or Congregations and who knows not too well what is to be understood by Gathering-Churches by the former practices of the Independents but more especially by these Presbyterians since the Indulgence But to talk of gathering Churches and yet of holding Communion with us is a Juggle unworthy our Author who either doth or should know that it is protestatio contra factum questionem I mean 't is generally so I have as you cannot but see both in the Question as proposed and as stated and as prosecuted set gathering of Churches in opposition to our Parochial Congregations And what you say to any thing else is not to the point And the general practice of Church-gatherers too well satisfies the world what they intend and also that the Question was rightly propounded and clearly stated to any unbyassed and unprejudiced Reader what ever you say to confound it and with your wonted Elaborateness to render it unintelligible p. 40. and then complain that it is so But the Learning of some men is not ill compared to a Pedlars Pack though not so much for that there are many things that are difficult to be found but rather because if they look for any thing every thing comes to hand But this be far from our Author to whom we must now hearken dilligently He first sets down my Question verey honestly and intirely p. 26 27. then he nibles a little at it and at length bites and tells the World that I joyn two questions in one which we must look to have distinctly Answered But what those two questions are and where they are distinctly answered I have look't and find not Would he not speak distinctly to them because he hates Divisions or was it his prudence to leave out Conscience for he hath told us p. 21. that to decide this case is a work of meer Christian Prudence but where is Conscience then Excluded by what Law that shall be tried anon For I shall now address my self in earnest to review the whole Question not in two only but in the several Cases depending upon it A just examin whereof will give me occasion sufficient to consider all that he hath said to the purpose against me as I find it scattered up and down his Book CHAP. VII Gathering-Churches charged with Schism from the Church of England and proved to be so from the Definition of this Church Wherein he is told what the Church of England and Schism from it is THe General Question betwixt us is this Whether it be Lawful for the Presbyterians to refuse Communion with our Parish Churches and to gather themselves into Distinct and Separate Churches And upon a Serious review of it and Consideration of all that the Answerer hath said against me and my Discours upon it I do renew my Charge and possitively affirm that it is Vnlawful and as it is generally practised 't is a great and dangerous Schism both against the Church of England and Particular Churches 't is a Schism in its own nature and sinful in it Self 'T is a Schism in the Judgment of the old Nonconformists called Puritans and also in the Judgment of the Presbyterians before 1660. and lastly that both in Conscience and Prudence it ought at present to be avoided or deserted by all such especially as are called Presbyterians And all this in in its several parts and in their order as here set down I undertake to make good 1. Thus to Separate and to Gather Churches is a Schism with respect to the Church of England Now as Divines speak of a Schism in a Church and a Shism from a Church so in a diverse respect this practice is guilty of both For if you consider the Church of England as particular Organized Church 't is a Schism from but if as part of the Vniversal Visibe Church only as the Nonconformists use to term it then 't is Schism in it It is a Shism from the Church of England as such by dividing from its Governours Members Worship and Assemblies as I more than Intimated in my Book p. 8. and this ought to have been distinctly observed at least by my Answerer but instead thereof how he stumbles and blunders looking carefully and making great Outcries after that which I laid just before him You charge us saith he p. 37. with Schism from the Church of England Again p. 38. Tell us what you mean by Schism from the Church of England Again p. 35. We are told of Schism from the Church of England as if it were a Monstrous and unheard of thing and then puzzles pittyfully puzzles himself and his Reader in an impertinent pursuit of the Head of the Church of England as if without a certain and infallible knowledge of that there could be no such thing as a Church of England or Schism from it Wearying himself for five or six pages at his old game of nothing to the purpose But methinks he labours with a very vehement desire after this great truth and could he be sure to have it he will not say how much Money as well as Pains he would give for it yea he roundly offers me how consistent with his gravity I do not observe but he roundly offers me all the Money in his Purse to make him understand but what the Church of England is p. 35. Well if you will promise me to be humble and teachable and that you are not too old to learn though I have no mind to your money I will shew my readiness and charity at least to relieve you in so great a Streight though my Judgment may fail and my Definition be as despicable as my silly Arguments The Church of England is a Community Consisting of professed Christians Vnited in the same Government Doctrine and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies Her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worshipping of God Might such a Notion of the Church of England have superceded all his Finesses of Wit and Distinctions about the Constitutive Ecclesiastical Head as he speaks how learnedly I leave to his Friend Mr. Bagshaw I think his labour might have been well enough spared For he may Consider we are Vnited in the same Government and the Pars Regens is the only part he himself requires to be added to the Pars Subdita to Constitute a Church Organiz'd in a proper political sence p. 38. Now you will not deny either of these parts and consequently you have found the whole of the Church of England as you say Organiz'd in a proper political Sence And it hence follows that 't is material to our point to determine certainly what is the Ecclesiastical Head of this Church whether we that are Members of it are all united in the King as Persona mixta cum Sacerdote and not meerly a Civil head as you insinuate he being Supream in all Causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Or whether
any think it more proper to Radicate this Vnion in his Grace of Canterbury as Primate over all England or whether in both the Arch-Bishops who hold Communion in the same Doctrine Worship and Laws and in whom both the Provinces are Vnited or lastly whether we are not rather United in all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England as the Pars Regens and our Government in the Church considered purely and abstractly from the Civil Government be not rather an Aristocracy than a Monarchy Whether this or the other be the true to know it is not necessary nor of any use that I can perceive in the present Controversy But it is a certain Vanity to say because I cannot find the Head I will deny the Body though I must withal deny my own Senses Because you cannot know certainly who was your Father will you deny your Mother which is the surer side There is a Church of Englâ—nd and what it is I have endeavoured to shew and by the Nature of it we may more easily conclude what Schism from it is and who are guilty of this whether such as Separate and Gather Churches or not CHAP. VIII What Schism from the Church of England is and whether gathering of Churches aâ— now is practised be not guilty of it 1. WHat is Schism from the Church of England sure it is not a denying its Doctrine or holding any thing contrary thereunto he that holdeth perversum Dogma only is an Ad Tit. cap. 3. Heretick no Schismatick as St. Hierom teacheth Mr. Newcomen a learned Presbyterian as I observed in my last le ts the Separatists know that their agreeing with us and the Reformed Churches in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity so long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For he cites Beza another learned Annotat. in 1 Cor. 1. 10. Presbyterian So that you may be willing to subscribe to the 39. Articles and yet be Schismaticks from the Church of England It remains therefore that such Schism relates to the other Bands of our union and fellowship with this Church to wit her Government and Worship and consequent to the latter her Members and Assemblies Thus you see we must return to our first determination that Schism from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or a dissolving our union and communion with her in her Governors and Members Worship or Assemblies This is the least that we mean by Schism from the Church of England and is called Separation or Schism negative which is made positive and more formally such when those that have so separated set up their Altar against hers and erect other Congregations in opposition to hers The Schismatick by Dr. Hamond Of Schism Epist 40. out of Ignatius is described to be Filius impius c. An impious Son which having contemned the Bishops and forsaken the Priests of God dares constitute another Altar And again Epist 57. the Schismaticks are they that having left their Bishop set up for themselves abroad another false Bishop and all their adherents are involved in the same guilt who joyn with the Schismaticks against their Bishops Two things here must be supposed 1. That we are the pars subdita and do ow this communion and obedience to these Governors of the Church 2. That they impose no unlawful conditions of this communion upon us though if they should how far we may separate must take its measure from such impositions which is another Question to be discussed anon in another place and at present I shall only add that so far as I understand my Answerer so far as the people are concerned in the conditions of our communion we are not likely to differ much in this point But for the first of these suppositions if there be any force in Scripture precepts requiring obedience to our spiritual Guides or in Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws which are very severe to that purpose nothing can be more evident than that all English Christians do owe communion and obedience to the Governors of the Church of England whose Government stands established by both sorts of Laws and is so acknowledged by the Declaration it self And your Friend Mr. Baxter is Defence of his Cure p. 76. not obscure in this point We must own saith he a National Church as it is improperly so denominated from the King that is the Civil Head and as it is a community of Christians and a part of the Universal Church Vnited by the Concord of Her Pastors who in Synods may represent the whole Ministry and be the means of their Agreement He saith we must own the National Church I say then we must not disown Her And must we not likewise own the King as the Head thereof and all the Bishops and Pastors and Governors under Him And then what liberty is left us to disown deny or renounce their Persons or Authority Let such especially as have taken the Oath of Supremacy and received Ordination from Episcopal hands yet better consider those solemn Obligations upon them added to the Laws and take heed in earnest of Perfidiousness and Perjury Let them consider what is to renounce all foraign Jurisdiction and to their power to assist and defend all Jurisdiction Spiritual as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness and how well a renouncing Obedience to the Government of the Church consists with that which we have sworn therein It is true all are not called actually to take this Oath yet it is as true that the Ministers and Officers of all Sorts generally are and all Graduates in the Vniversity and for others as they are the Kings Subjects they are unquestionably taken to be under the same Obligation as to the matter of it and are born to the Duty as well as the Priviledge of Subjects of this Realm and therefore we find that this Oath is Administred not only to Oblige but rather as a Test to trie and also to secure the fidelity of such as take it as is evident in the Statute Again let all Ministers Ordained by Bishops I hope I have now to do with one in the Name of God seriously consider what they promised to do at their Ordination being most solemnly interogated by the Bishop in the Name of God and of his Church as the words are More particularly the Bishop demands Will you then give your faithful diligence always for to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath Commanded and as This Church and Realm hath received the Same according to Commandments of God so that you may teach the People committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the Same What Answer did you make hereunto I will do so by the help of the Lord. And thus you at once acknowledge that the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline
