Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them
or Account do we need more but this only Is there not a cause They are the words of David to his surly Elder Brethren that are offended only for his being about the business he was sent And David said what have I done Is there not a Cause I am very sensible that there is much more may be said or that there are other Pleas which may be made by the Non-Conformist for their Meetings then this I offer I have I know proposed my self a little in another Paper towards some Catholick Healing of us even under our stated Separations if they cannot be helpt If they can or if this be enough it is this Plea I choose as the most indifferent between the Conformist and us the most fair and conducive to our Uniting again if God give that Grace to the Nation And this under pardon I will be so bold as to name my Plea Mr. H's Plea Of Greater Duty The Church is a number of such as own or believe in the Lord Jesus and joyn in Society for the glorifying his Name in submission to his Ordinances These Societies are either Particular or that which consists of them all the Church Vniversal Of the Church as Vniversal Christ is the Head from whom we have these Ordinances when the Congregations which are Parochial others that meet separately from them do both consent or unite in his Ordinances that is in the same Doctrine so far as is necessary to Salvation and in the same Worship required in the Word who can deny them to be both Parts of the Universal Church Visible and so true Churches As for going to diverse places if there be no breach of the great Commandement which is Charity in other respects it is a matter of indifferency can be no ground to charge Schisme upon one more then the other There must be some other consideration than of the Church found out if they will accuse us of Schisme And that is not as it is Vniversal or Particular but as it is National and Parochial As it is Vniversal and Particular it is ex praecepto of Divine as it is National and Parochial it is ex providentia of Humane and prudential institution There are some things required to the Church ad esse and some things ad bene esse That which is required ad esse is named a due administration of the Word Sacrament and Prayer and we divide not in it That which is required ad bene esse is either necessary to that bene or melius esse being of Divine Authority and that is some Discipline in general though for the Sort I will not say which is such or that which is accidental and accumulative from man as to have the Supreme Magistrat Christian and a Nursing Father to it with his People generally of that Religion The one of these I say is of God's Praeceptive we speak it not simpliciter but in regard to the Constitution of the Church of Christ the other of his Providential will only In this accidental regard as the Church is National do we acknowledg that the King is head of it and hath his Ordinances in respect thereunto to be obeyed as Christ hath in regard to the Vniversal That the Magistrate hath Authority to Protect the Church of Christ by seeing that Christ's Ordinances be observed in every Congregation according to their way and in looking to the whole that they do nothing but what shall make to the Peace of the Nation is out of question The King here governs by his Laws and the Laws of this Land have appointed the constitution of particular Churches to be of Parishes as most convenient to that purpose If we consent not to these Laws we break the Vnion which is of Humane institution though we preserve that which is Divine Disobedience to the wholesome commands of our Superiours is sin and when that separation therefore which is a thing indifferent otherwise does become sinful through that disodedience unless we have somthing to justify the disobedience such separation by Analogy is Schisme And here do I verily think must the bottom of all that can be charged upon us about Schisme be placed If the Parliament should Legitimate these separate Meetings by an Act they would immediately become parts of the National Church no less then our Parishes and that would put an end to the Schisme the Evil chargeable upon us any otherwise being like to be found the Fault of the Persons not of our meetings or of the Thing But so long as they are against Law it is the Obligation of humane Laws I perceive and the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion are the points must come into Plea These have been treated and put together in a Book entituled Two points of great Moment Discussed The substance whereof as to my present purpose will resolve into this Distinction Laws which are Wholesome Laws that is for the Common Good in Civil's and for Edification in Spiritualls do bind us under Pain of Sin Such is the law I count for Parochial Union but there are two Cases wherein we are exempted from such Laws and which justify the Non-Obedience One is when that which is commanded is against a man's Conscience The other is when that which is commanded cannot be done but some other Duty which is of greater Concern must be thrust out and in this Case I say the omitting that which is the lesser Duty is no sin In this Point ye see before I have placed our Apology I must add that forasmuch as it is no Sin to omit a lesser Duty for doing a greater when both cannot be done but to omit the greater Duty consequently must be sin it follows that supposing it to be Schisme to refuse Communion when we may come to Church without sin it must be no Schisme to wave it or not to come when if we come we should sin as we must when we shall omit a greater Duty by coming Schisme is a Voluntary Departure without cause given from that Christian Church whereof he was a Member or a Breach of that Communion wherein a man might have continued without Sin sayes that late Author of a Serious and Compassionate Enquiry into the causes of men's contempt of the Church and the remedies A Book two fine I count to bear a Dispute or uphold so large a design he undertakes I would fain know sayes another by what Authority this separating practise can be justified from the guilt of the most Horrible Schisme that ever was heard of in the Christian World A sober Answer to the new Separatists Pa. 156. again Pa. 157. Distinguishing of a Voluntary desertion of ones Ministry and choosing silence in case of Non-Conformity The second says he is the Illustration of four Cardinal Vertues Humility Meekness Selfe-denial Obedience I cannot but quote these Passages as pleasant to my Humor nor can I forbear Laughter at the Reading of them Not because that worthy
