The Mischief of Impositions, Section 6
SECT. VI. The Grounds of the preſent Separation, aſſigned by the Doctor, Examined and Cleared.
THE main Queſtion, ſo ſolemnly propounded by the Reverend Doctor, having given us the ſlip, we are entertained with another; What are the Grounds of the preſent Separation? and the utmoſt he can find in the beſt Writers of the ſeveral Parties amounts but to theſe two;
1. That although they are in a State of Separation from the Church, yet this Separation is not Schiſm. And he courteouſly ſuppoſes them to have one Reaſon for this Principle, from the Author of Evangelical Love, p. 68. Our Lord Chriſt Inſtituted only Congregational Churches, or particular Aſlemblies for Divine Worſhip, which having the ſole Church-power in themſelves, they are under no Obligation of Communion with other Churches, but only to preſerve Peace and Charity with them; and from the Author of The true and only way of Concord. p. 111. That to deviſe new Species of Churches (beyond Parochial, or Congregational) without God's Authority, and to impoſe them on the World (yea in his Name) and call all Diſſenters Schiſmaticks, is a far worſe uſurpation than to make and Impoſe new Ceremonies. This is all the reaſon the Doctor can find to juſtifie their Separation to be no Sin: But does the vaſt weight of their Cauſe hang upon one ſingle ſtring? I can ſhew him where he may find more aſſigned by the Author of Evangelical Love, whom he quotes. 1. That there are many things in all Parochial Churches that openly ſtand in need of Reformation, which theſe Parochial Churches neither do, nor can, nor have power to Reform. And who would joyn with them, that have no power to Reform themſelves? 2. Many things in the conſtant total Communion of Parochial Churches are impoſed on the Conſciences and Practices of men, which are not aceording to the mind of Chriſt. And will Christ Condemn them for Schiſmaticks, who are ready to come up to his Commands, becauſe they dare advance no further? 3. That there is no Evangelical Church-Diſcipline adminiſtred in ſuch Parochial Churches, which yet is a neceſſary means unto the Edification of the Churches appointed by Christ himſelf. And are they Schiſmaticks who ſeparate not from, but to, any of Chriſt's means for their Edification? 4. The Rule and Government which ſuch Parochial Churches are under (in the room of that which ought to be in and among themſelves) viz. by Biſhops-Courts, Chancellors, Commiſſaries, is unknown to the Scriptures: And are they Schiſmaticks who refuſe an unſcriptural, for a Scriptural Rule and Government? 5. There is a total Deprivation of the Peoples Liberty to chuſe their own Paſtors, whereby they are deprived of all uſe of their Light and Knowledge, for providing for their own Edification. And it's hard that men ſhall be made Schiſmaticks becauſe they would uſe their Reaſons: that is, unleſs they will be ſomething worſe than Men, they cannot be good Chriſtians. 6. That there is a want of due means of Edification in many of thoſe Parochial Congregations, and yet none ſhall be allowed to provide themſelves better. And is it not very ſevere, for Chriſtians to be Damned, becauſe they would be more certainly and eaſily Saved? Thus then we ſee there are other, many other, Reaſons alledged to juſtifie ſuch Separation to be no Schiſm, though it pleaſed the Doctor to wink at them, and Aſſign only this one, which yet it's well if he can Confute.
In order to which He thinks, That to clear the practice of Separation from being a Sin, two things are neceſſary to be done.
