those of Amsterdam betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons followers But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness No but in stead of that they were so full of Bitterness Reproaches and hard Censures that Mr. Brâ—dge often declared If he had known at first what he met with afterwards he would never have come amongst them nor being amongst them have given them such scope and liberty as he had It seems at last he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions and the mischief of a Separating dividing humor But the People having the Power in their hands were resolved to shew that they held it not in vain for Mr. Ward had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregation by Preaching the same Sermons there which he had Preached before at Norwich this and some other frivolous things were thought Intolerable Impositions and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery This being a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren which occasion'd a
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
agreeably to their present practice although least for the honor of the Assembly who confess That they were transported with undue heats and animosities against their Brethren which deserve to be lamented and not to be imitated that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said nor to be concluded by their Determinations that it is to be hoped the Party is become wiser since This is plain dealing and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren and that in a matter wherein they happened to have the strongest reason of their side But hereby we see that those who justifie the present Separation have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists as to this point of Separation Sect. 17. It remains now that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles of their Predecessors as to private persons undertaking to reform the Discipline of the Church and setting up new Churches against the consent of the Magistrate in a Reformed Church and particularly as to the Preaching of their Ministers when Silenced by our Law 's This I am the more obliged to do because when I said That I was certain that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times Mr. B. is pleased to say That my Assertion is so rash and false in matters of notorious Fact that it weakeneth his Reverence of my Iudgment in matters of right I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact and if what I said be true and notoriously true I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism That Churches are to be set up and Discipline reformed without the consent of the Christian Magistrate Brown maketh many Arguments saith he to prove that Princes are not to be stayed for nor yet to have to do by Publick Power to establish Religion Which Opinion of his is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes and such horribâ— Injury to the Church contrary to the manifest Word of God that if there were nothing else it is enough to make him an odious and detestable Heretick untill he shew Repentance But to clear this matter he distinguishes 1. of Princes that are enemies to Christianity as they were in the time of the Apostles to what end saith he should they having Authority from Christ to establish Discipline sue unto the Courts of such Princes or attend their pleasure 2. Of such who profess Christianity but are Idolaters In this case he saith they are neither â—ound to forbear Preaching nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it 3. Of such Princes who own the true Doctrine of Christianity but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline In this case he determines That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform which he there proves and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary In Answer to this Barrow saith That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Commandments of God upon any restraint or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion if Princes had been to be stayed for or their restraint been a sufficient let and adds That they only according to Gods Commandment refrained from their Idolatry and other Publick Evils and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner to Worship the Lord our God and to joyn our selves together in the Faith unto mutual Duties and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church and for the Church to erect the same To the Instance of the Apostles Giffard had Answered That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ to set up his Kingdom but ye have no Commission from God it is the Devil that hath set you forward And will ye in such vile and wretched manner pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches Barrow replies If the Commandment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work though all the Princes of the World resisted then must the Commandment of the same God be of the same effect to all other Instruments whom it pleaseth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also though all the Princes in the World should withstand and forbid the same By this we see this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with whom they called the forward Preachers these are two 1. That the planting or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants except they have Authority from Earthly Princes which Doctrine saith he is against the Kingly Power of Christ and three whole Lines of Scripture which he there puts together 2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching and to forsake his Flock at the commandment of a Lord Bishop Which Doctrine he saith is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse But lest it should be supposed that these two were among those which Iacob saith he falsly laid to their charge we find both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-conformists who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists For say they As to the Peoples power of Reforming First We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scripture for them that are private Members of any Church to erect the Discipline no not though the Magistrate and Ministers who should deal in this work were altogether profane and ungodly Secondly We esteem our Prince to be a most Lawful and Christian Magistrate and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ and therefore we are justly afraid that by enterprising a publick Reformation not only without but contrary to the direction and liking of them who by God's word ought to have if not the onely yet the principal hand in that work we should highly offend God Thirdly That for the want of Publick Reformation the Magistrate is every where blamed and no where the Church for ought we can find Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry but never for that they plucked it not down when their Princes had set it up neither can we find whether ever the Church under a
any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers One would think that their warning had been fair but Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam The Lord have Mercy upon us 2. When the matter is throughly examined the difference between the Teachers and the old Separatists will be found not near so great as is pretended For what matter is it as to the nature of Separation whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or Vnlawful whether the Ministery of our Church be called a False Ministery or Insufficient Scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments which the old Separatists used only they are disguised under another appearance and put into a more fashionable dress As will be manifest by Particulars 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministry of our Church Sect. 4. I. Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons as Members of our Church to be unlawful For Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church And in the same Book he saith It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the Transient Sign of the Cross or for want of Godfathers c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who Separate in these things are not For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers which they take to be no small sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them And what is this but formal Separation But for all this Mr. B. may hold that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical for he saith it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practises and Persons if those be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them But here Mr. B. saith There is a necessity of departure and to joyn with other Pastors and therefore he must hold a formal Separation And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church that was never done by the greatest Separatists For they all held Communion in Faith with it And even Brown the Head of the old Separatists thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship and others thought they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion but not in Acts of Church Communion others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers though not in others and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful they must hold a necessity of Separation or that persons may be good Christians and yet be no Members of any Church For if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours If they declare themselves Members of another Church they own as plain a Separation as the old Separatists ever did if they do not and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members then they are Members of no Church at all So that if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they must either be Separatists or no good Christians upon their own Principles For saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country this were to exchange visible Christianity for visible at least Negative Paganism Now that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they are more forward to declare than I could have imagined In my Sermon I mentioned some passages wherein it seemed clear to me that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me some declaring in express terms That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches and of joyning to other Congregations And others saying That such a Concession viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful taken in their own sense will neither do them any harm nor us any service For as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 1. Many of them declare so and many declare otherwise And it 's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it 2. They dâ—clare Communion lawful but. Dâ— they declare Total Communion lawful The same Persons will tell us that both these Propositions are â—â—ue Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of Worship is so in others not And 3. Thâ—y will further tell us That Communion with some Parish chuâ—ches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines Preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together 1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful and that must be understood of any kind of Communion for the Second sort from whom they are distinguishâ—d hold total Communion unlawful and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's and the New-England way and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists 2. Those that do hold Communion lawful do it with so many restrictions and limitations that in practice it amounts to little more than the other For First It is only with some Churches and those it seems must be such as do not hold to our Constitution for he