his thoughts to the state of our Church heretofore as in the former he struck at the Popish The learned Amesius whose Principles were somewhat Congregational hath said much to the same purpose in a few words Separation from a true Church Cas dâ— Schism is sometimes lawful if one cannot remain in its communion sine communicatione in peccatis without communicating in her sins if there be manifest danger of seduction and if we are compell'd to depart by oppression and persecution Thus he And we may suppose he thought he made a full enumeration of all the just causes of departing from a true Church and that in any other case seperation was unlawful Others indeed have more compendiously and fully drawn all the rules in this case into one point Seperation is unwarrantable if communion with the Church may be without sin And indeed what can justifie a practice so contrary to love and peace and of so dangerous consequence but the avoiding of sin Our general Answer to the charge of Schism by the Papists is we must not partake with your sins and I think all parties consent in this common proposition where the conditions of communion with a Church are sinful we are not bound to that communion for we must obey God rather then man I am sure this was current Doctrine with the Non-conformists His â—â—fence 2. Par. 22. called Puritans heretofore in the defence of communion with the Church of England Let the abuses saith Mr. Ball be many or great yet if I may be present at the true worship of God without sin consent unto or approbation of such abuses or corruptions in voluntary seperation I sin against God his Church and mine own soul This was also undoubted by the late Presbyterians in stead of many let Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen Independ a great Schism be heard for methinks he speaks to the purpose It is saith he no duty of Christs imposing no priviledg of his purchasing either to deprive a mans self of his Ordinances for other mens sins or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some reformation in lesser matters And Mr. Corbet and the Author of Evangelical Peace and Vnity if I understand him puts the whole debate upon the same issue with us So Bagshaw also c. Among these light causes which will by no means warrant a seperation Mr. Baxter hath laboured to Cure of Church Divisions 291. throw down these four Superstitious as he calls them which some religious people have brought up 1. That we are guilty of the sins of all unworthy communicants if we communicate with them though their admission is not by our fault 2. That he whose judgement is against a Diocesan Church may not lawfully join with a Parish Church if the Minister be but subject to the Diocesan 3. That whatsoever is unlawfully commanded is See Cure of Church Divisions p. 194. not lawful to be obeyed 4. That it is unlawful to do any thing in the Worship of God which is imposed by men and is not commanded it self in the Scripture But enough of the false grounds of seperation that render it causless for that they are either really none or else light or insufficient The Second Exception against Seperation was taken from the undue manner of proceeding in it for which it is termed Rash and therefore Schismatical though the ground be Just. That is as Mr. Brinsly explaineth himself p 25. When it is sudden and heady without due endeavour and expectance of Reformation in the Church it is then Rash and consequently an unwarrantable Separation in as much as it is opposite to Charity Mr. Baxters Advice is excellent here If Corruptions blemish and dishonor the Congregation doe not Cure of Church Div. p. 80. say let sin alone I must not oppose it for fear of Division but be the forwardest to reduce all to the will of God And yet if you cannot prevail as you desire be the backwardest to Divide and Seperate and do it not without a certain Warrant and extream necessity Resolve with Austine I will not be the Chaff and yet I will not go out of the Floor though the Chaff be there Never give over your just desire and endeavour of Reformation and yet as long as you can possible avoid it forsake not the Church which you desire to Reform As Paul said to them that were to forsake a Sea-wrack'd Vessel If these abide not in the Ship ye cannot be saved Many a one by unlawful flying and shifting for his own greater Peace and Safety doth much more hazard his own and others 3. Ames gives me occasion to hint one thing more Secessio vero Totalis c. A Total Secession or Seperation with absolute renouncing or rejecting all Communion cannot be lawfully practiced towards a True Church but partial only quatenus Communio so far as Communion cannot be exercised without sin Cas de Schis 307. I Wish heartily my Brethren would consider whether not only renouncing all Communion with but setting up other Churches against our Churches be not in his sence a Total Seperation and consequently Sinful Or whether you that so use us do yet retain Communion with our Parish-Churches so far as you know you may without sin But this by the way The Summe is when the Church gives no such cause of offence as may justifie Seperation when the Conditions of her Communion require nothing of her Members whereby if they Communicate they shall be Actual Sinners when persons let the cause be never so just shall unadvisedly without due endeavours and patient expectance of a Reformation lastly when they shall for some few things at which they take offence totally forsake Communion with a True Church and gather themselves into Anti-Churches they are in all these Cases guilty of Schisme in the judgment of the most Non-Conformists of all sorts and indeed of all men that have considered the Point and the Nature of Schism The Assumption we shall make hereafter and at present only take notice of what the Answerer hath said to prevent it He gives us p. 16 17. eight Differences betwixt the Old Seperatists and the Present Non-Conformists and then concludes in all these they differ from Seperatists though they gather Churches These differences are particularly considered hereafter The first three of these Differences are a Complement to us and our Parishes the four next are a Complement to themselves in the last I think he is in earnest for himself but he hath to do with a head-strong party that will not obey either his Word or Example in desiring nothing more than with Love and Concord to carry on with us the same work of Christ But what is all this to excuse them from being Seperatists that run away from us and draw Desciples after them that refuse I am sure in fact what ever some may say the least Communion
have done upon less Provocation That you might have ground to run out upon me as an Enemy to Tolerated Preaching you expresly affirme p. 2. that you find I exhort you to desert your Office and that it seemeth p. 60. that acknowledging us true Churches will not satisfie us without What Actual hearing us We would stroke you into silence and the neglect of your Office p. 25. You ask p. 58 59. whether it be Sin in you to Preach and labour much in the proof of the Necessity of your Preaching And you intimate that if the Non Conformists should not Preach they should be Idle Cruel Sacrilegious and Perfidious as are your words p. 27 28. Now Sir in my sillie way of reasoning I must demand whether you do indeed find those words for which you persecute me throughout your Book in my Book or not If you shall say you do find those words or words to that effect I am not satisfied unless you tell me where for I solemnly protest I know not Why did you not name the page where they were to be found as in other cases you generally do especially this being the main matter of offence to you that provoked you to so much severity throughout your Book against me for you begin your Book to this purpose that if it had been all my endeavour that the Toleration should not be abused you should earnestly have seconded me but when you found that I had the faâ—e to exhort you to desert your Office c. that I come to you in Gods Name to charge you to forbear His work then you say your Conscience bad you help to save the weaker sort that need from such Pernicious Fallacies Sir I do with all earnestness and yet meekness let you know that I expect you should make good your charge shew me these words or words that carry the same sence in any place of my book or confess you have wronged me and I am satisfied But yet turn the Tables and ask your self seriously what lashes you would have censured me worthy should I have dealt so with you Take an Instance of your Spirit and Charity upon a far less occasion given you as you conceive in my Book when upon a Misinformation at most I only Asked a Question in a matter of no great moment viz. Whether the Presbyterians did not heretofore refuse the Comprehension because they could not have it without a general Toleration See how you flie upon me with all fury and say p. 62 63 64. This hath no bounds and it grieveth me to read it O Posterity How will you know what to believe you should not by Question have vented such a falshood And yet notwithstanding all this vehemence in the next pages you seem your self to intimate in my weak opinion grounds sufficient for the Rumour and Suspition and consequently the Question But I am not obstinate in my own Defence leaving my Question and your Censure upon it with your Discourse and Concession about it to the mercy of the Reader who will judge betwixt us whether we will or not However thanks be to God though by your charging me to have written things that I have not written contrary to plain Truth and Justice you have given me far greater provocation yet I say thanks be to God you have not tempted me to turn your own words upon you and to say to you as you do to me Repent of such Calumnies and study not to aggravate your fault by excuses we lament his want of common sence or modesty what dealing is to be expected from such men with what forehead is this Humility or ministerial Fidelity to begin your Book with so direct an untruth and to stand to it and repeat it so often in the face of the World Lord what have I ever said or done in order to the silencing of Non conformists as you frequently seem to charge me yea what have I not done or said as I was able and had any opportunity that their mouths might be opened the World knows my several publick endeavors to that purpose I do not say my silly Arguments as you meekely call them but perhaps my Mediation as some persons will more ingeniously acknowledge for the peaceable Non-conformists from the Kings Return to the day of the Indulgence and since too hath not been altogether ineffectual and perhaps considering all that hath been too much and my Superiors have been very candid if they have not thought it troublesome I must take the boldness to add that were I conscious to my self that any thing I ever said or did hath been so great a Remora in the way of accommodation betwixt non-conformity and the Church of England as the boisterous reasonings and desires of some men I fear I should carry it with sorrow to my grave If I err in this censure I beg the pardon both of God and them CHAP. IV. 