§ 1. To prove that a Chriſtian has no obligation to external Communion beyond a Congregational Church. And is this the Duty incumbent upon them? They think they have done enough if they prove there's an Obligation lies upon them to hold external Communion in that Church whereof they are Members; and let others prove that they are obliged to Communion beyond thoſe Bounds: If the Diſſenters enlarge their Communion as far as Chriſt enlarged the Churches, let them who have enlarged the Bounds of the Churches prove it to be the Diſſenters duty to widen their Communion to that Latitude. It's ſufficient if they that hold this Principle can juſtifie it without confuting other mens Notions; and they Judge their own Principle and Practice ſufficiently authoriſed from this one thing. Their Doctrine, Communion, and Ordinances have the ſame extent with thoſe of the firſt Chriſtians. Acts 2.42. Who continued in the Apoſtles Doctrine and Fellowſhip, breaking Bread, and Prayer. And let the oppoſers prove that any larger extent of Churches, than what anſwers theſe ends, is neceſſary, and they are ready to Conform themſelves to it.
What the Doctor hath to ſay, or however what he hath ſaid, will fall under theſe heads. (1.) I have never ſeen any tolerable Proof that the Churches Planted by the Apoſtles were limited to Congregations: To which more needs not be ſaid than that, 1. If the Churches planted by the Apoſtles were in ſuch Congregations; it's no matter to us whether they were limited to ſuch Congregations or no: If Congregational bounds be allowed, let other and larger bounds be proved by them that are concern'd to juſtifie them. 2. If ſuch particular Churches were not of Chriſts inſtitution; then it would be no Schiſm to ſeparate from them: I ſay no Schiſm of Chriſt's condemning, and if others will make other Notions of Schiſm, which Chriſt and his Apoſtles never knew, and ſo multiply ſin without cauſe, let them contrive a hell too wherein thoſe ſins, and ſchiſms ſhall be puniſhed.
(2) The Doctor proceeds, It's poſſible at firſt there might be no more Chriſtians in one City, than could meet in one aſſembly for worſhip; but where doth it appear, that when they multiplied into more Congregations, they did make new and diſtinct officers, with a ſeparate power of government? I confeſs I know not where any ſuch thing appears, that they made new and diſtinct Churches; that is, ſpecifically new, of another kind, ſort, or ſpecies; but that they did make other Churches, and other Officers, that is, more Churches, and more Officers, is made appear thus; that if they had not ſuch Officers, their aſſemblies had not anſwered their ends; and if they had not the ſame power of Government that the other Churches had, they had not been of the ſame kind, but quite another thing; but what it does not appear the Apoſtles did, it appears abundantly, the ſucceeding corrupter times have done, even to form new Churches, new Officers wholly diſtinct from thoſe inſtituted by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; and hence it was, that to keep Peace as is pretended amongſt the Paſtors of particular Churches, they found out a Biſhop, and to keep the Biſhops from falling together by the ears, they invented an Archbiſhop, and becauſe the Metropolitans might poſſibly quarrel, they inſtituted a Patriarch, and becauſe the Patriarchs were ſubject to the ſame paſſions with other men, prudence contrived a Pope, and clapt him upon them all, to keep them in Decorum.
(3) The Doctor thinks it will not appear credible to any conſiderate man, that the 5000 in the Church of Jeruſalem made one ſtated and fixed Congregation for divine worſhip. Things are credible or incredible, as ſome mens intereſts, and occaſions will have them, or elſe it were no ſuch hard matter to make it credible to the Doctor, that 5000, 10000, 20000, might make one ſtated and fixt Congregation for worſhip; he has an inſtance of it in St. Andrews Holborn, a place which he has cauſe to know contains more than 5000, and yet they have but one ſtated, fixed Congregation for divine worſhip.
(4) The Doctor thinks that much more may be ſaid for lim ting Churches to private families, than to particular Congregations: Let us hear it then! Do we not read of the Church in the houſe of Priſcilla and Aquila? Rom. 16.3, 5. and of the Church that was in the houſe of Nymphas at Coloſs? Col. 4.15. and in the houſe of Philemon in Laodicea? Philem. 2, 3. yes! we do ſo, and yet hear nothing to the purpoſe; for a Church may be in a houſe, and yet not compoſed of that houſe: A Church may meet in a family, when it conſiſts of more than the family; A Church of Diſſenters may poſſibly meet in a houſe, and yet if one of the eccleſiaſtick Setters, ſhould get them in the wind, and inform againſt them, that they were there aſſembled for the worſhip of God, with above the number of four beſides the family, I fear, A Plea, that they that meet in a family are of the family, would hardly prevent a Conviction.