Separation from a Church wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship for if they be not such Separation must be a formal Schism because such persons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church but set up other Churches of their own Now the way I shall take to shew the insufficiency of these Causes of Separation shall be by shewing the great Absurdities that follow upon the allowance of them These Five especially I shall insist upon 1. That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation 2. That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches 3. That it justifies the antient Schism's which have been always condemned by the Christian Church 4. That it makes Separation endless 5. That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church Sect. 22. 1. The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation Which I shall make appear not from the Testimonies of our own Writers who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church but from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France who can be the least suspected of partiality to our Church I begin with Calvin against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken 1. In the General He assigns two marks of the Visible Church the Word of God truly Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institution 2. He saith Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to humane conveniencies 3 That although those stand as Members of particular Churches who may not be thought worthy of that Society till they are duly cast out yet the Churches themselves having these Marks do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches and ought to be so esteemed 4. Men ought not to Separate from or break the Vnity of such Churches And he hath this notable saying upon it God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments And a little after he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ a destruction of his Truth a mighty provocation of his Anger a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks 5. That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church yet as long as it retains those Marks Separation from it is not justifiable nay although some of those faults be about Preaching the Word and Administration of Sacraments for saith he all truths are not of equal moment but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept up Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss continuing in the Communion of the Church and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it And he at large proves what great allowance is to be made as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches and he saith Mens Moroseness in this Matter although it seems to flow from zeal yet it much rather comes from Spiritual Pride and a false opinion of their own holiness above others Although saith he there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah yet they never set up new Churches nor erected other Altars whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices but whatever the People were as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them they lifted up pure hands to God although in such an impure Society The same he proves as to Christ and his Apostles From whence he concludes That Separation from such Churches where the true Word of God and Sacraments are is an inexcusable fault But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it and the Worship of God so corrupted that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness And the truth of the Gospel being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communion of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions especially when they Anathematize those who will not comply with them But doth he mean any indifferent Rites or Ceremonies where the Doctrine is sound No but False Doctrine and Idolatrous Worship as he frequently declares And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed and some Corruptions remaining in it must overthrow the fundamental grounds of the Reformation as they are explained by Calvin himself Sect. 23. Among their later Writers no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology And the Grounds he goes upon are these 1. That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those who go about to destroy and ruin Christianity 2. If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith offends our Consciences and overthrows the service which we believe due to God if the differences have been small and such as we might safely have yielded unto then he will grant that their Separation was rash and unjust and they guilty of the Schism 3. He proves that they had weighty reasons for their Separation which are these 1. Imposing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith and yet not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation but such as are pernicious and destructive to Salvation for which he instanceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Presence in the Sacrament which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments nor requires the adoring it it neither divides nor mutilates it nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin all which follows from the Popish Doctrine From whence he concludes That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors is an unjust Separation 2. Requiring such Worship as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity which saith he proves the necessity of our Separation and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host which the Church of Rome strictly requiring and the Protestants believing it to be a meer Creature they cannot give it without Idolatry from whence he concludes our Separation to be â—ust because it was necessary Besides this he gives instances in the
Worship of Images Invocation of Saints c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not depend on any such Ceremonies as ours are nor on the want of Discipline nor on the bare Dissatisfaction of Conscience but on such great and important Reasons as obtruding new Articles of Faith and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Communion of the Roman Church Amyraldus goes so far as to say That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in its communion For saith he a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions if he be otherwise faithful and skilful But if he mixes Poison with his Medicines and besides adds abundance of Prescriptions both needless and chargeable then the Patient hath great reason to look out for better help and to take care of his own safety and freedom By which he plainly declares that bare Ceremonies although many more than ours are no sufficient Ground for Separation Of late years a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation charging it with Schism because of the Separation from the Roman Church which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines M. Claude M. Pajon and M. Turretin But Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Doctrine is sound the constant use of Liturgy bare neglect of Discipline c. No they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these which they knew could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men if they could have alledged no more Substantial Reasons than these But they all agree in such common reasons which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justifiable viz. Great corruption in Doctrine Idolatrous Worship and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith No slight errors no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine not any corruption of Manners nor defect in Government or Discipline are sufficient grounds for Separation In one word saith he the Patient is not to be forsaken unless his Disease be deadly and infectious nor then neither but with great difficulty Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists goes upon these 3 grounds 1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent and without Anathematizing all those who have opposed them For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith 2. That the Publick Worship practised and allowed in that Church is Idolatrous he instanceth in Adoration of the Host the Worship of Saints and Images 3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpations of the Pope Let our Brethren now consider what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them but only that we could not have our Children Baptized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross nor receive the Communion without kneeling that we must observe Holy-days and use a Liturgy and that Men are not so good as they should be nor Discipline so exact as were to be wished How should we be hissed and laughed at all over the Christian World if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church but such things as these And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allegations they are harden'd in their own ways and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these by which unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation Sect. 24. 