'T is not fair to charge Consequences for Doctrines much less to say the Consequence is asserted let the Answerer be Judge Mr. Baxter was not abused I Observed that you charged me untruly with disswading you to desert your Office and have cause to fear you will make excuses your self although you will not allow it in others and I cannot but expect you will say thus or to this effect That though I do not assert in plain terms or in words thaâ— will admit or bear that sence yet the consequence of my Discourse is to take you off from Preaching while I would disswade you from Gathering-Churches For I find after I have read long in your Book and even towards the latter end of it you have patience thus far to explain your self Because say you p. 57. I would prove your separation sinful I would therefore prove your preaching sinful Again p. 59. if God say preach and the Law say preach not in Temples we may conclude we must preach out of the Temples And because I speak against erecting Separated Congregations to your selves you say p. 70. I mean it is sin in you to exercise your Ministery i. e. you mean this is the consequence of what I say against your separation For can we preach as you add without Auditors and can these Auditors be no Congregation Thus you do pardon me if I think not very accuratly mend the matter nor very intelligibly explain your meaning But I remember you told me p 33. the Presbyterians do not love confusion And also p. 4. that you are no Presbyterian But my Brother I must needs mind you that whether this consequence be strong or not I am sure the excuse is weak and unwarrantable by the Laws of all sober disputation 1. For admit the consequence to be fair and just your dealing with me is neither when you charge me with an assertion which only follows or may be drawn from my proposition It is not allowable to say the consequent of my opinion is my opinion and that I hold it much
of Christ as received by this Church are according to Gods Commandments and that you would give your faithful diligence always so to Minister them as this Church hath received them and lastly that with all diligence you would teach your People to observe the Same Again the Bishop demands Will yoll reverently Obey your Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom is committed the Charge and Government over you following with a glad Mind and Will their Godly Admonitions and submitting your selves to their Godly Judgment What did you Answer to this I will do so the Lord being my Helper Wherein you both acknowledge the Government of the Church over you and promise Obedience thereunto And it is no pleasure to me to observe that one that I dare not suspect not to be thus Ordained should notwithstanding these sacred Obligations seem even to Print to Glory that he never took the Oath of Canonical Obedience which is to obey his Ordinary in all honest and lawful things Thus for the Ministers and for the People were they not generally Baptized by the Ministers and according to the Order and in the Publick places of the Church of England Have they not since given their Consent as Members by their publick attendance upon the Worship of the Church of England Have they not generally owned for a considerable time together some many years that relation to their particular Churches and Pastors Is all this nothing to signifie their Vnion with our Church and Obligation to her Government Is it nothing in our Authors Judgement I cannot believe it I am sure 't is something in Mr. Baxters Opinion as I shall shew anon But wherein are we obliged to obey our Governours as we are Members of the Church of England The measure of this Obedience are the Laws and Canons and the Rubrick in the Liturgy and the main Scope and intention of all these is to direct you how you are to Worship God in our Parochial Assemblies as also to demean your selves in all due Reverence to your Superiours and Brotherly love and fellowship together as Members of the same Body the Church of England And to dissolve or renounce this our Communion with our Brethren as well as with Governours in those Assemblies and in that Worship is so far to renounce that Communion which we ow and is due from us all to the Church of England and is that thing which is deservedly branded with the black Name of Schisme from the Church of England which is the other Branch of that Schisme before mentioned especially if the Deriders proceed to the Erecting of Anti Churches as Mr. Baxter properly calls them For our several Parochial Assemblies are Parts and Members of the Great Body of our Church into which the Church is divided for our Convenient Worshiping of God as you heard in the Definition wherein all individual persons are bound to attend upon Gods Worship according to the foresaid Rules quatenus Members of this Church of England But I shall have an occasion to speak largly of Schisme from particular Congregations in another place and at present would fain hope that some thing hath been said to shew what Schisme from the Church of England is This is the Sum. Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from Her in Her Governours Members Worship or Assemblies Which and much more is done by those that dispise her Government renounce her Worship and Communion with Her Mombers in the Publick places of it and Erect New Congregations for a new manner of Worship and Discipline under other Governours in opposition thereunto according to the Laudable practises now on foot By this time I hope my Answerer sees after his long and ranging Scrutiny for the discovery of this Schism and all in vain how pertinently he demands p. 38. Is every difference in things unnecessary from the Major part a Schism from them Again p. 39. 'T is our disobedience to the Church that is our Schism This he saies and then quickly wipes it off with his own pleasant Answer But Fidelity to our King commandeth the disowning of Vsurpers But I might spoil his Mirth should I examine his meaniâ—g Again p. 40. he cries out Whoever took any Act of Disobedience in a Circumstance to be a Schism But in earnest had not these little frisks and extravagancies been happily prevented had he heeded me at first is a sinful dividing from the Church in Her Government and Worship and setting up Churches in opposition to Her in both is this no more than a difference in things unnecessary from the Major part or than a bare Act of Disobedience in a Circumstance I know you will not say it and 't is vain to say that you intend no more I wrote against those that do What has he more to Answer Why the Schism I mention p. 39. is not such as Martin and Gildas made what then if it be worse it is not such You should rather have compar'd your Brethren in this new Worke to the other Martin called Mar-Prelate But this Martin you say Renounced Communion with the Bishops and their Synods all his life who had prosecuted the Prissillianists with the Secular Sword and Gildas pronounced him no excellent Christian that called the Brittish Clergy in his time Priests or Ministers and not Traitors as he did himself yet neither of these holy men are called Seperatists or Schismaticks What follows might they not be Schismatickâ— though they were not called so You will find some advantage by the Argument for I have not called you so yet Perhaps Gildas might be bold with his Brethren and call them Traitors but if unjustly 't was ill done though no Schisme If justly there may be Proditores found of your acquaintance too I make no doubt though if you do not urge me much I shall not call them so You do not think that time is returned upon us and that he hath not the Character of an excellent Christian that hath not the gift of calling the Priests Traitors So much for Gildas But for his Companion Martin I might have given him Courser Entertainment had it not been for the kindness of Another Gildas that not long since spake more in his favour than you do now His words on his behalf are these I have told you in the story of Martin how he seperated from the Synods of those Individual Baxters Defence p. 76. Bishops and from their Local Communion without Seperation from the Office the Churches or any other Bishop And then for ought I know Martin might be a good honest fellow Do you all the rest that he did and by my consent you should be excused from sitting in Synods For Martin it seems denied not Communion with the Churches much less set up an Altar and Church of his own in opposition to them If he had done so I would have said he had been a Rank Schismatick though I spare you It is confest that the
Presbyterians do generally agree that the Disciplinary part or Form of Government Vid. Cawdry Indâ—pend Schisme page 172 173. is not Essential to a National Church yet they affirm that the Verity of a Natioanal Church consists in its Agreement in the same Doctrine and Worship and consequently though differences in Doctrine are not yet a breach of its Vnity and making divisions in a point of Worship is a plain Schisme from a National Church acording to the Principles of the Presbyterians Mr. Cawdrey spake not his own peculiar opinion when he said p. 178. I believe those men that raise differences in a Reforming Church he meant this National Church and persist in keeping open those Divisions Seperating also into other new Churches doe as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one Particular Church Upon the whole then you perceive how aptly you ask p. 42. Whether a Minister may not remove from one Parish to another or any man remove his dwelling into another Parish c. and be no Schismatick an old objection of Dr. Owens and answered by Mr. Cawdrey that they remove to Churches of the same Constitution a thing never questioned but alwaies allowed both by the Vnion and Custome of this National Church Again and alike pertinently you ask Whether a Seperation of one Parish from another be Schism or whether I mean by it a Local Seperation only as you gravely enquire p. 33. Or whether little differences in the modes of Worship particularly in the manner of the Ministers Prayer and he should have added in dividing his Text be Schism but he prevents my Answer by denying these himself Those that differ thus he saith and thereby doubtless very wisely and to general Satisfaction determineth these saith he p. 34. are not Seperated Churches any otherwise than Local and in such Modal Differences Thus what the Church of England and what Schism from it is But at the beginning of the discourse 't was hinted that if we would consider the Church of England not organice but entitative as some speak that is as it is a part or member