(5) Again the Doctor argues thus, If notwithſtanding ſuch plain examples, men will extend Churches to Congregations of many families, why may not others extend them to thoſe ſocieties which conſiſt of many Congregations? I will tell him why, 1. Becauſe his plain examples are plain miſtakes, nor can he give one inſtance of a Church that conſiſted of a family, becauſe it was a family. 2. We read of Churches of many families; but of none compoſed of many particular Churches: Many families have warrant to unite into a Church (not as families, but as the individuals are duly qualified) in order to the great ends of worſhip, edification, &c. But many Churches have no ſuch warrant to unite for the deſtruction of thoſe ends, or any one of them; And it is the end, and the uſefulneſs of unity for that end which muſt regulate, and determine the Union. It is very lawful to build a Ship or Man of war as big as two or three Yachts, which may do better ſervice, but it's folly to make one that would reach from Calice to Dover which muſt lie like an uſeleſs Log, unmeet for ſailing, and the ends for which all Ships are built; but let the Doctor extend the name of Church as far as he pleaſes, to the worlds end, or as far as the Rules of the Kings bench have been extended, we are unconcern'd ſo long as this is clear, that how far ſoever men may extend Churches, name or thing, in Compliance with the extent of the civil government; yet the extent of our actual communion in worſhip, is no other than that of the Church of which we are by our own choice members.
(6) He goes on, Although when the Churches increaſed, the occaſional meetings were frequent in ſeveral places, yet ſtill there was but one Church, one Altar, one Baptiſtry, one Biſhop, which will utterly deſtroy either parochial or Dioceſan Churches: For if one Baptiſtry, and one Church be of the ſame extent, what will become of the Dioceſan Church, in which there are hundred of thoſe Baptiſtries, and but one Biſhop? and if one Biſhop, and one Church, be of the ſame extent, what will become of the Parochials, where there is one Baptiſtry indeed, but not one Biſhop? And it ſeems very evident, that in the beginning of Chriſtianity, a Church was no larger a Body than could aſſemble in one place for all the ends of a Chriſtian Society; ſo the Apoſtle ſuppoſes, 1 Cor. 11.18. when ye come together in the Church, compar'd with ver. 20. when ye come together into one place, foreign where to meet in the Church, and to meet in one place, are phraſes of equal Latitude; and ſo Ignatius in his Epiſtle to the Epheſians. Edit. Voſſ. p. 20 foreign i. e. If the Prayer of one or two Chriſtians hath ſuch power, how much greater efficacy hath that of the Biſhop, and the whole Church? he therefore that cometh not to that place, (or that Congregation) is already proud, and hath condemned himſelf.
Hitherto the Doctor has endeavor'd to overthrow the Principle, which ſeeing he cannot do, he comes to ſuppoſe, or grant it, yet withal denying that from thence any thing can be drawn that will juſtifie Separation.
§ 1. Suppoſe (ſays he) that the first Churches, by reaſon of the ſmall numbers of Believers at that time, were Congregational, yet what obligation lies upon us to diſturb the Peace of the Church we live in, to reduce Churches to their infant ſtate? To which I anſwer, none at all; we know no ſuch obligation lies upon us, and do wiſh that they (ſuppoſing the Church to be Metropolitical, or National) did ſee no more obligation lying upon them to diſturb the Peace of the Churches that we live in, to reduce all to their overgrown ſtate; we are for our own liberty, without infringing theirs; but it's common to complain of other mens unpeaceableneſs, who will have peace with none but themſelves.