2. This Pretence of Separation would make Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are For the Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies and Vnscriptural Impositions as they are called than our Church hath They use the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Communion and the observation of Holy-days and times of Fasting and Set-Forms of Prayer c. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most reformed Churches by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad and at home I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love as Dr. O. speaks but to joyn together so as to make the same Bodies of Churches A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared that there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own opinions or Practices Which shews that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation for then they would not have admitted them as Members of the Lutheran Churches but have told them they ought to forsake their Communion and embrace that of the Reformed Churches Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines who have projected or perswaded an Vnion with the Lutheran Churches and others and see if any of them make the particulars mention'd any cause of Separation from them The Helvetian Churches declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger Myconius and Grynaeus and subscribed afterwards by all their Ministers and by those of Geneva and other places And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things yet say they because of our consent in Doctrine these things cause no Breach in our Churches And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremonies used in the Lutheran Churches except those of the Mass and Images in Churches At Sendomir in Poland A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian Auspurg Bohemian Confessions came to a full agreement so as to make up one Body notwithstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them which they say ought not to break the Communion of Churches as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine and the same foundation of Faith and Salvation and for this they appeal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions The Auspurg Confession declares That agreement in Doctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Churches Vnity then Separation cannot be lawful meerly on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditions And the Confession of Strasburg saith
That they look on no Human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men otherwise if they agree with Scripture and be appointed for good ends although they be not expresly mention'd in Scripture they are rather to be looked on as Divine than Human and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself nay they say though the Laws seem very hard and unjust a true Christian will not stick at obeying them if they command nothing that is wicked Ioh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremonies The First Commanded The Second Forbidden The Third neither Commanded nor Forbidden The Vnity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First and yet for every omission the Communion of the Church is not to be broken The Second breaks the Churches Vnity yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men but for the Third Men ought not to break the Vnity of the Church And in another place he gives particular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches the Exorcism in Baptism the Linnen Garments and Wax Candles the Holy-days and Confession c. and declares That we ought not to break off communion with Churches or make a Schism for these things Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of indifferent ceremonies and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches Amyraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Lutheran Churches saith That those which came in use after the Apostolick times have no other obligation on us than that for the sake of indifferent things though at first appointed out of no necessity nay though there be inconveniency in them yet the Churches Peace ought not to be disturbed And he very well observes That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so or at least are tolerable if it be false then they are troublesome and not to be born if it be impure and lead to Idolatry then the ceremonies are tainted with the Poyson of it But saith he the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches as their occasions serve and so do others And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine not only congratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland but Pray'd for the same in Germany too as Bishop Davenant tells us who proves at large that there is no sufficient Reason to hinder it which he makes to lie only in three things I. Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences II. The Practise of Idolatry III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear And now I desire our Brethren who justifie their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful to reflect upon these things Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad which have harder Terms of communion than we What would they think of the Exorcism of Infants of Auricular Confession of Images in Churches and some other things besides what are observed among us Do we want Discipline Do they not in other Churches abroad The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Vnion of Protestant Churches declared That little or none was observed among them Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Vnion with them For What Vnion can be justifiable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful They may pity them and pray for them and wish for their Reformation but an Vnion doth suppose such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may communicate in another Do they allow this to the Lutheran Churches If not then they render Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible because unlawful If they do will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to our own Church Can they think Separation necessary from our Church on those grounds which are common to us with other Protestant Churches and yet think Vnion desirable and possible with them notwithstanding Do they think that 〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Lutheran Churches although they have the Cross in Baptism Kâ—eâ—â—g at the Communion the Surpless and other Ceremonies which we have not and yet Is it necessary to Sâ—parate from our Churches Communion on the account of such things as these where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion Either therefore they must differ from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and the most emineâ—â— Protestant Divines abroad or they must renounce this Principle of Separation Sect. 25. 3. This will justifie the ancient Schisms which have been always condemn'd in the Christian Church For setting aside the Ceremonies of which already and the use of the Liturgy and Holy-days which is common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an Vniversal consent in all parts of the Christian World the other Reasons for Separation are such which will justifie the greatest Schismaticks that ever were in the Christian Church viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and due means of Edification and depriving the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel in providing for their own Edification For What gave occasion to the Novatian Schism which began so soon and spread so far and continued so long but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and better means of Edification and humoring the People in the choice of their own Pastors There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on as to Evangelical Discipline 1. The Power of the Keys 2. The Purity of the Church 1. As to the Power of the Keys they said That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church but under certain restrictions which if Men exceeded the Church had no Power to release them and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men when Men fell in time of Persecution 2. The Churches Purity ought to be preserved by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being receiv'd into communion again They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance but they said the Church could not And this they pleaded would tend very much to the Edification of Christians and would make them more watchful over
yet the more heinous `that it is commonly father'd upon God Lastly that it is most unlike the Heavenly State and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil for he would not destroy it by dividing it against it self Remember now saith he that Schism and making Parties and Divisions in the Church is not so small a Sin as many take it for I conclude this with his Admonition to Bag shaw upon his lessening the Sin of Separation Alass dear Brother that after so many years Silencing and Affliction after Flames and Plagues and Dreadful Iudgments after Twenty years Practice of the Sin it self and when we are buried in the Ruines which it caused we should not yet know that our own Vncharitable Divisions Alienations and Separations are a Crying Sin Yea the Crying Sin as well as the Vncharitableness and Hurtfulness of others Alass Will God leave us also even us to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh Doth not Iudgment begin with us Is there not Crying Sin with us What have we done to Christ's Kingdom to this Kingdom to our Friends dead and alive to our selves and alass to our Enemies by our Divisions And Do we not feel it Do we not know it Is it to us even to us a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance Woe to us Into what Hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves Yea that we should continue and Passionately defend it When will God give us Repentance unto Life Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously and then consider Whether he can go on to Excuse and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM But it may be said That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively with enslaving our Iudgments and Consciences to others which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle and he saith This is a Medicine worse than the Poyson even as 't is much better to have a Rational Soul though subject to Mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong bit and bridle To make it plain that he makes little or nothing of the Sin of Separation we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer which was That if it be lawful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is agreed in our Case then a bare difference of Opinion as to some circumstances of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient Ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of Mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to farther Separation Where we see plainly the inconvenience urged is endless Separation Doth he set any kind of bounds to it No but only talkes of inconsiderable and petty inconveniencies and some little trouble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will â—his is the worst of it and he must grant that though Separation be endless there is no harm in it But he that could find out a medium between Circumstances of Worship and Substantials can find out none between endless Separation and the enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences for he supposes one of the two must of necessity be Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists For this is their Argument Either we must give up our Iudgments and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides or there will be endless Separation He grants the consequence and cries What then It is nothing but the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and this is much rather to be chosen than the other But any sound Protestant that understands the State of the Controversie between us and them as this Author apparently doth not will presently deny the Consequence because a prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together and leaping over Hedge and Ditch being kept within no bounds And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Principle of enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure and if he doth not suppose it his Discourse is frivolous and impertiâ—â—â—t For a due submission to the Rules of our established Church without any force on the Consciences of Men as to the Infallibility of Guides or necessity of the things themselves will put a sufficient stop to Separation which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions Sect. 28. 5. Lastly I Argue against this Separation from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men who it may be will little regard other inconveniences if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God Which I now undertake to prove upon these Suppositions 1. That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church For it is not possible to suppose that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men with plainer Precepts and stronger Arguments than this is The places are so many that it were endless to repeat them and therefore needless because this is agreed on all hands So that violation of the Vnity of the Church where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden But it happens here as it doth in the other case that as Murder is always a sin but there may be some circumstances which may make the taking away a Mans life not to be Murder so it may happen that though Schism be always a sin yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism but then they must be such Reasons as are not fetched from our Fancies no more than in the case of Murder but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law For he only that made the Law can except from it 2. The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church For although the former be a duty yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian which is to joyn together as Members of the same Body And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church it is said The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are
all partakers of that one Bread And by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body whether we be Iews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit The Vnity of the Christian Church St. Paul saith is to be preserved by the bond of Peace and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head whom he calls One Lord so they are joyned together by One Faith and One Baptism Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds as well as Internal that is One Faith and One Baptism as well as One Lord and One Spirit so the manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by External Acts for How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual as inward love to the Members of the Body being present in Spirit c Therefore the Obligation to preserve the Vnity of the Church doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion 3. Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient Reason for it Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoyned we are to suppose it still to hold where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear Although God hath with great severity forbidden Killing yet when himself appointed particularly cases wherein Mens Lives were to be taken away we are thereby assur'd that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden so in the present case if it appear that although Separation from the Câ—mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin But then as in the former case no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice so here no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end will justifie his Separation for the guilt of the sin remains as great in it self And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church which our Saviour prayed for and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere From hence Irenaeus saith That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own advantage than the Churches Vnity who for slight causes or for any make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ and do what in them lies to destroy it They speak for Peace saith he but they mean War they strain at a Gnat and swallow Camels The benefit they hope to bring to the Church cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism Nothing provokes God more saith St. Chrysostom than to divide his Church Nay saith he the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it The Mischief the Church receives by it is greater than it receives from open Enemies for the one makes it more glorious the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies when it is set upon by its own Children This saith he I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church If their doctrine be contrary to ours for that reason they ought to abstain if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to do it so much the rather Do no you know what Corah Dathan and Abiram suffer'd and not they only but those that were with them But you say they have the same Faith and they are very Orthodox Why then saith he do they Separate One Loâ—d one Faith one Baptism If they do well we do ill if we do well they do ill If they have the same Doctrines the same Sacraments For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours It is nothing but vain glory ambition and deceit Take away the People from them and you cut off the disease And after much more to that purpose I speak these things saith he that no Man might say he did not know it to be such a sin I tell you and testifie this to you that Separation from the Church or dividing of it is no less a sin than falling into Heresy If the sin then be so great and dangerous Men ought to examin with great care what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin And I do earnestly desire our Brethren as they love their own Souls and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us and set up other Churches in opposition to ours which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox and to agree with them in the same Doctrine and the same Sacraments 4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation First In the case of Idolatrous Worship For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church Neither be ye Idolaters Flee from Idolatry Keep your selves from Idols Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And to the case of Idolaters St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babylonians Come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing Now in this case where there is so plain a Command there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation if Men cannot joyn with a Church in their Religious Worship without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden Secondly In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body like putrid Members lest they should corrupt the rest St. Paul commands Titus when there is no hopes of reclaiming such to exclude them from the Society of Christians St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine Thirdly In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account And this was the case of the false Apostles who urged the
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