his Answer is 1. That the Presbyterians do not acknowledg it so to whom he spake 2. This was a current Argument of the Presbyterians against the Independents 3. He meant such true Churches as our Parochial Congregations 4. They prove the Communion of Rome is corrupt we only say theirs is 5. Many do hold the Church of Rome truely a Church not a true Church true as to the Essence but not Morally true as to her Doctrine and Worship 6. We did not separate from Rome for we really were never of them we reformed our selves without separating from Rome Notwithstanding all these Answers except the last which I shall shew weak enough Thus much we have gained That it is Lawful in some cases to separate from a body that is Metaphysically a true Church that is truly a Church which is all was intended to be gained That the general Notion of the Truth of a Church should be no more a Medium to prove us Schismaticks now let us examine his particular Answers § 62. The Presbyterians do not acknowledg Rome a true Church and therefore he argued ad homines Indeed I find Mr. Caudry to his Adversary granting something of the Truth of a Church to Rome crying Viderit ipse but he is not the mouth of all Presbyterians did ever any know a Presbyterian Ordaining a Minister the second time because he was the first time Ordained by the Church of Rome yet he was there ordained to offer Sacrifice but also to Preach the Gospel which makes them afraid of it or Baptizing any that turn'd Protestants from Papists Till he had known this he should have forborne this Answer it may be that many of them will grant she hath something of the Metaphysical Verity of a Church A rotten House and falling but yet an House still and we think Christians from such a Church may with-draw § 63. But this was an Argument against the Independents Produce a place where they ever said It was unlawful for Christians to depart from a Church that had the least of truth in it But he says he meant such as our Parochial Congregations this is a general what doth he mean by such 4. They prove the Communion of the Church of Rome corrupt we only say it of theirs And he only says that we only say it We think that many have proved that we cannot Communicate or Minister in it under some present circumstances without what we judge sin Who shall determine betwixt us as to our practice Hath this Author made or can he shew us a strict Answer to Calderwood Gillespy and Dr. Ames and yet much more is to be said in our case then they could speak § 64. Many do say that the Church of Rome is Vere but not Vera Ecclesia that will not do we can shew him vera that is true as well as Vere Truly but his meaning is True in Essence not Morally True what is the meaning of that Not true in her Doctrine and Worship This kind of truth admitts many degrees We would fain know of our Author to what degree of moral truth that Church must be arrived from which he judgeth it sinful to separate for we shall find that divers of his Brethren and Fathers have acknowledged a great degree of moral truth in the Church of Rome from which yet they separated and we believe died in their separation from it Died they as Fools dyed Let me shew this a little Was not the Church of Rome morally true because an Antichristian-Church and the Seat of the Antichrist So indeed Bishop Downame Bishop Abbot and many Bishops were wont to say but since that time Bishop Mountagne hath called their Arguments Apocaliptycal phrenzies Dow saith it is doubtful Dr. Heylin saith it cannot be for Antichrist must be a single man a Jew that must kill Enoch and Elias Star Chamber Speech p. 32. Bishop Laud confesseth therefore he hath raced out of the Liturgy the scandalous term Antichristian Sect. § 65. Is the fault in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it may be some of us think there is fault enough there I trust our Author himself thinks so but neither all former Conformists nor present Conformists believe that she differs from us in any Fundamentals I my self have been told so within few years the Author could not but know that Bishop Laud Dr. Heylin Bishop Potter and many others have thus far asserted her Moral truth again and again as to Doctrine Now may not that be put for a Problem amongst those who are so Zealous in this point Whither it be not Schismatical to separate from a Church upon the account of Doctrine which errs in no fundamentals Yet those great men confessed the latter and did the former If we loose this stand I know not where we shall find a boundary to stop us from separation from a true Church for any one false Proposition of Doctrine maintained in it But what Doctrine is there as to which we cannot shew them that some or other our conforming Fathers or Brethren have not either acknowledged true in their terms or so far true as would make separation for it dangerous yet all these separated from it and died many of them in that black Schisme if it were so Let the Author instance and he shall hear what we can say to it he will I hope spare the Arminian points The Doctrine of Faith as an assent only to the Proposition Justification by Works c. but let him instance § 66. But it may be the business is they have acknowledged and proved her Communion unlawful as to Worship we indeed do so think it sufficiently sinful But have all those Conformists separated from