not the Laws of England once tye us to them Were we not United to the Governours Worship Members and Assemblies of that Church Did not our Fore-fathers shew their consent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions c. This is all our Author saith for our Vnion to the National and Parochial Church or Churches of England § 68. Again they have proved it he saith that Communion in that Church is corrupt How Because we cannot communicate with it without sin How have they proved it Demonstratively so as the Adversaries cannot deny it Nothing less they do deny it and yet dispute it but so as we probably judg it sinful We grant this is proved and so we think we have proved it too though it may be more sinful to communicate with the Romish Church But we know Magis minus non variant speciem But we think we ought not to do the least sin § 69. But we do not say it is sinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances Why do we not communicate with them so far as we can without sin Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledg so much But Communion is either stated and fixed or Occasional They conceive themselves obliged statedly and fixedly if they can to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of God For occasional Communion they neither have denied it nor shall deny it to their Brethren in such actions wherein their Consciences will allow them so to communicate without sin as occasion offers it self they acknowledg many of their Ministers and of their Churches true Churches true Ministerial Churches they many of them hear them Preach and Pray and bring their Children to them to be Baptized especially if any of them will abate what in that administration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally necessary and they judg sinful what would the Author have more unless a perfect communion § 70. As to which though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men because they never touch the Conscience nor ad homines because they are single Bullets and hit but one person yet once let me use one Because our Author in his Doctrine of Schisme p. 28. assures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods mind I know not that Reverend Person but I take him to be the same Mr. Fulwood that was sometimes Minister at Staple Fitzpane in Somerset-shire and anno 1652. published a Book called The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches and a true Ministry if he be not the man intended I beg his pardon if it be he he saith thus of the Church of England For matters of Government indeed of late we were under Episcopacy all whose appurtenances savoured of Antichrist and in the same page a little after our Episcopal Courts Service Tyranny c. were very gross This was Mr. Fulwoods judgment I think we may easily argue according to his principles It is Mr. Fulwoods assertion not ours From a Church all whose appurtenances as to Government savour of Antichrist Fulwoods Churches Ministry of England true c. p. 12. and whose service is very gross Christians may and ought to separate so far as to that Government all whose appurtenances so savour and whose service is gross But saith Mr. Fulwood Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an answer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood we will further examin it But there is no end of these things § 71. In the mean time I must mind the Author of too little candor as to his Adversary who wrote the Reflexions in saying the sum of what he offered was reducible to these two propositions 1. That the Conformists held the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet did separate 2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches when as he never said the latter at all but the clean contrary and had acknowledged 1. All of them true Churches that is true parts of the Catholick Church 2. Many of them true Ministerial Churches 3. Some of them true Organical Churches Besides this He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will see these two things were not the sum of what he said and that how little soever Reason was in those Reflections there was yet more then this Author in his Remarques was pleased to take notice of for that Author had then insisted on their not being united to Parochial Churches § 72. To shut up this discourse I from my Soul wish all the Lords Ministers and People of England were of one heart and mind I am not of Gravity or Learning sufficient to Advise either Conformists or Non-conformists but shall only propose my own thoughts and not mine alone The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dissertations de Episcopatu hath these passages which I shall translate The learned may read them in the Printed Copies If men were every where as sollicitous for forming and reforming men and fitting them for the sacred Ministry to which they profess to give up themselves the disputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more easie and less evil need be feared from that which we judge not so good Here saith he We must begin that men may be made worthy for the work and Parag. 4. Here we must lay on our help We see the Apostles in their Writings were more sollicitous about the Vertues than the degrees of Ministers Parag. 9. Before saith he we divide into parties about other things we should joyntly agree about these things A confession of common Doctrine according to truth and piety should be either set forth or confirmed then exact Canons should be made about the whole life and manners of Ministers and then a disputation about the form of Church Government should follow Thus far he § 73. I shall conclude with delivering my Opinion That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed which concern Ministers Lives and Office And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed and those men might have nothing to do in the debate Who are dead in Law according to those Canons that is such as ought to be Excommunicated or deprived and who had declared or should declare themselves contrary to the Doctrine so expoundâ—d and declared The remaining part would quickly so well agree with other things as we should be no more troubled with clamours of Schisme and Separation and tell somthing of that Nature be I see no medium but either Dissenters must be indulged and Schisme clamour'd and never proved or suffering for Conscience-sake must be imposed and patiently endured Fiat Voluntas Dei ERRATA PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare r. curaes p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians r. Arminius p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus r. Generalibus p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical r. Juridical p. 70. l. 2. r. one Ministers parts p. 74.