he hopes it will not be made a Rule that Communion may not be withheld so the sense must be although not be left out or withdrawn from any Church in any thing so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed But as long as he grants that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them Not but that I think there may be a separation without sin from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church but then I say the reason of such separation is some heinous Errour in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some tyranny over the Consciences of men which may not be such as to destroy true Baptism and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter 2. He answers That they do not say that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ hath instituted that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them it is the duty of them who doe so to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation To which I reply that This is either not to the business or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency For wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our Church was required of them But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches And then I intreat him to tell me what difference there is between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches Is not this the primary reason of Separation because Christ hath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church which we are bound to observe and which are not observed in Parochial Churches Indeed the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution but the primary ground is that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed Let us then 1. suppose that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation so qualified and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church and choose their Officers who are to Teach and Admonish and Administer Sacraments and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation And let us 2. suppose such a Church not yet gathered but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes 3. Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church 4. Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members neither the aëreal sign of the Cross nor kneeling at the Communion c. I desire then to know whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church according to Christ's Institution Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules and the Institution of Christ or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church which is the true Cause of their separation but such Reasons as are common to all Churches that are not formed just after their own model If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches those must be observed and separation made in order to it and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way But this was a necessary piece of art at this time to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party and to make them believe if they can be so forgetfull that they do not own separation from their Churches but onely from ours the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days that they must be forgetfull indeed who do not remember it Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments Hath Dr. O. yielded that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon they would give over separation Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration would they not have continued their Separation Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation when it is notoriously otherwise and they did separate and form their Churches upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches This is more artificial than ingenuous Sect. 2. As to the Second Dr. O. answers that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact and so necessary from the nature of the thing that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations that many wise men wholly unconcerned in our Controversies do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute And for this two Testimonies are alleged of Iustice Hobart and Father Paul but neither of them speaks to the point All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles and after to other Pastours Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin it signifies so very little to the purpose or rather quite overthrows his Hypothesis as appears by these two Arguments 1. Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles which he calls voluntary Congregations 2. Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease were no particular Congregations in one City but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks were such for he saith they first
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy We intend no quarrel about names If it be Mr. B. ' s pleasure to call our Bishops Archbishops let him enjoy his own fancy It already appears from Saint Cyprian and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needfull that the Bishops of the several Churches were looked on as Successours to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches Now the Office of Mr. B. ' s Parochial Bishops was onely to attend to one particular Congregation but the Apostolical Office was above this while the Apostles held it in their own hands and did not make a new species of Churches nor overthrow the Constitution of Parochial Churches It seems then a strange thing to me that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church should be called the devising a new species of Churches But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordinary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Churches but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters and leaves them onely a bare name of Curates and destroyes the being of Parochial Churches But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in Peoples minds against it Sect. 12. Now to examin this let us consider two things 1. What Power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops of our Church have over them I. What Power is left to presbyters in our Church and that may be considered two ways 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church 2. With respect to their particular Congregations or Cures 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church and so 1. There are no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Divine Service are to be allowed or received in this Nation but by the Constitution of this Church the Presbyters of it have their Votes in passing them either in Person or by Proxy For all things of that Nature are to pass both Houses of Convocation and the lower House consists wholly of Presbyters who represent the whole Presbytery of the Nation either appearing by their own Right as many do or as being chosen by the rest from whom by Indentures they either do or ought to receive Power to transact things in their names And the Custom of this Church hath sometimes been for the Clergy of the Dioceses to give limited Proxies in particular Cases to their Procuratours Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether the Clergy of this Church have their whole Power swallowed up by the Bishops when yet the Bishops have no power to oblige them to any Rules or Canons but by their own consent and they do freely vote in all things of common concernment to the Church and therefore the Presbyters are not by the Constitution deprived of their share in one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. in making Rules for the whole Body And in this main part of Government the Bishops do nothing without the Counsel of their Presbyters and in this respect our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches which had their Councils of Presbyters together with their Bishops onely there they were taken singly in every City and here they are combined together in Provincial Synods model'd according to the Laws of the Nation And when the whole Body of Doctrine Discipline and Worship are thus agreed upon by a general consent there seems to be far less need of the particular Councils of Presbyters to every Bishop since both Bishops and Presbyters are now under fixed Rules and are accountable for the breach of them 2. In giving Orders by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to assist the Bishops and to examin the Persons to be Ordained or the Bishop in their presence and afterwards to joyn in the laying on of hands upon the Persons ordained And is all this nothing but to be the Bishop's Curates and to officiate in some of his Chapels 2. As to their particular charges one would think those who make this objection had never read over the Office of Ordination for therein 1. For the Epistle is read the charge given by Saint Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act. 20. or the third Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great impertinency had both these been if the Presbyters Power had been quite swallowed up by the Bishops But it hence appears that our Church looked on the Elders at Ephesus and the Bishop in Timothy to be Presbyters as yet under the care and Government of the Apostles or such as they deputed for that Office such as Timothy and Titus were Which I suppose is the true meaning of Saint Ierome and many other doubtfull passages of Antiquity which relate to the community of the names of Bishop and Presbyter while the Apostles governed the Church themselves And at this time Timothy being appointed to this part of the Apostolical Office of Government the Bishops mentioned in the Epistle to him may well enough be the same with the Presbyters in the Epistle to Titus who was appointed to ordain Elders in every City Titus 1. 5. 2. In the Bishop's Exhortation to them that are to be ordained he saith Now we exhort you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ to have in remembrance into how high a dignity and to how chargeable an Office ye be called that is to say the Messengers and Watchmen the Pastours and Stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed and provide for the Lord's Family c. have always therefore printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge for they be the Sheep of Christ which he bought with his death and for whom he shed his bloud The Church and Congregation whom you must serve is his Spouse and Body And if it shall chance the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hinderance by reason of your negligence you know the greatness of the fault and of the horrible punishment which will ensue c. Is this the language of a Church which deprives Presbyters of the due care of their flocks and makes Parochial Congregations to be no Churches 3. The person to be ordained doth solemnly promise to give faithfull diligence to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God so that he may teach the People committed to his Cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here we see a Cure and charge
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