§ 2. They do not think it neceſſary (ſays he) to introduce the first community of goods, which was far more certainly practiſed than Congregational Churches, nor to waſh one anothers feet, though Chriſt did it, and bad his Diſciples do as he did. I anſwer, 1. For Community of Goods, I dare ſay I ſhall convince the Doctor it was no obliging example, for he has no temptation to become a Leveller, and would loſe more than he could hope to gain by putting all the Benefices of the Land into Hotchpot. For, there was never any ſuch command or practice for the promiſcuous uſe of all outward things, without the free conſent of individual Chriſtians; Propriety was not then deſtroyed, but each Chriſtian was the Proprietor of his Eſtate; the great exigency of the Church did invite to a very liberal and extraordinary meaſure of charitable contribution to the neceſſity of the Saints, but ſtill it was voluntary, and no otherwiſe forced than by Arguments. Acts 5.4- While it remained, was it not thy own? and after it was ſold, was it not in thy power? foreign. Their Charity did not deſtroy Propriety: And if the ſame diſtreſs ſhould again overtake any particular Church as that was, it would be as much the duty of the Rich, to extend their Benevolence to the neceſſity of their poor Brethren as then it was, or could be. 2. For his inſtance of Chriſt's waſhing his Diſciples Feet, and commanding them to do as he did. What perſon that reads the Scripture, does not obſerve that it was not the waſhing the Feet that was commanded, but that mutual deference, reciprocal ſerving of each other, avoiding of ambitious encroaching of one over another, when Chriſt had made them Equals: this was the great Point Chriſt would inſtruct them in by that temporary Ceremony. For ſo it is commanded, that we lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1 Tim. 2.8. when yet none ever ſtood ſo ſuperſtitiouſly upon't, that every man is bound to lift up his hands in Prayer: but the Duty was purity of the whole man. Two things therefore there are in this reaſoning, which would be better cleared, 1. That there is no more neceſſity for the worſhip of God in particular Aſſemblies, at all times, under all conditions of the Church, than there was for the Community of Goods, in that extraordinary exigence of the Church at that time. 2. That Propriety of our Eſtates, and the right of our particular Churches to worſhip God, muſt give way to National Church Frames, in both which we have ſome cauſe to be tender, and not to part with them till we receive better Arguments.
§ 3. The Doctor reaſons thus with us: They believe that the first Civil Government was appointed by God himſelf over all Families, do they therefore think themſelves bound to overthrow Kingdoms, to bring things back to their firſt inſtitution? if not, why ſhall the Peace of the Church be in ſo much worſe a condition than that of the Civil State? To which the Anſwer is very plain, 1. We look upon our ſelves under no obligation to diſturb, much leſs to deſtroy Kingdoms, or any kind of Government whatever, to reduce things to their firſt inſtitution, nor is there any need of it, to deſtroy the Civil Government, by reducing the Church to ſuch a poſture, as will anſwer the great deſigns of Religion. 2. The ſame Divine Authority that inſtituted Civil Government in Families, did alſo inſtitute Government over Families, whether Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, or Democratical; and if the Doctor can ſhew that the ſame Authority, which appointed particular Churches for his own ſervice and glory, and the edification of Believers, hath alſo appointed National Churches for the ſame ends, we ſhall confeſs that his Inſtance is parallel, his Argument from thence cogent, and ſuch as will cut aſunder the Nerves of our Anſwer; when the wiſe God did inſtitute National Civil Government, yet be reſerved entire to the Maſters of Families their authority over Servants and Children, and the propriety in their Eſtates; but how will this juſtifie ſuch a National Church-Government, as deſtroys the inherent power of the Paſtors of particular Churches, making them only ſhadows of the primitive Paſtoral Authority, (if ſhadows) and leaving them onelyonly the bare Name (if the Name) of Paſtors, without any power inherent in them, to govern the Churches, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overſeers.