of their mind and leaving terms of reviling to the Women at Billings-gate we will fairly state the Case and argue it as coolely § 17. The Question is this Whether the Non-conforming Ministers and people meeting ordinarily together for the Worship of God in Assemblies and places locally distinct and separate from the meetings of the Parochial Congregations because the said Ministers may not Preach there nor the said people enjoy there all the Ordinances of God without the doing of some things which their Consciences upon Arguments which they judge highly probable do judge sinful be what the Scripture calleth Schisme or be in any right Reason A sinful Separation these persons in the mean time not condemning all Parochial Societies as no true Churches nor in other things behaving themselves uncharitably towards them We must profess our selves to believe the Negative of this Question in which are two folded together We affirm then 1. This practice is not what The Scripture calls Schisme 2. Nor what right Reason concluding from any Scriptural principles can call A sinful Separation We do grant there may be a sinful Separation of Christians from a Church which the Scripture doth not call Schisme that maketh us distinguish these two things nor shall we discourse the former 1. Because it is a plain Dispute about a Term. 2. Because the eminently Learned Dr. Owen hath made it good that a Separation from a Church though it may be sinful yet is not that which the Scripture calls Schisme and we observe that his very Learned Adversary upon the point grants him this and pleadeth for no more than an Analogical application of the term Schisme to express the sin of unnecessary separation from a Church which we will not contend about § 18. We say therefore let it be so or so it is of no great consequence all grant there may be a sinful separation from a Church and if the separation be not sinful we are sure they Nick-name it that call it Schisme If it be sinful whether it should be called Schisme or by some other name we think signifieth very little to the Consciences of any intelligent Christians § 19. Mr. Hales still keeping the dialect of the Schools calls this sinful separation Schisme and gives us this description of it Schisme is an unnecessary separation from that part of the Visible Church of which we once were Members Like a wise man he speaks Multa paucis remembring the Canon about Definitions So then according to him to make a Schisme 1. There must be a separation and that not from the whole Visible Church that is Heresy or Apostacy but from some part of it of which we were once Members 2. Secondly It must be an Unnecessary separation that is where the Union might have been kept without sinning against God we desire no further advantage than this Description will give us let our case stand or fall as it will abide or not abide this test § 20. Hence we argue Where there never was an Union or there is no separation or if there be a separation it is necessary because the Union could not be kept without sin There is no Schisme but in the cases of the Ministers and People Either there is no separation or there was no Union which indeed supposed there could be no separation or no more than a necessary separation Ergo No Schisme no sinful separation § 21. To make good which Separation being a term of motion before we can strictly speak to the parts of the Argument we must enquire for the Term from which this Motion or Separation is pretended to be The Author of The Doctrine of Schisme p. 40. tells us this roundly 'T is a great and dangerous Schisme both against the Church of England and particular Churches We will not quarrel with the Zealous Author for the propriety of that English a Schisme against the Church because in the close of the same page though he doth not at all mend the matter as to the poor Non-conformist whom he was wont to own as Brethren yet he amendeth his English telling us If you consider the Church of England as a particular Organized Church 't is a Schism from but as part of the Universal Visible Church only as the N. Con. use to term it is a Schisme in it and not only so but p. 57. It is a Schisme from particular Parochial Congregations For Mr. Candry he saith hath observed There was and is another Church-state in our particular Congregations § 22. Here now is a double term from which this motion is pretended to be 1. The Church of England 2. The Parochial Churches in England To let our Author know what we hold we do believe a Catholick Visible Church which we take to be well described in the 19th of the 39 Articles of our Church The Congregation or whole Body of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments are duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same Of this the Church of England is a part doubtless and from the Church of England in this sense we do not know that any have separated but such as have renounced Christ and the Gospel or the Word and Ordinances necessary to Salvation which would be plain and desperate Apostacy with which we hope our Brethren will be more modest than to charge us From this our Plea is we make no Separation and therefore cannot be charged with a sinful Separation But saith our Author You make a sinful separation in it We are not troubled at words that signifie nothing what is the meaning of this Do we not Own Christ his Gospel the same points of Faith the same acts of Worship where is the Separation then Can all meet in the same place It may be we do not pray by the same forms nor ware the same habits nor use some of those rites some others of our Brethren use Do our Brethren then always when they pray use the same forms of words Do not they take a liberty in the Pulpit why may not we Do other parts of the Catholick Church use the same forms why else are not they Schismaticks for as yet we are only considering the National Church of England as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Is there any form any habit any rite or ceremony commanded by Christ and omitted by us if there be not where is the Schisme It seems the term Schismatick is their priviledge to use that can first get it out of their mouths if we divide in no command of Christ why may not the Non-Con call their Brethren Schismaticks as well as they call their Brethren Doth an humane Law create a difference Let it be queried whether that can give a rule to Schisme or no. What is the business then how do we then make a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the