of the Vniversal visible Church even in this consideration of it Separation and the present practice of gathering Churches is a Schism in the Church of England if not so from it And by those intestine Ruptures and rents it is causing in the midst of her gives her too much cause to complain O my Bowels my Bowels While it tears in pieces her Old and Stated Congregations tramples upon her Liturgy defies her Worship renounceth her Pastors throws down all her ancient Land-marks and laudable bounds of her particular Churches and endeavours every where to Erect new Altars and Seperate Churches that were never before heard of in the Christian world but amongst wild and desperate and Schismatical Sectaries But this will meet us in the next Chapter when we speak of Schism from particular Congregations CHAP. IX Gathering Churches a Schisme from particular Parochial Churches The general Nature of Schism THe present practice of Gathering Churches is not only a Schism from the Church of England but a Schism also from our particular Parochial Congregations This comes now to be evinc'd and I shall take my advantage for the doing of it from an Observation of Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen and the Independ great Schis p. 177. Independents There was saith he and is another Church-State in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them or they had been once of them Palpably Separated I am now to charge the present practice of our New Church gatherers and their Neâ— Churches with the like Schism from particular Parochial Churches whereof they are or lately were Members and ought so to have continued To cut our work as short as may be I shall confine my strength within one Argument which I conceive the cleerest and most likely to put an end to the matter in debate and 't is taken from the nature and definition of Schism wherein we shall shew what we are to understand by Schism and how the present gathering of Churches out of our Churches agrees with it not doubting but then the conclusion will find its own way well enough What is Schism then I shall give you the easiest and the least controverted definition of it and such as was never excepted against by any Presbyterian that I ever heard of 'T is this Schism is a causless or as others a voluntary unwarrantable separation from a true Church Here are two parts to be considered in the general separation from a true Church and the formal special and distinguishing part of it coucht in the words causless or unwarrantable and voluntary 1. Schism is a separation from a true Church it is so in the proper and peculiar notation of it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schism Cameron cap. de Schis is a stranger to prophane Authors and the Old Testament and is only to be found in the New Testament so that it only intends something about the Christian Church and what that is must be understood by the New Testament and Ecclesiastical Writers who have taken it thence It is commonly affirmed that in the Scripture-use of it it sometimes signifies division among Christians in opinion only but I have observed that usually those opinions were such as had a tendency to divisions in practice as I am of Paul c. but 't is generally acknowledged that differences in practice especially touching Divine Worship whether from the signification of the word which is properly a rent or division or whether from the more frequent use of it that way in Scripture or for some other reason I say difference in practice about Divine Worship hath long since obtained and appropriated to it self the name of Schism Sometimes such division in the Church when there hath been no actual separation from the Church is conceived to be called Schism in Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 10. And this notion exclusive of all other kind of Schism in Scripture Dr. Owen espoused contrary both to Scripture reason and the general apprehension of the Ancient and Modern Divines as Mr. Cawdrey hath sufficiently argued Separation from a Church is a more obvious division and consequently a more notorious kind of Schism and it seems more reasonable to argue if the Holy Ghost called the first buds and beginnings of seperation by the name of Schism it was to deter the dividers from the sin in its ripeness and accused fruits which more hainously mâ—rited that black title as our Saviour calls lust adultery Schisma seperat ab Ecclesia Schism seperates from the Church saith St. Hierom. To proceed this separation from the Church as a learned Presbyterian asserteth is from the Church as Catholick which he calls Donatism or from a particular Church and that faith he is properly Seperatism Lastly this Schismatical seperation is negative or positive the former
with us in our publick Assemblies and gather New Churches for themselves out of them This they do though you know we generally have not given them Cause to do it And they do it Rashly and Totally and all your little devices will never alter the Nature of things or excuse it from gross Schism in the Judgment of all that were not Seperatists and spake their mind before the present Temptation dazled mens eyes 'T is in vain to flie to your Common Refuge the strength of this Argument will not suffer you to be quiet in it who ever before you made this a warrantable ground of Seperation that they might Serve God better if finding positive faults in our worship would not excuse them heretofore much less will negative ones excuse you from Seperation But they thought those were faults and Just Causes of Seperation which were not true and they were mistaken but yet they had more to say for themselves it seems than you have who do the same things without alledging so much ground and think to be wholly free from the same charge Sir Schism consists in practice and whatever you think on 't or however you would palliate the matter where that practice that truly answers the definition of Schism is found it will be Schism do what you can Is there any Institution of Christ that they must gather Churches out of true Churches to make a purer Church Ans Mr. Cawdrey Indep p. 198. But I prevent my design Shism we have shewed is a causeless unwarrantable Seperation and 't is true and so my Answerer might have understood me and his Brethren in my last I spake in the language of the Presbyterians and a little Candour would have supposed that both I and they intended by gathering Churches out of Churches such as was causeless unwarrantable and unnecessary for that they were still ready if need required to prove the Independant Separation such as I shall be anon to do yours It is therefore some trouble to me to hear you ask as if somthing of Argument were lodg'd in it Whether a persons removal from one Parish to another to inhabit there were Schism p. 48. and yet I conceive you have it more than twice over in your book You ask again must no Churches be gathered out of Rome I fear not many for you but for a full and plain answer to this I remit you to Mr. Baxters Cure of Church Divisions p. 81 82 83. Which if it seem not plain and full to you it is because you understand not Christian Sense and Reason Again p. 44. did not the Parliament take a Church out of a Church when they seperated Covent-Garden from Martins Parish doubtless 't was either with cause or not 't was warrantable or not 't was necessary or not but the jest is spoiled if it were a Church of the same Constitution with consent of the persons concern'd by lawful Authority Had you no place to argue Schismatical but Covent-garden I would advise you as a friend to take a little more heed what you say about that place for fear of one of those Schismaticks which in other places you honor as Vsurpers concern'd in your next Section But behold the Man at Arms fully Accoutred without all fear but a great deal of wit and courage makes a challenge to the factions Disputers as his Catholick language is and 't is this as you may read it under his own hand Obj. I undertake saith he to prove that Dr. Manton Dr. Seaman c. with the People subject to them as Pastors were true Churches Prove you if you can that on Aug. 24 62. they were degraded and these Churches were dissolved in any reason which any Churches for 600. years after Christ would If not you seem your self to accuse their Successors of Schism for drawing part of the people from them meerly by the Advantage of having the Temples and Tythes and so gathering Churches out of true Churches Ans A Marvellous Undertaker he will undertake to prove one Proposition and let the rest shift for them selves Dr. Manton and Dr. Seaman and their People were true Churches and this he will prove but what if a man should venture to disappoint him and not deny it Again prove if you can that these Pastors were degraded and these Churches dissolved Aug. 24. 62. But what if a man has a mind to be friends with him here too and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded then but only ejected and inhibited the exercise of their Ministry within the Church of England and that those Churches were not dissolv'd by having New Pastors no more than the Kingdom when the King dies And yet certainly the King and People are as much the Constitutive parts of a Kingdom as Pastor and People of a Church Who will say that considers what he saith that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor The River is the Same though the Lands on each side change their Proprietors But what then Suppose all this be quietly granted him what then then those that succeeded them are Schismaticks or you seem to accuse them of Schism how so for drawing away part of the people from them Whither to another manner of Worship which the Laws required and which the Ejected refused But how did they draw the People by doing their duty in the Temples as by good Authority Instituted and Inducted thereunto Instituted as Pastors to have the Cure of Souls and Inducted into the Temples and Tythes But lastly why do you say they drew a part of the people onely and not the whole Ought not the whole worship God undivided and with one accord in the Temples or must the place be removed with the Pastor I quire not who made the difference but I know who makes the Division let them answer it how they can to God and the King the Church and their Successors Those Pastors were Ejected out of the Temples by lawful Authority the People are bound to worship God in the Temple as they have opportunity and no where else in opposition to the publick Worship the Consequence here I think may vie with yours above therefore these Pastors had no opportunity to exercise their Pastoral Office to those People and where there is no opportunity there is no duty in Mr. Baxters Divinity Second Admon to Bagsh 96. But you say you must Preach the Reverend Dr. Gouge saith No. The Inhibition of Idolators and Infidels made simply against preaching of the Gospel because they Whole Armour of God 570. would have it utterly Suppressed in this case he saith no sufficient inhibition to bind the Conscience it is directly and apparently contrary to Gods Word But when Christian Magistrates inhibite Ministers to Preach it is because they think them unfit and unmeet either for some notorious Crimes or for some Erronious Opinions to exercise their Ministerial Functions In these Cases Such as are so inhibited