more agreeable to the sense of their Church and that the argument is of no force against it because it is so hard to be understood for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this Ioh. Baptista Gonet a late learned Thomist not onely contends earnestly for this opinion but saith The greater part of their Divines assert it and those of greatest reputation as Ruardus Tapper Vega Sayrus Ysambertus Suarez Valentia Bellarmin Reginaldus Moeratius Ripalda and many more And Conquetius he saith reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments as it is asserted by their Divines to the significancy of our Ceremonies 2. As to the Protestant Doctrines he represents that in very ambiguous terms for he saith That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally If it be their Doctrine that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all which he seems to yield and if he did not might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad as well as at home This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onely invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons There being not the least ground for it that I can discern and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds and have filled them with strange fears and scruples yea some who have conquer'd their prejudices as to other things have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way And yet after all Mr. B. declares That if it be a sin it is the Ministers and not the Person 's who offers the Child to be baptized and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it yet it can be no pretence for Separation Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church for allowing worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Iesus which he saith are made the Motive of Worship if not something else The lawfulness of these things so far as they are required by our Church I had formerly defended against the Papists and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used I had said that bowing at the name of Iesus was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell the Worship being not given to the Name but to Christ at the sound of his Name Why may not saith he an Image give warning to the Eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear I will tell him since he needs it because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant But such men do too much discover whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs but the Question is whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated Motive to Worship When I read this I began to pity the man being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans he had some reason to have answered him but I have none But he brings it home to us for saith he If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship then how shall we excuse our own adorations What doth the man mean I am yet afraid all things are not right somewhere We acknowledge no adorations but what are due to the Divine Majesty and do these need to be excused And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images against our worshipping of God Let him first prove that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty before we shall go about to excuse our adorations But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship whoever said they did not I am sure not our Church But let this pass what follows then saith he why do we not introduce Images into our Churches Ask Mr. B. that Question and not us of the Church of England If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull this were a pertinent Question but since we deny it what makes all this against us which if our Church-men shall venture upon I pray stay till they do before you charge us with it Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate But he saith they may doe it with equal reason Here is something now fit to be proved We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body or to Iesus at the mention of his name Hold now to this and prove it Instead of that he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell and bowing at the name of Iesus viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship when mens minds should be intent on devotion and not sit listening and watching as Whittington ' s Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you viz. what he hath laboured for all this while for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God which no body contends for that I know of but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons or the Creed and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly and although it be said or otherwise in the Church pronounced yet by the manner
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
with a Church who are first excommunicated by that Church Yes in these cases they may 1. when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence For otherwise no Church could condemn any excommunicated Persons for Schism if it declared before hand that all those who held such Doctrines or condemned such Practices should be excommunicated To make this plain by Instances Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sentence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism R. Williams and his Company oppose it they upon this are actually excommunicated may the Churches of New England call these men Schismaticks or not If they are Schismaticks notwithstanding the sentence of excommunication then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism By the Constitution of the Churches of France every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatick Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatick because this amounts to an excommunication ipso facto So in Scotland 1641. Subscription to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication if any had been excommunicated on this account would this excuse them from the charge of Schism in the judgement of the Covenanters By the Constitutions of Geneva any one that opposes or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year as Calvin himself relates it Suppose this were meerly excommunication for so long would not Calvin have thought them Schismaticks for all that For he fully declares his mind in this case on occasion of a certain Non-conformist in an Epistle to Farell where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate if that did not prevail they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church which saith he is agreeable to ancient Councils and the mind of God in Scripture therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it Here we see excommunication justified against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church and much more certainly if they publickly affirm them to be Impious Antichristian or Superstitious as 8. Canon expresseth and no Church in the world but will think excommunication reasonable upon the like grounds and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism they may be guilty of it still although excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts 2. If they proceed to form new Churches as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances and let him judge whether all persons so excommunicated would not have been condemned much more for Schismaticks if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs S. Augustin puts the case of good men unjustly excommunicated and he saith they are to bear it with patience for the peace of the Church and such will still maintain the true faith sine ullâ Conventiculorum segregatione without running into separate Meetings although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated Such as these saith he the Father which seeth in secret will reward and crown in secret This kind seems very rare but there want not instances yea there are more than can be believed 2. As to the judgement of Conscience The Author of the Letter out of the Countrey lays the Foundation of the separation upon the force of Scruples mighty Scruples Scruples of a long standing and of a large extent Scruples that there is no hopes to remove without some very overpowering impression on mens minds I am so much of another mind that I think a little impartiality and due consideration would do the business but as long as men read and hear and judge only of one side and think it a temptation to examine things as they ought to do and cry out they are satisfied already there is not much hopes of doing good upon such but I think they can have no great comfort in such Scruples Men that really scruple things out of tenderness of Conscience are sincerely willing to be better informed and glad of any light that brings them satisfaction and do not fly out into rage and violent passion against those who offer to remove their Scruples Hath this been the temper of our scrupulous Brethren of late Let their Scruples be touched never so tenderly they cannot bear it and take it extremely ill of those who would better inform them Mr. B. freely tells me that he that thinks his own or others reasonings will ever change all the truely honest Christians in the Land as to the unlawfulness of the things imposed knoweth so little of matters or of men or of Conscience as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest What is the reason of such a severe saying Where lies the strength and evidence of these Scruples Why may not honest men be cured of their errors and mistakes as I am perswaded these are such which they call Scruples Is there no hopes to bring the People to a better temper and more judgement For I know nothing more is necessary for the cure of them Here is no depth of learning no subtilty of reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about these matters The dispute lies in a narrow compass and men may see light if they will But what if they will not Then we are to consider how far a wilfull mistake or error of Conscience will justifie men I say it doth not cannot justifie them in doing evil and that I am sure breaking the Peace of the Church for the sake of such Scruples is And this I had said in my Sermon which I take to be very material for our scrupulous persons to consider For suppose they should be mistaken doth this error of Conscience justifie their separation or not If not they may be in an ill condition for all their Scruples or their confidence And so Mr. Baxter hath long since declared that if we do through weakness or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful that will not excuse us in our disobedience Our error is our sin and one sin will not excuse another sin But Mr. A. saith 1 That I do ill to put together wilfull Error and mistake of Conscience when I say they do not excuse from sin since there is so great a difference between a wilfull Error and a mistake of simple ignorance What strange cavilling is this When any one may see that I join wilfull both to Error and Mistake And is not a mistake or error of Conscience all one If I had said a mistake of simple ignorance doth not excuse from sin I had contradicted the whole design of that discourse which is to shew that there must be wilfulness in the error or mistake which doth not excuse For I say expresly if