§ 4. He reaſons thus, It's very uncertain whether the Primitive Form were ſuch as they fancy. If ſo, then, 1. It is as uncertain whether the Primitive Form were ſuch as he Fancies; If it were uncertain whether God would be Worſhip't in particular Congregations, that had a power to Govern and Reform themſelves, then it muſt be as uncertain, nay more uncertain, whether God would have a Frame Erected of ſuch Churches where God could not be Worſhip't. 2. And if it be uncertain what the primitive Form was, then it's very cr… to plague and torment men as Schiſmaticks that are quiet and peaceable, … deſign nothing but the ſerving their God and ſaving their Souls, for not complying with ſuch a Form or Frame, which it is uncertain whether it were the Primitive one or no. 3. And then it will be very certain that there can be no Obligation upon us to hold Communion with the Parochial Church, by Divine right, ſince it's uncertain whether God ever intended ſuch aſſemblies of Chriſtians or no. 4. And then it will be uncertain alſo whether the Parochial Miniſters be true Miniſters of Chriſt; for if there be no certainty of the Divine Right of particular Congregations, there can be as little of certainty, That there is any Divine Authority given to the Teachers of them. And 5. It will be uncertain whether God will be ſolemnly and publickly Worſhipped; for where can he ſo be, but in particular Aſſemblies? And thus to make a National Church certain, he has reduced all things to an utter uncertainty.
§ 5. He argues further to this purpoſe; It's certainly our Duty to preſerve Peace and Unity among Chriſtians, and it's impoſſible ſo to do if Men break all orders in Pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform. It's well there is ſomething Certain, though it's hard to conceive how we ſhould preſerve Peace, if it be uncertain in what we … to unite and agree: It's the Unity of the Spirit that will be kept in the Bond of Peace: Peace is the Bond of the Churches, but there muſt be firſt conceived a Church, which Peace is to bind: There muſt be a Vineyard, or to what purpoſe a Hedge? a City, or to what purpoſe a Wall or Bulwark? More particularly, 1. As it is the Duty of all Men to preſerve the Churches Peace, ſo 'tis theirs eſpecially who have got the Management of things in their hands, not to lay ſuch dubious Terms in the way of Peace which they know many Conſciencious perſons cannot get over, but have ever ſtumbled at; for it may be returned with eaſe, It is impoſſible to preſerve Peace if wen will make ſuch Orders as they know others muſt break, meerly for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform. 2. If Peace be impoſſible to be had upon this account, who are in the fault? Diſſenters can maintain a fraternal Charity towards them and their Churches, who differ from them in Principle and Practice, if impoſers cannot, or will not diſcharge that Duty reciprocally, we are not reſponſible for their Paſſions; we can love them whether they will or no, though we cannot force them againſt their will to return that Love and Charity. 3. But muſt Peace be extended no farther than local and actual Communion? or muſt the Pariſhes of St. Andrews, Sepulchers, and St. Giles go together by the ears, becauſe one Church will not hold the hundredth part of them? I can hold and maintain Peace with the Greek Church, and yet I never intend actual Communion with it, unleſs ſhe were much more Reformed from all her Corruptions, than ſhe is like to be in haſte. There may be ſuch Corruptions in a Church as may defile it, and yet not un-Church it. I can diſtinguiſh between the Chriſtians and their Chriſtianity on one hand, and the Pollutions wherewith they have abaſed their Chriſtianity, on the other.