so far forth as they are inhibited Ought not to Preach Neither are particular and private men much less the parties inhibited to Judge of the Cause of the inhibition whether it be just or unjust but as they who are appointed by the present Government to Ordain Ministers are to judg of their fitness thereunto so likewise of their unfitness I have thought hitherto that distinction of the Office and of the exercise of that Office had gone uncontroled among Presbyterians and that though the Ministers of Christ depend not even upon the Christian Magistrate for their Office and he cannot degrade them yet quoad Exercitium as to the Exercise of it within his Dominions they did and that he had power to Silence such as he Judged unmeet to Preach Mr. Baxter doth much encourage me to persist in the same Opinion more than once The Authority of the King and lawful 2d Admon to Bag. 117 Magistrates saith Mr. Baxter is more about the Circumstantials of Worship as whether Abiathar shall be High Priest c. then the False Teachers were about that Doctrine He more than Intimates that the Magistrates Power extends to the Appointing who shall be High Priest and who doubt but that he hath equal power to appoint who shall be Pastor of Covent-Garden Again hear Mr. Baxter what he saith more largly upon the Point Disput 223. Doubtless the Magistrate himself hath so much Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs that if he Command a qualified person to Preach the Gospel and Command the People to receive him I see not how either of them can be allowed to disobey him though yet the Party ought to have recourse also to Pastors for Ordination and People for Consent where it may be done And Grotius commendeth the saying of Musculus That he would have no Minister question his Call that being quallified hath the Christian Magistrates Commission And though this Assertion need some limitation yet it is apparent that the Magistrates Power is great about the Offices of the Church For Solomon put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood and put Zadock in his place 1 King 2. 27 35. David and the Captains of the Host Seperated to Gods Service those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and Jeduther who should Prophesie with Harps c. 1 Chron. 16. 4. And so did Solomon 2 Chron. 8. 14 15. They were for the Service of the House of God according to the Kings Order 1 Chron. 25. 1 6. And methinks those those men should acknowledge this that were wont to stile the King in all Causes and over all Persons the Supream Head and Governor So far He. And indeed I durst almost challenge this Answerer or any man to prove that ever any learned Protestant in this Church whether Episcopal or Presbyterian did make it a question I mean before the Kings happy Return whether Solomon had not sufficient Authority to put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood and put Zadock in his place Or whether any might modestly say such must Preach and that those were Schismaticks and Vsurpers that did exercise their Offices according to Law in the places of such as were removed by the Vertue of an Act of Parliament of unquestionable Authority and we must Preach though the Law forbids us As for Dr. Gunnings Dr. Wilds preaching fourteen or fifteen years ago which you so often hint at it is sufficiently known it was in such a time when the Case was far otherwise both with the Church and State in many Notorious Circumstances both as to Persons Law Government and Worship and they could easily answer their so doing if it be not a matter too much below the Eminency both of their Persons and Places We must proceed CHAP. XI Provision for the proof of the Assumption by four Propositions THat Schism is a Causeless Seperation from a True Church and what Seperation from a True Church is and when it is Causeless hath at large appeared And there seems nothing left to prevent or remove the charge of Schism from the Practices we oppose but to plead either that our Churches are no true Churches or that you are not of them and ow them no Communion or that you do not Seperate from them or if you do you have Cause sufficient and your Seperation is not Rash or Groundless That the Contrary to all these is the very Truth I am now to manifest The Propositions accordingly are these four Pro. 1. That our Parochial Congregations are true Churches 2. That the people of England are or ought to be members of our Parochial Congregations 3. That the present practice of gathering Churches out of them is Seperation 4. That such Seperation is Rash and without just grounds And all these shall be proved not only from the Nature of the things and the judgment or others but from the Publique judgement of the former Non-Conformists and Presbyterians and then I hope my bold undertaking will be found excusable CHAP. XII Parochial Congregations true Churches His Exceptions espâ—cially about parish bounds examined FIrst I affirm that our Parochial Congregations are true Churches They have the matter of true Churches Professed Christians Baptized They have the fâ—rm of true Churches being Societies of such as Ames saith in order to the worship of God and these fix'd and Stated and ordinarily assembling actually together for that end According to our Author they have generally both the Essential and constituent parts of true Churches Pastors to govern and people to be govern'd by them in order to Gods glory and their Salvation And as their end so the means and their work in their publick Assemblies is such as is proper and peculiar unto and true and undoubted indications and notes of true Churches the Ordinances of God and their ordinary attendance thereupon in known publique and fixed places consecrated and set a part for that end Wherein also there is nothing practic'd much less allow'd that is contrary to these means or doth pervert that end or with any pretence or colour of reason can be thought to destroy their being or their truth as Churches of God For this we have abundant Suffrage voluntarily given by Non-Conformity it self from time to time and that not only in the acknowledgement but even in the defence of them against their enemies of the Separation and what need more If Mr. Ball Mr. Hildersham of old and Mr. Bagshaw and his friend the Answerer be heard for the rest Mr. Ball is express for himself and his Brethren The Non-Conformists saith he can not only acknowledg but prove the Religion and worship of the Church of England to be of God not by petty reasons and colourable Ans to Can. part 2. p 3. shews which they leave to them which maintain a bad Cause but by pregnant evidence from the word of Truth even by plain Texts of Scripture and sound reâ—son deduced therefrom against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail Mr. Hildersham comes not a
whit behind him There is nothing done saith he in Gods publick On John 4. p. 3 warship among us but it is done by the Instâ—tution and Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord as he very industriously and learnedly proves by an enumeration of the particulars of our worship and thence presseth the people not only to attend it but to come to the beginning of it Mr. Bagshaw himself acknowledgeth the same And therefore pleads that they do not seperate but forbear Antidote p. 6. Communion because of some conditims required and so indeed doth Doctor Owen and all sober Independents and therefore I need not observe that those eminent Presbyterians that wrote the Epistle before Mr. Balls Answer to Cann did own or that Mr. Cawdry and other Presbyterians have made it the foundation of all their Arguments against Independent gathering Churches that our Churches were true Churches Our Author doth not so much as question the truth of our Churches in General what exceptions notwithstanding he hath scattered about it we shall briefly examine Object 1. Page 10. He tells us like an Oracle among the rest of their Purposes and Desires which are not a few and they none of the best that the Non-Conformists think that a Parish quatenus a Parish is not a Church nor a Parishioner as such a Church-Member Well and who ever said they thought otherwise in some things it seems they think as others do Yet we know and they ought to think at least that a Company of Christians living within Parish bounds and ordinarily attending upon Gods publick worship in the place set a part to that end are a Church Object 2. But they think also that Parish bounds of Churches are of Humane prudential Constitution and not of Divine Institution or unchangable But pray think again for you ought to think that co-habitation of the Members of a Parochial Church is according to the Law of Nature and so Divine and that persons whom Providence hath so placed together are bound to worship God together in some publick way by vertue of the Law of Natural Religion as much as Families among themselves were there no other institution of God or man in the case Moreover they ought to think that co-habitation of Church members is so far of Divine Institution as the Examples of Churches in Scripture alwaies so bounded amount to Divine Institution Which is almost as much as is usually urged for the Divine Institution of the Lords day This was the current Argument of the Presbyterians heretofore against the attempts of Independents to break these bounds and to glean up members in others fields no matter what distance to make up their Churches Churches and Cities in the Scripture are commensurate Was not Cawdrey Schys pag. the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth so called from the places They ought further to think that the grâ—unds of suâ—h parochial Churches were laid in Reason and Scripture examples though Ours were actually divided long since and that our Parish bounds in the general intention and scope of those that first appointed them notwithstanding some errors which will alwayes happen in such publick cases were made upon the said reasonable and Scripture ground of co-habitation They ought also to think that though Prudence at first discerned these grounds and accordingly set these bounds of parish Churches yet it was not the prudence of the People but their Governours who have not now left it in the peoples liberty or prudence whether they will ordinarily keep these bounds or not But have also bounded that vulgar extravagancy by the Laws both of Church and State to the contrary Yet again they ought to think that they owe obedience to their Governors in these laws which obedience is certainly of Divine Institution though I can hardly find it in all your Books You ought lastly to think of the fearfull consequences of tearing these hedges and ancient bounds and thereby making inlets or outlets or both to all kind of licentiâ—usness in Religion and confusion in the Church while you thus expose parochial Congregations to the directest means of their dissolution O that you would lay to heart those serious words of Mr. Baxter The Interest of the Christian Protestant Religion in England must be kept up by keeping up as much of Truth Piety and Reputation as is possible in the Parish Churches his Defence of his Cure p. 36. For the last word that parish bounds are not unchangeable 't is acknowledged if the cause be just and Covent-garden be not Schysmatical yet still the Rule of co-habitation ought to be observed and then our design is half spoiled Especially if we add as we needs must that this changing or altering of parish bounds lies not in the pleasure of private Persons is not to be attempted without the order of Superiours nor to the prejudice of Gods publick worship wherein if all order be not quite forgotten the practice of the people should not ordinarily excâ—ed that which the known Vnion and Câ—mmunion of Parishes in the same Worship and Government and the common Custome and consequently Allowance of the places intended will warrant