her thought so we think so because we judge her idolatrous in her Adoration of the Eucharist The Saints departed Reliques Images Altars c. and we know that many of our conforming Brethren are of the same mind with us Dr. Brewynt Dr. Stillingfleet and many others have sufficiently told us so but the question is whether all our conforming Brethren who have separated thus judged her thus morally not a true Church What meant Dr. Heylins four bowings at his taking up and setting down the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist Heylins moderate Answer p. 137. What saith the Author of Weights and Measures as to the point of Veneration of Images What saith Bishop Mountague Antig. p. 318. and in his Antid p. 30. and in his Orig. p. 40. he says the Ancient Church did Venerate Reliques Antid p. 44. but I will enlarge no further till I have particular instances given § 67. We see it was the judgment of these men and they were learned men that we may separate from a Church that hath a great degree of moral truth But it may be they thought they did not separate because they and their Fore-fathers were really never of them but reformed themselves But were not our Fore-fathers Baptized into that Church Did
Church Catholick Visible Do we break Charity with our Brethren do we Revile them or Reproach their Persons or Societies Let them bear the blame who do it we plead not for them in the mean time let not all other Non-Con be called Schismaticks for their sake We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by those three famous Authors of the Friendly debate Ecclesiastical Polity and of Knowledge of Communion with Christ have they rendred reviling for reviling though the Masters of Morality have so treated their Brethren as if Veracity Comity and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues When the Author opens himself a little plainer and tells us what he meaneth by a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the Church Catholick Visible we shall better understand him § 23. But he saith we sinfully separate from the Organical National Church of England and indeed this he must mean or nothing by what he said before for it is not possible to separate sinfully from a National Church considered only as a large part of the Church-Catholick Visibles while they keep in the profession of Christ and his Gospel and in the practice of the same Acts of worship with them and in the same Doctrines of Faith unless they fail in love refusing all kind of occasional Communion with their Brethren condemning them as no parts of the Church of Christ The worshipping of God by different phrases and forms of Prayers in different habits of Vestment by different rites and ceremonies c. will not do it for these are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Christ left no Liturgy to his Catholick Church nor any such rites and ceremonies and habits nor was ever the Catholick Visible Church uniform in them our Brethren themselves confess these mutable things wherein several parts of the Catholick Church differ each from other These things proceed from the Church considered as Organical not as a part of the Catholick Visible Church for then the major part of all particular Christians must consent to the imposition of them § 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church it is possible we may have separated from it for we never knew there was any such Creature and at last our Author doth confess that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree That the Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to a National Church he should therefore first have proved that there is such a thing under the Gospel as A Stated National Organical Church and we should then have tried whether the same Arguments would not have served the Papists to have proved a Catholick organical Church and that something better than they serve our Author because they have found out a single head for it which we find our Author p. 43. at great loss to find for his particular National Organical Church § 95. He knows not whether he should fix it upon the King for he is to be considered as a mixed person Or The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury because he is Primate of all England or all the Bishops and Pastors That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governour of the National Church of England is our of doubt to all Protestants but such a one as will not claim Authority to any one strictly called Ecclesiastical act neither to Preach nor administer a Sacrament nor Ordain Ministers Are we discoursing of such a head think we The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury indeed may do all these but may he execute any acts of Discipline in the Province of York must the Arch-Bishop of York be taken in Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads yet that is better than 26. for so many must be if all the Bishops make the head and that yet is better than 9000 heads as must be if the Pastors of all Parishes be the Head In short none of these can by an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction influence the whole body and what kind of head is that The King indeed as Political Head of the Church may influence the whole with his commands relating to Ecclesiastical affairs but surely we have no Arçh-Bishop Bishop or Pastor can Excommunicate from Dan to Beershaba Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point at last tells us It is not material for it is a certain Vanity to say 43. Because I cannot find the the Head I will deny the Body Is it so can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head It is not the body we are discoursing of but an Organical Body We may know our Mother as our Author saith though we do not know our Father but we must know we had a Father and that Father is or was a visible Creature or else he could not be known § 26. Well but what is this same National Organical