the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience 2. If no error will excuse from sin why is the Question afterwards put by me What error will excuse I answer 1. it is an exercise of patience to be troubled with a cavilling adversary 2. Do not I say as plainly as words can express it that a wilful error doth not excuse from sin And the question afterwards put concerns the same thing and the Answer I give to it is if the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse but if it be wilful it doth not Is this mans conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute 3. He saith I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation What Sophisters arguments are these As though we did not commonly speak of the thing as it is and not as the Person apprehends it S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution although he did not think it so when he did it The Iews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles which was wilful murder and yet they were men in their wits The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing it self for I was not so foolish to put the case concerning men who thought themselves bound to commit a sin knowing it to be a sin 2. He much questions whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church it is sufficient to my purpose And did not the false Apostles do so and have not others followed their examples And thus after other trifling Cavils to the same purpose after his manner he yields all that I say and saith It is freely granted by all the world that wilful Error doth not excuse from sin And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common doctrine of all Casuists only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand Why so was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule And was it not very pertinent to this to shew how far an erroneous conscience may or may not excuse from sin But Mr. A. saith it should have been about the Power of Conscience concerning an established Rule of mans making and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make Is not this indeed to the purpose First to suppose an unlawful rule imposed and then to enquire what conscience is to do about it My business was to shew that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfie themselves with this that they followed their consciences because their consciences might err and if that Error happened to be wilful being contracted for want of due care what they did might not only be sinful in it self but imputed to them as sins Which all men who pretended any regard to conscience ought to have an eye to for why do they pretend conscience but to â—void sin And if under a wilful error of 〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins as the Ieâ—â— and S. Paul were then men ought not to satisfie theâ—selves barely with this pretence that they do as 〈…〉 direct them This was the plain 〈◊〉 of that â—art of my Sermon and I leave any 〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent But he saith 〈…〉 if they be such are wholl◠〈…〉 invincible Ignorance If 〈…〉 better for them I hope they have 〈…〉 in their own breasts for it than what appears in some of their late Books for neither a peevish angry scornful provoking way of writing about these matters nor a light scurrilous cavilling Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse are any great signs of such an impartial endeavour after satisfaction as Mr. A. boasts of I cannot tell how much they have read the Scriptures and studied this Controversie nor how earnestly they have pray'd for direction but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates which give me no great satisfaction in this matter But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge being very willing to hope and believe the best To return to the Author of the Letter The main force of what he saith lies in this that those who cannot conquer their scruples as to communion with our Church must either return to the State of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers This is new doctrine and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church although there were some things they scrupled and could not conquer those scruples And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us and much more living under some of our Ministers I never heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately and it hath been considered already And it is a very hard case with a Church if People must fly into Separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church I would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others their Separation be lawful If it be it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent for this Principle overthrows them all I will instance particularly in the last as most favourable to such kind of Liberty And I need not suppose a case since such hath already happened several times in New England R. Williams is one remarkable Instance who scrupled many things in their Churches and therefore could joyn no longer with them and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them and the People who scrupled as well as he chose him for their Pastor What is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present separation But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause so far from it that R. Williams published grievous complaints to the world of the persecution he underwent for it Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton an eminent Minister of New England viz. of a Church that
not being confederated themselves can convey a right to their Children About these and other such like Questions those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes and can neither give others nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them 2. The consequence of this is that they must baptize many with a doubting mind and must exclude many more than they can baptize For Mr. B. saith if he took a dogmatical faith it self or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit I would baptize none because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith and who not The like others are as ready to say of his serious voluntary not prevalently contradicted practical profession or at least that no man can baptize with a good Conscience till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace or are not actually confederated with them And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right how few Children will be left that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers as Mr. B. calls them and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches Communion As to kneeling at the Communion I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration which I have not answered in another place Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion viz. that upon the same Reason these are imposed the Church may impose some use of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer 1. That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him or else he shall not stay in his House at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father because he hath some scruples whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not not meerly on the account of its significancy but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature This he thinks so weighty a scruple that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition on his continuing in his house and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fathers House and drawing away as many of his servants from him as he can infuse this scruple into But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his disobedience For faith he to his Father Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence and to make this the condition of my staying in your House Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son and ask you blessing Morning and Evening and am very willing to sit at your Table and depend upon you for my subsistence Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat You say it is a token of respect I say for that reason I ought not to do it For how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect It is true you require no more now but I consider what you may do and for all that I know the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you for that is a token of respect in some Countries next you may require me to kiss your Toe for that is a token of respect used some where and who knows what you may come to at last and therefore I am resolved to stop at first and will rather leave your House than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns that may represent the Trade and Company they are of would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it to say What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last it is true the matter is small at present but I consider it is a Badge it is a moral significant ceremony a dangerous teeming thing no man knows what it may bring forth at last for how can I or any man living tell but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat Would such an unreasonable jealousie as this justifie such a mans refractoriness in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company than submitting to wear the Badge of it So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required 2. There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies than what it hath already done supposing that it might do it on the same ground Because the Church hath rather retrenchâ—d than increased Ceremonies as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required as a condition of Commmunion But besides our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies because the very number of them supposing them lawful is a burden of which S. Augustin complained in his time and others had much more cause since and therefore for that cause many were taken away And withall it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine which it must do if it increased our Cermonies so as to make a new argument against them from the number of them 3. There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us For 1. As to the Vse of Images our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry and that from such reasons as cannot extend to our Ceremonies viz. from the express Law of God and the general sense of the Primitive Church which allowed and practised