wherein London perhaps if what you say be true may claim some priviledge He saith he doth allow our parâ—chial Churches to be true Churches viâ— p. 35. Those of them that have true Ministers other wise not So that where there are no Ministers and where their Ministâ—r is not true there the Parishes are not Churches T is likely some few smal places especially Cures have no setled Ministers but the Law requires their Communion with their Mother-Church of which in a sence they are reckoned Members if they are Curacies And I hope there are fewer false Ministers than your charity supposeth How far the people are bound to communicate with such as you call intollerable shall be examined in the next Chapter But if this be all to be found at the bottom of your exceptions as it seems to be why do not your Brethren confine their labour to such destitute places especially if this be the great reason why they must preach At least their Charity should see them first provided for Sure their voices will hardly reach to them from â—ities and Corporations and places usually furnisht well enough without them though here they generally pitch their Tabernaâ—le you and they must think again and again before you will be able to defend these practices upon such principles CHAP. XIII The People of England Members of Parochial Churches Objections answered Especially that from serving God better THe People of England generally are or ought to be Members or Ministers of our parochial Churches and consequently are bound to atttend upon the publick worship of God in our Temples Ordinarily I mean I am not so strict to think that they ought never to be absent if they have reason as the Statute intimates or that they may never go out of their own Parishes to hear a Seâ—mon provided alwayes
they keep within the bounds of that latitude which the Communion of Parish-Churches and the custom of the place as in London if it be so there as our Answerer affirms will warant as I said before But that generally the people are of the Parishes Churches and ordinarily ought to communicate with them there is hardly any thing more evident in reason or sence and the judgement of the Non-Confâ—rmists For they were baptized into these particular Churches as well as into the universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to Communion with them Besides if they be not of the particular Church wherein they live they are of none but their ordinary attending upon the publique worship as they generally doe or have done concludes them by their own consent to say nothing now of the inconveniencies that follow seperation from them an Argument not to be despised till it be better considered and censured Mr. Baxter speaks very well and home to the point thus He that is a Member of the universal Church is fit to be received into a particular Cure of Ch. div p. 89. Church and there wanteth no more but Mutual consent and if he have statedly joined with a particular Church in ordinary Communion Consent hath been manifested and he is a Member of that particular Church Thus in Thesi Then he subjoines This is the common case in England the persons who were baptized in Infancy were at once received into the Vniversal Church and into some particular Church and have held Communion at Age with both c. In a case so plain in the writings of the Old Non-Conformists I shall only give you Mr. Baxters Testimony for them all especially finding an Emphasis in his words which are these Speaking to his Brethren saith he much more should you have endured Defence of his cure p. 14. such as the Non-Conformists of that age who used Parish Communion and pleaded for it against the Seperatists fâ—r Sharper language than ever I used as their Books against Johnson and Cann and Brown and Ainsworth do yet visibly declare Hence it is that worthy Non Conformist Mr Hildersham doth not only Judg it Lawful and a Duty to attend upon the Parish Congregation but useth many Arguments against the Ordinary leaving our own Ministers to hear more able men in other Parishes and for upon the fourth of John our coming reverently and at the beginning of the Service And Mr. Baâ—ter perswadeth with many Arguments to Communion with the Parish Churches which he would not have done if he had not thought it not only to bâ— Lawful but a Duty yea he saies expresly that to sâ—me it is a Duty to joine with some Parish Churches in the Lords Supper three times a year Defence of his Cure p. 38. which he saith he proved by twenty Reaâ—ons and by his own example avow'd in publique and his constant resolution so to do he adds much weight to his said reasons And to give my Answerer his due in this as he doth not deny the truth of most of our Churches so he doth much perswade both by reason and his own example to communion with them and therefore he believeth as I believe of him that it is a duty But for the Presbyterians and their judgement in the point before Ind. Schys pag. 143. 1660 let Mr. Cawdrey be heard at large Speaking against the Independants seperation saith he If they did not suppose themselves to be of some particular Church it was their Errour and their Fault their Errour because all the people of the Nation were confin'd to that Church where they lived and liable to censure for leaving that Church for partaking of Ordinances and the Ministers for admitting them their fault because they were bound by way of duty both by the Laws of the Nation and also by the Law of God to be of one or other particular Congregation meaning parochial Object But what saith our Answerer against all this he yieldeth much no doubt pag. 41. where he saith the old Non-Conformists hold Lay communion with Parish Churches lawful and so do we Answ But did not they also hold it a duty prove the contrary if you can I challenge him to shew in any of them one word signifying it lawful to hold Communion with any other stated Church in England besides the parochial or that ever they preach'd in houses as you unfairly intimate when the people should be in the parish Church or that any learned Presbyterian said so before 1660 if not what signifies all your new-coined distinctions pag. 34 35. Object But in some places we cannot profit by the Minister Aâ—sw You may profit by the prayers and Sacraments The old Non-Conformists will not indure the objection against all or against ary weak if honest Minister Let Mr. Hildersham's reasons against it be examin'd saith he Our Shame our Sin and just cause of humbling to us if we cannot profit by the meanest Minister On John 4. p 225 226. that God hath sent And the power of the Ministry dependeth not on the excellency of the Teachers gifts but upon Gods blessing though sometimes he thinks people may go to hear other Ministers of better gifts Object But some Ministers are intollerable Answ I grant the Non-Conformists and particularly Mr. Hildersham do allow the people in such cases to go from their own Parish yet he puts in three Rules to the Case that it be done without open breach or contempt to the Churches Order without contempt of their own Pastors and without Scandal and offence to them and their people But if no Ministers be intollerable but such as our Answerer describes to be so I hope there are but few such in our dayes what ever there were in Mr. Hildershams time By Intollerable saith he I mean 1. Such as are ignorant of or erroneous Advice against the Essentials of Christianity 2. Such as are unable to teach them others 3. Such as malignantly preach down the practice of an Holy life or in a word such whose Ministery really tendeth to do more hurt than Good These are Intollerable indeed and if there should chance to be found one or two such within a Province I hope not so many sure some duty we owe concerning them But what 's that in the first place we are certainly bound to endeavour his amendment if that be not to be done but he be found incurable he is the more intollerable and our next duty to endeavour to remove him So far Mr. Baxters advice is wholsome and apposite use all your diligence Cure of Ch. div p 106. to amend him and if you cannot do that use all your interest to get him out and get a better indeed he adds if you cannot do that deliver your own soul from him by removing to a better if you are free he means if you are not under the command of others remove to another Parish which
there be let him come forth to own it that advised with his Parish-Minister about his departure or was so civil to take his leave much less shew'd him any just occasion of his so sudden resolution or what gave him the offence in the person or Administration of his pastor or in the Worship and Communion or Conversation of his fellow Members and moved or disposed him thereunto before he did Actually seperate Much less did he exercise any patience or long-suffering in order to his own Satisfaction or the Reformation of the Church of which he was a member in what he thought amiss If such separation is not Rash and sudden if it fail not in the due manner of proceeding shew your Reason or else bear the Censure and charge of Schysm from all sound and judicious Casuists let the pretence or cause otherwise be never so great and just Indeed they generally gave up themselves with all manner of dilligence to obtain their Licenses to contrive their Houses to appoint their meetings conspiring in this as appears by their practice that they would hold their Assemblies at the same hour with the parochial the directest method they could imagine to be opposite to us yet not so well considering what might be the consequences as one of the soberest of their Ministers complained who observed it too late which had they had patience and wisdome first to have consulted my Answerer might in all likelyhood in many places at least have been happily prevented 2. But Alas this is not the Burthen of Ephraim their separation fails in the foundation and grounds of it it is not accountable upon any terms of Charity Justice or Christian sobriety strictly the Churches from which they seperate hath not given them any such offence or cause of offence sufficient to justifie their seperation either in truth or in the judgment of any but themselves much less the old Non-Conformists and Presbytâ—rians as will soon appear in full light Our Answerer hath set you a hard Game to play here for you must shew us such reason why you leave us as will excuse you from seperation and yet justifie your gathered Churches Which upon the suppositions already proved that our Churches are true Churches that you are or ought to be members of them and to continue in Communion with them while you live in them if we have given you no just occasion to discontinue it seems to be a plain contradiction and your New Churches are no better than stated seperations But laying aside all little insignificant Artifices and modern evasions the question in short is this Whether we can have any just plea for seperation from any Church of which we are members while we may communicate with it without communion in sin The negative hath appeared all set parties have subscribed the negative and hardly any but your selves ever question'd it if yet you do so The Protestants by the Papists the Brownists by the Puritans the Anabaptist Independent and Interpendent by the Presbyterian are all charged with Shysm and all without scruple put their controversies to this Issue if you that charge us with Schysm can prove that we may hold Communion with you without sinning we acknowledge the charge therefore they allwaies defend their seperation by chargeing sin upon their Communion from whom they separated also On the other hand