Church of England He p. 42. gives us this Description of it It is a community consisting of professed Christians united in the same Doctrine Government and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worship of God And p. 45 Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or dissolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governours Worship Members or Assemblies We can neither allow his descriptis on of the National Church of England nor yet of his description of Schisme or sinful separation from it and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reason either of them can be made good § 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church we deny the description of it for Non eus non potest definiri Now we do believe that under the Gospel there never was nor can be a stated National governing Church unless what is indeed somtimes though far from the sense we are now speaking to and perhaps not so properly called a Church according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Messengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation in an Assembly for deliberations advice and determinations in some weighty emergent cases to obviate which we put in the term stated for this is only an Occasional National Church or Synod which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ and meets and acts at the pleasure of the Prince the Supreme Political Head § 28. When we speak of a Church we understand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious usage of it applicable to no body of people but such a one as the Scripture calleth so So that if there be any such body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church we must either find it in the New Testament or at least find some directions there for the constitution ordering of it some
Commissions given for a succession of National Officers but we find none of this we find indeed a general commission to Ministers to go and Preach and Baptize but this referred as well to the Heathens as to professed Christians If any will say that the Apostles were General Officers and from thence will argue for a succession of them it will better serve the Papists to prove an Universal Organical Church than it will serve any to prove a National Organical Church and we think that is what our Brethren will not be very free of granting If any urge the Example of the Jewish National Church which was Organical they will be also obliged to find our Saviours directions for the Hereditary discent of an High-Priest or the Election of one into his place We always thought the Jewish H. Priest was a type and Christ the Antitype whose coming abolished the type besides that that also will prove an Universal Organical Church for the Jewish High Priest govern'd the whole Visible Church which God in his days had upon the Earth besides we must have found some rules and laws left us by Christ for this High Priest Finally who so will erect a stated National governing or Organical Church in England must find us an Officer cloathed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michaels Mount in Cornwall to Carlile and Berwick Such a one we suppose there neither is nor ever was in England since the reformation § 29. But if we could allow such a Creature of God as a National governing Church in England we should have put Governours being certainly one of the Essential parts of such a Church into the description of it as well as into the Notion of Schisme from it Nor should we have so straitned the Notion of it as to necessitate all the members of it to be united in Doctrine Worship and Government without saying how far they must in these things be united Whether in every point of Doctrine delivered in the 39. Articles and Homilies so far as to approve and embrace all And in every point of Government according to the Canons or in every mode rite or ceremony according to the Liturgy or if not in what and how far they must be thus united And for the Laws as distinguished from the Canons we should have left them quite out being but civil constitutions about the affairs of the Church not properly Laws of the Church or in the more intrinsick matters of it but Impetus cuncta male ministrat this is the unlucky effect of long Definitions and too great eagerness to prove all Nonconformists Schismaticks The Author should have done well to have considered what he as well as we long since learned at the University 1. Definitiones debent esse breves It is the length of this description that spoils it and makes it by no art defensible 2. Debet constare ex attributis preoribus notioribus simpliciter had this been thought of the 39 Articles Homilies Liturgy Canons Laws had been quite left out nor certainly did our Author consider what would follow upon this description § 30. Let us but a little shew what inferences follow his Description of the National Governing Church of England 1. All Arminians without bail or mainprise must be Hereticks They are none of the Community of professed Christians in England united in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles will they tell us they are Let us ask King James once the very learned Head of this Church He tell us That Arminians was an Enemy to God Reg. Jacobi Dec. contra Vorstium p. 12. 14. that his Disciples are Pests Hereticks Arrogant persons Sectaries Atheists That the very Title of Bertius his Book concerning the Apostacy of the Saints required the fire Shall we be judged by the Parliament they make the Laws put into the description of this Church they confirmed the Articles We find them Anno 1628. crying aloud We Claim Protest and avow for Truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established by Parliament Mr. Rushworths Collections p. 650. 