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
the Gospel Was not the same Authority the same charge as to both of them Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty and none at all to the other Is this possible to perswade impartial Men that for 18 years together you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws and yet never thought your self bound to do that which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach and not without leave from the Bishop and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too viz. the African but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments so that if one obligation were stricter than the other that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in for 18 years together and why he might not as well in the other is not easie to understand However Why all this while no Constant Communicant with any Church What no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of No Obligation upon a Christian to that equal to the necessity of Preaching These things must seem very strange to those who judge of Christian Obligations by the Scripture and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church What was this Communion intended for The antient Churches at this rate might easily be capacious enough for their Members if some never joyned with them in so long a time But he hath communicated occasionally with us Yes to shew what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with but not as a Member as himself declares and this occasional Communion makes him none For Mr. A. saith Their occasional Communion with us is but like any of our occasional Communion with them or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher or occasional going to a Popish Chappel which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice or ten or twenty times as long as they declare it is only occasional communion it makes them no Members of our Churches for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion Secondly They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered although they may be occasionally present in it Now if Men who think our constant communion unlawful Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations as Mr. A. speaks and to choose new Pastors this is gathering new Churches and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gather'd The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter Such saith he of the dissenting Ministers as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also If this be true as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles then we see plainly a Separation owned notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches For here is not only a lawfulness but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations for Preaching Hearing and other Religious Duties And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches Pastors People and joyning together for Religious Worship in a way separate from our Assemblies For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them yet they are so far from allowing constant communion that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship And what was there more then this which the old Separatists held For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation which Giffard Answered they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation and then declare that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors with whom they might joyn in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different from what must follow from the Principles of those who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties And if there be a necessity of Separation as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold that seem most moderate the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion will not excuse them from the guilt of the other For as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute and some held one way and some another And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us that he looks upon it but as drinking a single glass of Wine or of Water against his own inclination to a person out of Civility when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else It seems then this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls as the other is destructive to their health So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence Mr. A. brings several instances to prove that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful where constant is no duty as with other Parish Churches upon a Iourney at a Lecture c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church where he goes to hear a Lecture c. but the question is about the lawfulness of Separation where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful For a man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion and yet withdraws from it And it is a wonder to me none of my Friends my Adversaries I am loth to call them could discern this It is lawful saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French Dutch or Greek Church Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty Yes if he were obliged
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
and confusion will follow if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith without being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority Which is all one as to suppose that every Family may govern it self because a Kingdom is made up of Families without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom No saith Dr. O. the case is not the same For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations But God by the Light and Law of Nature by the ends and use of the Creation of man by express Revelation in his Word hath by his own Authority appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government So say I that God by the Light and Law of Reason by the ends and use of a Christian Society by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations For if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment so in the case of Churches since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant settle and govern Churches and set up Rulers in them but still under their Authority can any thing be plainer than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves But as in the former case if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions and to have placed them in convenient Seats and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint and as they found themselves decaying should nominate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours Without breaking in pieces into so many Families every Master governing his family by himself which would certainly ruin and destroy them all because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves So it is again in the case of Churches The Apostles planted them and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them still reserving the main care of Government to themselves but giving excellent Rules of Charity Peace Obedience and Submission to Governours and as they withdrew from particular Churches within such a precinct as Crete was they appointed some whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them and therefore in this case here is no more independency in particular Congregations than in the other as to private Families which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians and their mutual preservation and defence as in the former case In which we believe the civil Government to be from God although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles when the matter of fact is attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses Lastly as in the former case several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security and become one Kingdom so in the latter case several Bishops with the Churches under them might for promoting the common ends of Christianity and the Peace and establishment of their Churches joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church which being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping upon the Rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed as an universal Pastour must doe will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is Which I therefore mention that any one may see that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction for the Nature of the thing it self and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches is sufficient for it And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches viz. What the nature of a Christian Society and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require For whatever tends to the support of Religion to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions from the very nature of the thing and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it It being then taken for granted among all Christians 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it We may reasonably infer that whatever tends to promote this Vnion and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it is within the design of the first Institution although it be not contained in express words Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith Government and Worship be the more likely way to promote Religion to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason as to these ends In the Congregational way there may be as many Religions as Churches I do not say there are but we are arguing now upon what may be from the nature of the thing Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians another of Papists another of Arians another of Quakers another of Anabaptists c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind But if they be it is meer chance and good hap there being no obligation upon them to have any more