they endeavoured to make the charge of Schysm upon those that seperated by answering the objections of Sin against their several Communions so that on all sides this sense of Schysm passed uncontrolled and was never I think disputed or doubted before if it be so now and Dr. Ames hath put it into the very Definition of Schysm and makes it his great Rule by which he answers the Cases about it But to prevent mistakes I must speak with Caution by discontinuing Communion I do not mean only a not having Actual Communion with the Church for that may be involuntary as when a man is excommunicated or necessitated by sickness or if you will have it added by too great a multitude of members yea it may chance to be voluntary yet not properly Schysm when we do not attend Gods worship through neglect of our Duty and a prophane principle but of these we speak not here By discontinuing our Communion I mean a denying or refusing Communion with our own Church upon any dislike or distaste of its Worship or Minister or Members Now whether this distaste arise from fear of Communicating in sin where there is no just cause of or without such fear such refusing or denying Communion is Schysm yea as Ames adviseth if there be real evil in some part of Communion in a true Church to depart farther from it then that evil requires is Schysm So when there is no real or pretended sinfulness in the Communion of our Church and yet we take dislike and seperate and totally seperate and gather our selves into new Congregations in opposition thereunto who dare say this is no Schysm 'T is not worth the question though you some where make it whether it be Schysm to remove our dwelling from one Parish to another Our civil necessities may force us to it we hold no such Matrimony between Pastor and People as some talk of but upon fair occasion either may remove All Parishes are in Communion together and are of the general Constitution of the Church of England by such a removal you become a member of another Parish Church and are bound by the Laws of the Land and by the Rule of cohabitation of membership to hold Communion with the Church in which you live you have still real Communion with the former Church not only in the substance but mode of its Worship and its very Constitution but by removing to these New Churches you do not you cannot cease to be of a Parish at all nor of a Parochial Church without Schysm from the Church in which yoâ— live and from all the Parochial Churches in England and from the Church of England it self I mean unless you can prove that something is required in our way of Worship that you cannot joyn in without sinning The question is to bring the point home what sin is to be found in our Worship wherein the people that joyn with us must needs Communicate If none can be found we must write Schysm upon your seperation and we cannot help it Use no delatory pleas blind us not with wide discourses about what is fit to be imposed in order to peace c. and about the duty of Superiors that concern you not or about the hard conditions of Conformity upon Ministers as such we are speaking of Lay-Communion wherein all that are not in the place of Ministers are to look to their Duty And if there be any thing required of them in order to their Communion with us that is indeed sinful say what is it and speak to the point In this Case Sir be Judge your self you expresly
Schysm it is not a differing Faith but a breaking the fellowship of Communion which makes men Schysmaticks Yet more plainly Schysma est eadem opiniantem eodem Ritu utentem Solo Congregationis delectari dissidio Schysm is when a man that professeth the same faith and worship is delighted only with the difference of an Assembly or Congregation You might have advised this Father a little better had he been now alive but it seems your objection was then urged by some that you are loath to own And this same notion of Schysm kept its ground in the Church from St. Aug. to Beza's time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est c. Schysm or Division saith Beza An. in 1. Co. 1. 10. is this when men are so addicted to some men or to some outward Rites that though they do agree in the chief points of Religion yet they are estraâ—ged in their minds and engage themselves into parties and Factions Thus Beza and yet he passeth for a Presbyterian and so doth Mr. New comen who useth all these places of Authority to my very purpose against the Independents who would it seems have excused their Schysm from the Moderation of their principles and the soundness of their Doctrine He therefore shall be the next Presbyterian that we shall produce New commen Sr. at Pauls p. 14. for this notion of Schysm not necessarily inclusive of the Brownists rigid principles He tells us plainly as I observed in my other book their holding one head and one faith with us doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity and down-right Schysm as long as they hold not one body one Baptism As if he had said let your principles be what they will you are downright Schysmaticks while you seperate and break our unity As for Seperation Mr. Baxter tells us that the mischief Ep to his Rest printed 1669. of it lies not in the bare error of judgment but in the unchristian and Church-dissolving division and Alienation which thence followeth Yea let us know the man that did ever directly or by any clear consequence to be drawn from his words print such a Notion of Schysm as includes the Brownists rigid principles about our Churches c. in the Nature of it Examine Cameron Ames Hales Brinsly and if any others be dearer to you and see whether their definitions take in any such thing or can bear such an exposition as you would put upon them See how Mr. Cawdrey and the London Ministers at Sion Colledg deal with the Independents in the point and whether you can possibly perswade your self to continue in the beleif that for the reasons you have alledged the Non-Conformists may gather Churches and not be Seperatists in the judgment of the Presbyterians before the year 1660. or any of the old Non-Conformists you may see their Judgment in general by a few quotations out of their writings CHAP. XVIII Testimonies of Non-Conformists for the same GIve me leave tousher in this worthy verdict with an Argument after your own mode I will undertake to prove that the Non-Conformists both Ancient and Modern before 1660. held gathering Churches out of our Churches unlawful and Schysmatical and that absolutely without any reference to the principles upon which it is don much less the Brownistical Do you prove afterwards if it be possible that they supposed your New distinctions and evasions or that they at any time let words drop from them signifying an allowance of Seperation from our Churches and setting up new ones upon such weak grounds as you stand upon Mr. Ball I had mentioned in Mr. Ball. my last as one of the old â—uritans that had wrote for Communion with our Parochial Congregations you tell me subtilly that he speaks not against Non-Conformists preaching and that 's an Answer But I must now add that that great Nonconformist doth not plead for our Communion as lawful but in a sort necessary and that to seperate from us is a sinfull Seperation He telleth you roundly that such Seperation is the Wound of Ep to his 1. vol. Friendly Tryal the Church yea whosoever seperateth from the body of the Church seperateth from Christ in that respect Voluntary Seperation from the Lords Table and the Prayers he reckoned upon more than hearing Sermons of the Congregation what is but a willing Excommunicating of our selves from the visible tokens of the Lords presence and love is it not a greater sin in Members to deprive themselves then in the Church Governors to deprive others of the same Communion for small occasions you see he makes the smalness of the occasion of Seperation to be Emphasis and Aggravation of it Again more smartly in his Answer to Cann Thus Seperation from the true Churches of Christ his Ministery Epistle and Worship of which sort I shall prove that to be by the word of God for which I plead meaning the Church of England tendeth not to the overthrow of Anti-Christ but to the Renting of the Church the disgrace of Religion the Advancement of Pride Schysm Contention the offence of the weak the grief of the Godly who be better setled the hardning of the Wicked and the Recovery or rising again of Anti-Christ 2. Let worthy Mr. Hildersham lay down his grave and weighty point clearly and boldly and like Hildersham upon 4. Joh. p. 149. himself 't is this Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation though they have many Corruptions remaining in them are to be acknowledged the true Churches of God and such as none of the faithful may make Separation from He will not allow you upon pretence of purity and serving God better in your way to seperate and gather Churches not any one none of the faithful he proceeds to prove it largely and it may be well known how severe he is against the faithful that will ordinarily leave their honest Minister to hear those that are more able upon pretences of profiting better by them which is yet the best plea the present Separation hath for it self 3. M. Calvin speaks to the point with no mean Authority Calvin Insti li. 4. c 1 sect 9 10. 12. He tells us that wheresoever the Gospel is purely preached and the Sacraments Administred according to the Institution of Christ there is the Church of God There appears neither a deceitful nor doubtful face of a Church of which no man may either despise the Authority or refuse the Admonition or resist the Counsels or mock at the Corrections much less depart from it breaks in sunder the Unity of it and go unpunished For the Lord so highly esteems the Communion of the Church that he counts him for a Traiterous run-away and forsaken of Religion whosoever shall stubburnly estrange himself from any Christian fellowship so that it be such a one as hath the true Ministry of the word and Sacraments The fellowship of such a Church is