130. Eliz. which say they by the Publick Act of the Church of England and by the general and currant exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us and we reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians and all others wherein they differ from us Shall we ask the Professors of Divinity forty years since and upward in either University They joyntly agreed these points contrary to the 39 Articles one Dr. Baro only excepted and we know who was the first Doctor of that Divinity knowingly created at Oxford and the Professors course complement to him at his Creation after he had defended one of them Hujus te Theologiae creo Doctorem meaning the Arminian Divinity whence ever after to his Death possibly he took the liberty to Profess it as the Doctrine of our Church yea and they must be Schismaticks too though not from yet in the National Church and that 's the worst sort of Schisme because that which the Scripture chiefly if not only taketh notice of 2. Those who will sing no Psalms must be Schismaticks too for surely that 's an act of Worship in the Church of England and owned by her yea and those that do not ordinarily conform to all Rites and Ceremonies and Formes in the Liturgy do they approve of them The worse they still according to this description make a Shisme in the Church Quaery Whether none of the Conformists do this I could tell him of some nay One and he no mean One neither that openly told the People singing of Psalms was one of the Idols of the Church of England there were three Preaching and keeping the Sabbath were the two other § 40. Now if the Author could have been content to have described the National Church of England the number of professed Christians in it united in the same Doctrines necessary to Salvation and in the same Acts of Worship the Definition had been shorter many of these had been included and we had all been agreed But to be sure to make all the Nonconformists Shismatick he first Describes a thing not in being and which never was since Christ came and then describes it in such a manner as if he could create it would do very many of his own friends far more hurt than us § 41. In the mean time we must freely yeild him such a National Church as we before described and the King the Supreme Head of it not in a capacity to Preach or administer the Sacrament or exercise any act in it strictly an Ecclesiastical by Divine institutions but to Protect it to enjoyn the fulfilling in it what God hath commanded to do as much in it in short as any King of Israel and Judah as a King might do and to make rules and constitutions about it But we deny that our Meetings are any more Schismes in or from this Church then the Meeting of Christians
to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship is a Schisme from that part of this Church which meet for that end in London § 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution Doctrine of Schisme 55. which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen let Mr. Cawdry or who will say so Dolus versatur in Generatibus What is the difference did Christ constitute theirs We trust he hath constituted ours that is by the Rules given in his Word Were theirs constituted by Parliament that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Arch-Bishop the Parliament afterwards or Custom rather might confirm them Doth it then make a Schismatick to depart to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom How else are we of another constitution Is not the same Doctrine Preached the same Sacraments administred the same acts of Worship performed Where 's the difference In the Modes Rites and Ceremonies only And these all of humane institution This is that which the Church of God never before called Schisme which the Apostles never thought of Do not we agree in the same Government That concerns us not yet while we are clearing our selves only from a Church which the Author must shew us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed intrinsecal to his Church In the mean time as to the National Church of England we deny that we are guilty of any Schisme either in it or from it so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches and our pretended separation from them § 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry and quoted by our Author ch 9. p. 57. these he calls Parochial Congregations We are he saith guilty of Schisme from them we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches 1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholick Church and so capable of the name of the whole thus we were indeed united to them as we were united to the Catholick Church and united still to them as unto that owning the Lord Jesus Christ his Word and Ordinances and professing a subjection to them But this is not the other state he speaks of by which he can mean nothing but a governing state 2. Secondly therefore These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly or more imperfectly Organized furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order or not so furnished or so walking The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered lay in two things the latter of which he delivered thus Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches Advice to Conformists c. p. 72. or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from We have read over the Book and good Reader at thy leisure do but read over that Pamplet the second chapt particularly the 13 14 15. pages and see whether this Author hath or no dealt ingeniously with him p. 14. He speaks of these Societies as parts of the Catholick Churches and saith Short Reflections p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish yea Family of Christians is a true Church But he indeed concludes that out of such particular Churches it must be lawful to gather a Church for all particular Churches in the world are gathered out of the Catholick Visible Church even Heathens when converted must be of the Catholick Visible Church before they can form a particular Church In this state and no other must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours which we think is a