to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship is a Schisme from that part of this Church which meet for that end in London § 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution Doctrine of Schisme 55. which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen let Mr. Cawdry or who will say so Dolus versatur in Generatibus What is the difference did Christ constitute theirs We trust he hath constituted ours that is by the Rules given in his Word Were theirs constituted by Parliament that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Arch-Bishop the Parliament afterwards or Custom rather might confirm them Doth it then make a Schismatick to depart to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom How else are we of another constitution Is not the same Doctrine Preached the same Sacraments administred the same acts of Worship performed Where 's the difference In the Modes Rites and Ceremonies only And these all of humane institution This is that which the Church of God never before called Schisme which the Apostles never thought of Do not we agree in the same Government That concerns us not yet while we are clearing our selves only from a Church which the Author must shew us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed intrinsecal to his Church In the mean time as to the National Church of England we deny that we are guilty of any Schisme either in it or from it so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches and our pretended separation from them § 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry and quoted by our Author ch 9. p. 57. these he calls Parochial Congregations We are he saith guilty of Schisme from them we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches 1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholick Church and so capable of the name of the whole thus we were indeed united to them as we were united to the Catholick Church and united still to them as unto that owning the Lord Jesus Christ his Word and Ordinances and professing a subjection to them But this is not the other state he speaks of by which he can mean nothing but a governing state 2. Secondly therefore These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly or more imperfectly Organized furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order or not so furnished or so walking The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered lay in two things the latter of which he delivered thus Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches Advice to Conformists c. p. 72. or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from We have read over the Book and good Reader at thy leisure do but read over that Pamplet the second chapt particularly the 13 14 15. pages and see whether this Author hath or no dealt ingeniously with him p. 14. He speaks of these Societies as parts of the Catholick Churches and saith Short Reflections p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish yea Family of Christians is a true Church But he indeed concludes that out of such particular Churches it must be lawful to gather a Church for all particular Churches in the world are gathered out of the Catholick Visible Church even Heathens when converted must be of the Catholick Visible Church before they can form a particular Church In this state and no other must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours which we think is a contradiction P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them as Ministerial by which he saith he underst ands a competent number of Christians who have either first chosen or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor he might indeed have spared this Notion I do not remember I have met with it in any Author but Mr. Rutherford and the truth is if it be a single Minister I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them than as he is so far an Officer of the Catholick Church and they a part of that vast body He considers these people Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances or as at present living without some Ordinances or having them so unduly administred as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no He adds we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duely sent able painful Minister regularly administring the Ordinances of Christ so as people may communicate with them without sin and pressing forward to that perfection in order which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them may not separate without sin He did not indeed say but I dare say for him he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England and he hints it when he saith This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches Reader judge in his 15. page He tells us There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical and furnished with all its affairs and walking in all points of Gospel Order He adds such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches from which causeless and unnecessary separation is sinful Indeed he says How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches avowed so by Presbyterians he was yet to learn And his Answer is for any thing I see in his Remarques yet to teach him and I believe will so continue For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order He I am sure will tell him he means no more Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church The Word Sacraments and Censures of Jundical Admonition Suspension and Excommunication which they cannot do till they have Officers I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justifie a single Minister in Suspending or Excommunicating but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry I do not think he believes but that there may be more Ministers if the Parochial Society hath more than one or others chosen by that Church And if any will contend that the body of the people must joyn with him in those acts though he reserves his private judgment in the case yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication because he understands not to what purpose