§ 6 But to this the Doctor Anſwers, Men may pleaſe themſelves in talking of preſerving Peace and Love under ſeparate Communions, but our own ſad experience ſhews the contrary. This is the upſhot of his Reaſonings, There can be no Peace under ſeparate Communions, which I ſhall anſwer by asking a few ſober queſtions, which will lead to their reſpective Anſwers. 1. Whether by ſeparate Communion, he intends only ſuch as is Locally ſeparate? if ſo, joyful Experience ſhews us the contrary; we have no Bellum Parochiale, nor are like to have, could they ſecure us as well againſt a Bellum Epiſcopale. 2. Does he, by Separated Communion, intend ſuch as differ only in ſome external Modes? How then do the Countrey Villages agree ſo well with the Cathedral Mother-Churches? It's certain that the Cathedral Service, and that of the under Pariſhes, differ ſo much, that a poor Countrey-man dropping in by chance into the Worſhip would be half affrighted out of his Wits, ſuch a Ditty, ſuch a Din, with Organs, Choriſters, Singing-men, and Boys, that from the uncertain Sound and confuſed noiſe, the poor Fellow would not know what was Piped or Tooted: ſo a grave Alderman in the days of Yore, going out with the Common-hunt, and being askt if he did not feel a tranſport and extaſie of ſoul at the raviſhing muſick of the hounds, proteſted he could not hear any muſick at all for the barking of thoſe yelping Curs; but come into the Country, we have nothing there but bad Rhimes ſet to as bad tunes, and worſe ſung; In the one you have turning hither, faceing thither, ſuch ducking, dopping, bending, bowing, cringing, changing of poſtures, that the poor country man begins to queſtion whether it be the ſame God that they and he worſhip; and if it be, he's amazed that God ſhould regard their rude homeſpun devotions, when he has ſuch glorious ſervice, ſuch ſplendid, pompous worſhip in other places; and yet we do not ſee that they come to knocking: If then theſe two ſorts can live peaceably, and lovingly together, the one not deſpiſing the ruſticity of the high-ſhoe devotions; the other not judging of, envying at, or grudging againſt, their more ſtately ſhows and pageants; why will they quarrel with the plain diſſenters whoſe only fault is that, though their worſhip is not well trimmed up with ceremonious ribons, 'tis of as ſtrong ſtuff, will laſt as long, and keep the wearer as warm as the other? 3. Whereas the Doctor fancies that this will alienate mens affections: The remedy is to preach down paſſion, pride, cenſoriouſneſs, and thoſe baſe luſts, which would produce the ſame effects, if all men were of one Communion: If one will be angry becauſe another mans Noſe is longer than his own, he muſt reſtrain his anger, for the other cannot help the longitude of his Noſe, nor give it one degree leſs of elevation. Let them puniſh or otherwiſe reſtrain thoſe incendiaries, who by their hot, and fiery tempers, will ſuffer none to be cool, that are in themſelves of a more winterly temper: Let them curb ſuch preachers, as the Author of Curſe ye Meroz, who did enough to have kindled a greater fire at Guild-Hall, than that which begun at Pudding-Lane: The diſeaſe lies in mens minds, and when they would heal the outward Symptom, 'tis but like him that applied the plaiſter to the wrong finger, and then complained of his plaiſter. Let men be preacht into the ſpirit of mutual forbearance, and there will be peace under various practices.
Theſe continual beatings of the Doctor and ſome others upon Peace, mind me of what I have ſomewhere or other, ſeen or read, of a great Gentleman who courted a Lady of no leſs virtue than Beauty, and ſuch an Inamorato was he grown, that he became exceedingly melancholly, his folded armes, his hat plukt in's eyes, retiredneſs from all company witneſſed great diſtreſs; at laſt he came to a reſolution, that ſeeing he could not win her affections, he would die a Sacrifice in the flame of his own: This noble Lady, (whoſe Name I now remember, was Madam Peace,) not willing that any Gentleman ſhould die a Martyr for her ſake, began to relent, only ſhe deſired him, that he would not be ſo moroſe and humourſome, however that he would ſhave his face, that made him look ſo like ſatyr, and beſides ſhe could not tell how to have communion with his lips, for the briſtles of his chin, and the turn-pikes of his overgrown Muſtachoes; but Monſieur Moroſo, (for ſo was the gallant called) proteſted he would not loſe a hair of his beard, (as poor an excrement as the ignorant Laity call'd it) for the greateſt Lady in Europe: and ſo all this hot love evaporated in Complement and Ridicule.