contradiction P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them as Ministerial by which he saith he underst ands a competent number of Christians who have either first chosen or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor he might indeed have spared this Notion I do not remember I have met with it in any Author but Mr. Rutherford and the truth is if it be a single Minister I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them than as he is so far an Officer of the Catholick Church and they a part of that vast body He considers these people Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances or as at present living without some Ordinances or having them so unduly administred as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no He adds we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duely sent able painful Minister regularly administring the Ordinances of Christ so as people may communicate with them without sin and pressing forward to that perfection in order which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them may not separate without sin He did not indeed say but I dare say for him he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England and he hints it when he saith This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches Reader judge in his 15. page He tells us There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical and furnished with all its affairs and walking in all points of Gospel Order He adds such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches from which causeless and unnecessary separation is sinful Indeed he says How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches avowed so by Presbyterians he was yet to learn And his Answer is for any thing I see in his Remarques yet to teach him and I believe will so continue For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order He I am sure will tell him he means no more Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church The Word Sacraments and Censures of Jundical Admonition Suspension and Excommunication which they cannot do till they have Officers I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justifie a single Minister in Suspending or Excommunicating but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry I do not think he believes but that there may be more Ministers if the Parochial Society hath more than one or others chosen by that Church And if any will contend that the body of the people must joyn with him in those acts though he reserves his private judgment in the case yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication because he understands not to what purpose
endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of
not the Laws of England once tye us to them Were we not United to the Governours Worship Members and Assemblies of that Church Did not our Fore-fathers shew their consent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions c. This is all our Author saith for our Vnion to the National and Parochial Church or Churches of England § 68. Again they have proved it he saith that Communion in that Church is corrupt How Because we cannot communicate with it without sin How have they proved it Demonstratively so as the Adversaries cannot deny it Nothing less they do deny it and yet dispute it but so as we probably judg it sinful We grant this is proved and so we think we have proved it too though it may be more sinful to communicate with the Romish Church But we know Magis minus non variant speciem But we think we ought not to do the least sin § 69. But we do not say it is sinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances Why do we not communicate with them so far as we can without sin Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledg so much But Communion is either stated and fixed or Occasional They conceive themselves obliged statedly and fixedly if they can to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of God For occasional Communion they neither have denied it nor shall deny it to their Brethren in such actions wherein their Consciences will allow them so to communicate without sin as occasion offers it self they acknowledg many of their Ministers and of their Churches true Churches true Ministerial Churches they many of them hear them Preach and Pray and bring their Children to them to be Baptized especially if any of them will abate what in that administration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally necessary and they judg sinful what would the Author have more unless a perfect communion § 70. As to which though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men because they never touch the Conscience nor ad homines because they are single Bullets and hit but one person yet once let me use one Because our Author in his Doctrine of Schisme p. 28. assures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods mind I know not that Reverend Person but I take him to be the same Mr. Fulwood that was sometimes Minister at Staple Fitzpane in Somerset-shire and anno 1652. published a Book called The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches and a true Ministry if he be not the man intended I beg his pardon if it be he he saith thus of the Church of England For matters of Government indeed of late we were under Episcopacy all whose appurtenances savoured of Antichrist and in the same page a little after our Episcopal Courts Service Tyranny c. were very gross This was Mr. Fulwoods judgment I think we may easily argue according to his principles It is Mr. Fulwoods assertion not ours From a Church all whose appurtenances as to Government savour of Antichrist Fulwoods Churches Ministry of England true c. p. 12. and whose service is very gross Christians may and ought to separate so far as to that Government all whose appurtenances so savour and whose service is gross But saith Mr. Fulwood Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an