of their mind and leaving terms of reviling to the Women at Billings-gate we will fairly state the Case and argue it as coolely § 17. The Question is this Whether the Non-conforming Ministers and people meeting ordinarily together for the Worship of God in Assemblies and places locally distinct and separate from the meetings of the Parochial Congregations because the said Ministers may not Preach there nor the said people enjoy there all the Ordinances of God without the doing of some things which their Consciences upon Arguments which they judge highly probable do judge sinful be what the Scripture calleth Schisme or be in any right Reason A sinful Separation these persons in the mean time not condemning all Parochial Societies as no true Churches nor in other things behaving themselves uncharitably towards them We must profess our selves to believe the Negative of this Question in which are two folded together We affirm then 1. This practice is not what The Scripture calls Schisme 2. Nor what right Reason concluding from any Scriptural principles can call A sinful Separation We do grant there may be a sinful Separation of Christians from a Church which the Scripture doth not call Schisme that maketh us distinguish these two things nor shall we discourse the former 1. Because it is a plain Dispute about a Term. 2. Because the eminently Learned Dr. Owen hath made it good that a Separation from a Church though it may be sinful yet is not that which the Scripture calls Schisme and we observe that his very Learned Adversary upon the point grants him this and pleadeth for no more than an Analogical application of the term Schisme to express the sin of unnecessary separation from a Church which we will not contend about § 18. We say therefore let it be so or so it is of no great consequence all grant there may be a sinful separation from a Church and if the separation be not sinful we are sure they Nick-name it that call it Schisme If it be sinful whether it should be called Schisme or by some other name we think signifieth very little to the Consciences of any intelligent Christians § 19. Mr. Hales still keeping the dialect of the Schools calls this sinful separation Schisme and gives us this description of it Schisme is an unnecessary separation from that part of the Visible Church of which we once were Members Like a wise man he speaks Multa paucis remembring the Canon about Definitions So then according to him to make a Schisme 1. There must be a separation and that not from the whole Visible Church that is Heresy or Apostacy but from some part of it of which we were once Members 2. Secondly It must be an Unnecessary separation that is where the Union might have been kept without sinning against God we desire no further advantage than this Description will give us let our case stand or fall as it will abide or not abide this test § 20. Hence we argue Where there never was an Union or there is no separation or if there be a separation it is necessary because the Union could not be kept without sin There is no Schisme but in the cases of the Ministers and People Either there is no separation or there was no Union which indeed supposed there could be no separation or no more than a necessary separation Ergo No Schisme no sinful separation § 21. To make good which Separation being a term of motion before we can strictly speak to the parts of the Argument we must enquire for the Term from which this Motion or Separation is pretended to be The Author of The Doctrine of Schisme p. 40. tells us this roundly 'T is a great and dangerous Schisme both against the Church of England and particular Churches We will not quarrel with the Zealous Author for the propriety of that English a Schisme against the Church because in the close of the same page though he doth not at all mend the matter as to the poor Non-conformist whom he was wont to own as Brethren yet he amendeth his English telling us If you consider the Church of England as a particular Organized Church 't is a Schism from but as part of the Universal Visible Church only as the N. Con. use to term it is a Schisme in it and not only so but p. 57. It is a Schisme from particular Parochial Congregations For Mr. Candry he saith hath observed There was and is another Church-state in our particular Congregations § 22. Here now is a double term from which this motion is pretended to be 1. The Church of England 2. The Parochial Churches in England To let our Author know what we hold we do believe a Catholick Visible Church which we take to be well described in the 19th of the 39 Articles of our Church The Congregation or whole Body of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments are duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same Of this the Church of England is a part doubtless and from the Church of England in this sense we do not know that any have separated but such as have renounced Christ and the Gospel or the Word and Ordinances necessary to Salvation which would be plain and desperate Apostacy with which we hope our Brethren will be more modest than to charge us From this our Plea is we make no Separation and therefore cannot be charged with a sinful Separation But saith our Author You make a sinful separation in it We are not troubled at words that signifie nothing what is the meaning of this Do we not Own Christ his Gospel the same points of Faith the same acts of Worship where is the Separation then Can all meet in the same place It may be we do not pray by the same forms nor ware the same habits nor use some of those rites some others of our Brethren use Do our Brethren then always when they pray use the same forms of words Do not they take a liberty in the Pulpit why may not we Do other parts of the Catholick Church use the same forms why else are not they Schismaticks for as yet we are only considering the National Church of England as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Is there any form any habit any rite or ceremony commanded by Christ and omitted by us if there be not where is the Schisme It seems the term Schismatick is their priviledge to use that can first get it out of their mouths if we divide in no command of Christ why may not the Non-Con call their Brethren Schismaticks as well as they call their Brethren Doth an humane Law create a difference Let it be queried whether that can give a rule to Schisme or no. What is the business then how do we then make a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the
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