not to be cast off although it swarm full of faults though there be faults in the Administration either of Doctrine or of the Sacraments yet we ought not to estrange our selves from the Communion of it for all the Articles be not of one sort and therefore for every light dessention we ought not rashly to forsake the Church 4. The value which our Englesh Presbyterians just before the Wars had of our Church and its lay-Communion is not impertinent Letter of many Ministers in Old England to their brethren in new E. pub by Mr. Ash c 1643. but very considerable together with the Censure they then pass'd upon such as refused it They speak to their brethren in New England thus if we deny Communion with such a Church as ours there hath been no Church these 1400 years with which a Christian might lawfully joine Nay that if such scruples as are now in your heads may take place it will be unlawful to hold Communion with any society under Heaven 5. Mr. Gifford an old Non-Conformist wrote a book Gifford Printed 1590. call'd a plain Declaration wherein he doth not vindicate every thing in our Church but that there is no sufficient Cause of seperation Complains thus some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear Sermons and the 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 gon farther and faln into a damnable Schysm 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 some matters 6. We come now to review the Testimonies we gave in our last from the late Presbiterian Controversie with the Independents we pitcht upon some words of the Provincial Assembly in London and the Argument sent to the Assembly of Divines by the London Ministers from Sion Colledge two eminent bodies of known Presbyterians And we yet see no reason to judg but their words and Arguments are very direct and full to the purpose especially considering the most pittiful shifts of our Answerer about them As to the words in the Divine right of Presbytery be saith that Jus divin Reg. Eccl. book was supposed to be penn'd by Dr Roberts now a Conformist But what doth he mean was he a Conformist then or doth not the book plead for the Presbyâ—ery and its Jus Divinum and in the same sence by which he himself defines a Presbyterian yea was it not owned by and published under the name of the provincial Assembly of Presbyterians and what matter is it then who pen'd it the like dealing you use about Mr. Trapp you say he is a Conformist what then hath he not given a just account of the book written by the London Ministers as I said he did their reasons alledged by me were alledged by a Conformist yet they are theirs still What manner of answering is this It were not pardonable with some Adversaries but you are faln into merciful hands The Authority of the persons then is clear the words I cited out of the preface to that book called Jus Divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici were these Parochial Churches are received as true visible Churches of Christ and most convenient for edification gathering Churches out of Churches hath no footsteps in Scripture is contrary to Apostolical practice is the scattering of Churches the Daughter of Schysm the Mother of Confusion and the step-Mother of edification Observe they condemn gathering Churches out of our Churches absolutely and without any respect to the principles upon which it was done particularly they call it the Daughter of Schysm seperation in order unto the gathering of Churches being Schysm it self in the then Presbyterian opinion The Arguments I took out of the Letter of the London Ministers Sion-Coll to the Assembly were these the Independents are guilâ—y of Schysm 1. Because they refuse Communion with our Churches in the Sacraments 2. They erect seperate Congregations under a seperate undiscovered Government never charging them with any Brownistical principles but the fact it self an undoubted proof of what they undertook to prove Again to the same purpose they charge them with three great Scandals how you will avoid either of them I cannot Devine 1. That they seperated from the true Church 2. That they endeavoured by drawing Members out of it to make up their seperate Churches to weaken and diminish the Church 3. That they endeavoured to get a warrant to authorize both viz. by a Toleration and this say they we think to be plainly unlawful Now hereupon I am bold to challenge our Answerer or any one else to prove clearly that any one Eminent Presbyterian before 1660. was not utterly against all the three against such seperation such gathering Churches and such Toleration Convince me if you can but not by telling me they are now for them all That they would Tolerate things Tolerable that is gathering Churches and persons Tolerable that is Presbyterians as you speak very intelligibly But no wonder they are chang'd in their thoughts of these things the case is Alter'd as you hint True there are some new impositions upon Ministerial Conformity but other Alterations render our Lay-Communion more easily than it was before the wars when the Presbyterian denied it not as was noted out of Mr. Baxter before who also assures us that he never heard of five Non-Conformists besides the five dissenting Defence of his cure p. 13. brethren in the Assembly at Westminster he means they conformed as Ministers of the Church of England before they sate there However that Churches may not be gathered out of Churches is asserted not as a Temporary truth but moral depending upon the Nature of a Church which never alters or gives any occasion of change in the judgment about this point The Books of Mr. Cawdrey that Captain in the Presbyterian Cawdrey Army against Dr. Owen and the Independents challenge you all We may saith he prove them to be Schysmatical 1. by a voluntary Seperation from true Churches with whom we dare say they may Communicate without sin and so consequently causelesly rending the body of Christ 2. By their renouncing Communion with us to set up a Church of another Indep further provd Schys p. 73 74 constitution and so condemning our Churches ipso facto as no truely constituted Churches Mark condemning our Churches ipso facto Their very Act is enough whether they avow such principles or not and consequently what ever you pretend to the contrary your very departure from us and making new Churches does of it self condemn you of Schysm He concludes his first book bravely they saith he that Ind. great Schysm raise differences in them i. e. in our Churches and draw disciples from them and renounce Communion
with them say what they please or can to the contrary are Schysmaticks quod erat demonstrandum I only assume that generally the Non-Conformists make differences in our Churches draw Disciples from them and renounce Communion with them quod est demonstratum And now I beg leave of my Answerer to conclude with the words in my last that so much offended him that I am sure the Presbyterians if they walk by the principles of their Fathers before the Kings return I am sure I say that they have no reason to engage in a way of publique worship contradistinct to our Parochial Congregation The Issue of the travers saith Mr. Brinsley is no more but Of Schysm p. 53. this If there be amongst us a Seperation from a true Church and that both voluntary and unwarrantable as the present practice of gathering Churches by the Presbyterians is which I suppose the evidences given in have sufficiently evicted then must we give sentence that there is more then either crimen nominis or nomen criminis no less than a Schysm formally and properly so called CHAP. XXI Gathering of Churches ought not to be practised as now it is either in Conscience or prudence Objections answered YEt we are not at a full Agreement he seems every where to take it for granted that we are now at perfect liberty to gather new Churches or not which by no means I allow while my principles stand undemolish't Such as these That our Church of England is a true Church that our parochial Congregations are true Churches that the people of England are generally Members of this Church and Churches or at least ought so to be That they lawfully may and consequently are in Duty and Conscience bound to Communicate with them And therefore for them to Seperate and to gather themselves into new Congregations of another constitution is plainly sinful and Schysmatical Upon the premises I doe conclude that Conscience ought first to be consulted in the case and the many obligations thereof effectually and totally removed before you can make it a matter of indifferency in it self and of more Christian prudence pro hic nunc as you seem to affirm Our Obligation to this Communion falls many wayes upon us from our Relation to the Church the laws of cohabitation of Church-Members the Laws of the Kingdome and the long continued practice of this Church none of all which are in the least touched much less Altered or Repeald by the Declaration of Indulgence Besides the many express Scriptures against our forsaking our wonted Assemblies Seperating our selves making parties and divisions in the Church having our Teachers in too much Admiration and heaping them up to our selves and receiving the faith with respect of persons and drawing Disciples after us in all which both the present case and the several Consciences of the Non-confomists whether Preachers or people are in my opinion not lightly concerned Shake of the Burthen as well as you can Until these things be better answered I must add here that the case is of weight in pâ—int of Conscience as well as prudence and that gathering Churches as now you do is a breach of the Laws both of God and Man a Sin against our Church in her Right in our persons and fellowship both with respect to our Pastors and Brethren and a plain breach of our Covenant with them all a breach of the Churches Vnity and Order and Ancient bounds and Customs and in the Teachers that draw away our people besides all that hath been said a plain robbing of God the Church and our Brother To conclude if the Laws of Piety Justice Temperance or Charity can reach the Conscience every one of which are violated by this gathering of Churches the case is not a work of meer Christian prudence and to be determined only comparing the good and evil consequents together as you say p. 21. But supposing my foundations to stand firm and Conscience in the point well secured we may parly a little upon it in point of prudence especially seeing you affirm p. 21. that he that through imprudence mijsudgeth either wâ—y doth sin Moreover you confess that the case is now of so great moment that no Minister should rash'y determine it for himself p. 20. nor upon the desires of some of the people only but should consult with wise and sober men that are impartial but if the case be so difficult for the Readers who you say must preach how difficult is the case for the people for it is no where said they must seperate and leave us to hear you yea your self teach the contrary You state your nice Case thus p. 17 18. whether in competent parishes which have Able and Godly conformable Ministers the obligation to hold Union and Communion with the parish-Church or the obligatiâ—n to exercise a more regular way of Church Disciplin and worship than the Parish-Churches do or will do should be judged the more prevalent and consequently whether they should gather Câ—urches out of Churches in this A Case not so difficult as you seem to make it if there be as you have heard so much obligation upon Conscience to the former part of it touching Communion with us and none at all left for their gathering-Churches for the ends assigned by you for they can neither leave us without sin nor gather Churches without sin as we hope it hath appeared Your opinion is given upon a double supposition and both of them false 1. That the case is indifferent or at least the obligation to both so equal as that it is to be weighed only by prudence 2. That it is lawful and a duty to be a Member of such a Parish-Church only when we can have and do no better i. e. in our own opinion and that when we can we have liberty to forsake our own Church though I confess your explication of having or doing better hath some tendency to a right determination of this great point viz you say we cannot have or dâ— better when it cannot be without a greater hurt to the publique interest of the Gospel the Church and the souls of men then the benefit to us and others is like to countervail But I must add as the case requires especially when that benefit cannot be had without sinning our selves and drawing others to sin with us by our endeavours Scandal and example which I think we too plainly and manifestly do by gathering Churches Now give me leave to make a supposition and I shall immediately take the Scale and weigh the consequents as you say on both sides My supposition is that this case which you call the difficult one is the very case with most Non-Conformists who do now gather Churches for as our Parish-Ministers are generally more Tolerable then you seem to allow them so especially are they of the better sort and truely able and Godly and our Parishes in your own sense competent enough where for the most part