answer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood we will further examin it But there is no end of these things § 71. In the mean time I must mind the Author of too little candor as to his Adversary who wrote the Reflexions in saying the sum of what he offered was reducible to these two propositions 1. That the Conformists held the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet did separate 2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches when as he never said the latter at all but the clean contrary and had acknowledged 1. All of them true Churches that is true parts of the Catholick Church 2. Many of them true Ministerial Churches 3. Some of them true Organical Churches Besides this He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will see these two things were not the sum of what he said and that how little soever Reason was in those Reflections there was yet more then this Author in his Remarques was pleased to take notice of for that Author had then insisted on their not being united to Parochial Churches § 72. To shut up this discourse I from my Soul wish all the Lords Ministers and People of England were of one heart and mind I am not of Gravity or Learning sufficient to Advise either Conformists or Non-conformists but shall only propose my own thoughts and not mine alone The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dissertations de Episcopatu hath these passages which I shall translate The learned may read them in the Printed Copies If men were every where as sollicitous for forming and reforming men and fitting them for the sacred Ministry to which they profess to give up themselves the disputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more easie and less evil need be feared from that which we judge not so good Here saith he We must begin that men may be made worthy for the work and Parag. 4. Here we must lay on our help We see the Apostles in their Writings were more sollicitous about the Vertues than the degrees of Ministers Parag. 9. Before saith he we divide into parties about other things we should joyntly agree about these things A confession of common Doctrine according to truth and piety should be either set forth or confirmed then exact Canons should be made about the whole life and manners of Ministers and then a disputation about the form of Church Government should follow Thus far he § 73. I shall conclude with delivering my Opinion That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed which concern Ministers Lives and Office And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed and those men might have nothing to do in the debate Who are dead in Law according to those Canons that is such as ought to be Excommunicated or deprived and who had declared or should declare themselves contrary to the Doctrine so expoundâ—d and declared The remaining part would quickly so well agree with other things as we should be no more troubled with clamours of Schisme and Separation and tell somthing of that Nature be I see no medium but either Dissenters must be indulged and Schisme clamour'd and never proved or suffering for Conscience-sake must be imposed and patiently endured Fiat Voluntas Dei ERRATA PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare r. curaes p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians r. Arminius p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus r. Generalibus p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical r. Juridical p. 70. l. 2. r. one Ministers parts p. 74.
matter of Conscience to obey Good and Profitable Laws so farr as we are perswaded our Obedience is profitable Moreover General and Long continued Disuse is and Justly may be thought an Abolishing and Abrogating of Humane Laws For seeing Lex institutitur cum promulgatur vigorem habet cum moribus utentium approbatur On the Church Pag. 4. l. 34. I must remember my Antogonist to take Notice that What he goes to oppose in me as some singular Opinion of mine which yet is not mine but he mistakes me in it is Presented by this Great Dr. of the Church as the received Doctrine of Protestants As also that the Doctrine which in deed is mine this Dr agrees so much with me does require his better Consideration J. H's Second Principle is that Human Powers may not lawfully Command or Inforce any thing against the Conscience even in Civil Concernes He should have said in things that are materially Civil yet under some Consideration unto some Religious What the Magistrate cannot Command I say indeed he cannot Inforce The Magistrate cannot Command what God forbids God forbids every Man to do any thing against his Conscience And what hath any Mortal to oppose against this Why he has one Argument only which he takes from my Concession in the stating my Matter I Distinguish between a Man's doing according to his Conscience and his doing against It and of Restraint and Constraint accordingly in the Magistrate I grant that the Magistrate may Restraine a man from doing according to his Conscience when he is doing hurt to Church or State through his errour and may Punish him for the Evil he does He argues from hence that he may Constraine him to doe that which is Good for the Church or State though it be against his Conscience upon the same account But I say not There is a Difference I give my Reason Because in the one the Man does what God would not have him In the other he does what God would have God would not have him to do Evil because of his erroneous Conscience but that he should lay down his Errour and do Good But God will have every Man so to regard his Conscience though Eerroneous that he must not do any thing against it for any Fear or Advantage in 〈◊〉 Eaerth Author of the Mag. Pag. 12â—… And what answer makes he to this Reason Why not a word So overly aâ—… men ordinarily to speak at the first sight against that which others have thought long upon The substance of the Distinction and so of my Detemination I cited out of Augustine and confirmed it with Grotius his Approbation I might add to them the Learned Rutherford who are Judicious mighty Men all three but this Gentle Dean hath not Pondred the Matter For thus he proceeds The Law of God is the Rule of Concience This Law is Negative as well as Affirmative and binds the Conscience equally in both respects So far we are Agreed Hold Sir A mistake again He forgets the known Rule in the Schools that Affirmations bind Semper not ad Semper not to all times or in all Cases but Negatives do bind Semper and ad Semper alwayes and against all Exceptions He remembers not himself therefore when he saies they Bind equally and so thinks not how the Decision of the Point must resolve into this Issue In the affirmative Case I say it is true that God requires the Man to lay down his Errour and not to do the thing and therefore the Magistrate may Restrain or Punish him In the Negative case he urges likewise God commands him the Same as to laying down his Errour and to do the thing and therefore he may Constraine or make him But I reply no still the difference remains Though in the Negative case that is when the Conscience which is Erroneous sayes they must not do such a thing God requires this Joyntly to lay down his Erroneous Conscience or be other-wise informed and to do the thing yet does not he require this Separately that while he is so informed he should do it When in the affirmative Case that is when the Conscience which is erroneous saies thou must do such or such a thing God requires he should lay down his Errour not do the thing both Joyntly and Separately so that even while he is Perswaded in his Conscience that it is his Duty God's Negative Command is Obligatory against that Perswasion The reason is from what is Said because Affirmatives do not bind ad Semper or in all Cases but Negatives do This is one of those Cases Thou shalt not do against thy Conscience is a Negative Indispensable Thou shalt do according to it holds not in this Case when the Conscience is in an Errour I will conclude with the History of this little I have written There is a Book call'd the Friendly Debate which when it came out was received every where with diversity of acceptation and censure There are many things in it I am perswaded in my heart fit to be spoken yet do I not know nor the Authour himself perhaps know from what manner of Spirit they are spoken It is in appearance a Spirit elated contemptuous engaged if not imbitterd against a party and so far un-Catholick which does through the sides of that party oftentimes make Religion her self feel entrenching upon it almost all the way in regard to those weaknesses and follies which Human reason is ever ready to impute to it But God hath chosen the foolish things of the World to confound the Wise and the things that are despised hath he chosen Among other matters against the Non-Conformists that Authour brings this that they observe not the Lawes the Oxford Act and others and that therefore they cannot be good Subjects nor good Christians nor Ministers of Christ A heavy charge and a necessary case of Conscience Upon this occasion I presented to the publick a sheet called the Case under this Title Whether a Non-Conformist who hath not taken the Oxford Oath might come to live at London or any Corporate Town or within Five miles of it and yet be a good Christian To this Sheet the Authour was pleased to give me an Answer That Answer drew me forth to write my Book by way of reply of the Obligation of human Lawes To this reply the learned Debater answered no more After the Debate another peice comes forth of Ecclesiastical Polity exceeding the former both in Pomp and Design in Lustre and the Attempt that was for asserting an Authority in the Magistrate over the Conscience to end all Disputes which being a thing not to be endured though but in the matter of Conformity as the Authour I think only meant I wrote also my other Book of the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion Unto this Book I had no answer from that Authour neither Only having caused those few Copies which were left of the Obligation in Quires to be bound up with this and Printing so many on purpose of the Sheet called The Case over again to fit and joyn to both and then Entituled it Two points of great moment Discussed I do observe that it hath pleased this Reverend Dean to step in with these Two exceptions of his which I have answered and one thing more in the close must not pass unregarded which he brings in under the head of the former of the Two This Obligation of I. H. is only from necessity of the thing commanded But in all other cases you need not obey only for wraths sake that is no farther then you are forced and therefore when you are got above fears you will not or need not regard Authority This principle will hardly prove the Non-Conformists the only Loyalists Besides the mistake before noted It is nothing but want of the present knowledge in this Dr as it was in the Debater of the distinction I offered them out of Dr Field between Subjection and Obedience or the sense of it that made them fall into so slender sort of reasoning as this is Though there be many cases wherein we are not bound in Conscience to Obey yet are we alwayes bound in Conscience to be Subject or never to Resist and upon that ground is our Loyalty maintained This I have said I know most effectually in my first Book of the Two Points unto which therefore when that which is brought to its Assistance in the Second and this little in these Two Sheets now more is added which I would by no means have those who have the other be without there is nothing besides as I can find in my mind unless to tell the Reader least he be at a loss that there are a few of these Two Poynts so bound up yet to be had at the Golden Lyon in Paul's Church-yard that is lacking to my full satisfaction on those Subjects Vale Lector fruere Deo gloria I. H.