The Mischief of Impositions, Section 7
SECT. VII. The principle aſſigned to ſome others of the Diſſenters, conſidered. The Arguments from the Papers of Accommodation between a Sub Committee of the Aſſembly, and their Brethren of the Congregational perſuaſion, modeſtly examined.
HItherto the Doctor's reaſonings againſt that principle, that there is a ſeparation, but yet the ſeparation is no Schiſm, have fallen under conſideration. He proceeds now to that of ſome others, who confeſs (as he ſays) That to live in a ſtate of ſeparation from ſuch Churches, as many at leaſt of ours are, is a ſin: what myſtery may there be in the phraſe of living in a ſtate of ſeparation, I am not well aware of, and therefore cannot prevent what miſcheif may be deſign'd againſt us by it: Of a State of Nature, and a ſtate of Grace, we have read in old Proteſtant Authors, but now adays all the outcry is againſt this ſtate of ſeparation.
Now the Doctor informs us, that the men of this Plea, deny that they live in a ſtate of ſeparation, although they preach when, and where it is forbidden by law, and worſhip God, and adminiſter Sacraments by other Rules, and after a different manner than what our Church requires. They own ſeparation to be ſinful, and have no other Refuge left but to deny the fact, which is evident to all perſons.
In the general I ſhall only ſay, that the principles and pleading of theſe whom the Doctor would make two parties, are really and indeed but one and the ſame; only they have made uſe of other expreſſions to declare their minds: They that ſay ſeparation is lawful, take the word only for a withdrawing from the Communion of a Church, when they have good reaſons to juſtifie their departure: They that ſay ſeparation is ſinful, take the word in an evil ſenſe, as denoting a departure from a Church out of humour, Levity, or ſome worſe principle, as hatred of, oppoſition to thoſe Churches from which they withdraw. And this he might have ſeen in thoſe very words he quoted from the Author of Concord. Cauſeleſs renouncing Communion with true Churches is Schiſm, eſpecially if it be joyned with ſetting up Anti-Churches unwarrantably againſt them. Now how many things muſt concur to make ſeparation culpable, according to the tenor of theſe words, I can hardly reckon up. 1. It muſt be ſeparation without cauſe, from a true Church. Now the Doctor himſelf will allow that there may be a juſt cauſe of ſeparation from a true Church. 2. It muſt be renouncing communion; but though theſe men ſuſpend, or forbear Communion for a while, yet when the Church ſhall return to herſelf, and abate of her rigors, they carry in their breaſts Animum revertendi, a propenſity to return again. 3. It muſt be ſetting up Churches againſt Churches, not one beſides another, to carry on the common cauſe of Religion againſt Atheiſts, Hereticks, Infidels, prophane perſons, and all the debauchees both in faith, and manners. And, 4. all this muſt be done in an unwarrantable manner; the circumſtances muſt be ſuch as croſs the general rules of the Goſpel, and if all theſe be found in any ſeparation, let it be doomed and condemned for ſchiſm, and ſinful. I wonder therefore with what ſincerity the Doctor could ſay, They own the thing to be ſinful, and yet deny the fact: Whereas that which they confeſs to be ſinful in the Rule or Principle; that only they deny themſelves to have done in fact: And what they confeſs themſelves to have done, they never confeſſed to be ſinful. There is a ſeparation that is ſinful, this ſay they we never practiſed: And there is a ſeparation too that is lawful; and here they own the fact, and deny the ſinfulneſs of it: Theſe tricks therefore will never ſatisfie his Auditors, nor his Readers; but the Doctor's great Repute, and ſmoothneſs of his Style, and a notable talent to miſrepreſent his adverſaries, have made very mean and ordinary Diſcourſes paſs for ſuperexcellent, and his name being up he may lie-abed till noon: for ſo have I heard ſomewhere of a Cutler's boy that was making a knife, and unluckily the ſteel fell off when he had welded it; No matter! no matter! Let it go boy, ſaid (the Maſter) my name's up, and my Iron will ſell, though not cut better, than other mens Steel. And now for a more particular return.
1. They confeſs, that they (three months ago, you muſt underſtand that we come not within the ſtatute) preach when, and where it was forbidden by law, and they have a cauſe for it: Becauſe they can preach no where, nor time elſe, without ſuch conditions as they judge are, and think they have proved unlawful; but they ſay, that to preach when forbidden by Law, is not always ſinful: For ſo did the Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt, even when their Commiſſion was not vouched by Miracles, till 300 years after Chriſt. And if it be ſaid, that it is ſinful in our caſe, that muſt be tryed out by no general Arguments and Reaſons, but ſuch as are ſpecial and proper to the caſe.
2. They confeſs they do worſhip God, and adminiſter Sacraments, by other Rules, and in other manner than what the preſent Church preſcribes. If the Diſſenters do all this by other Rules, and in other manner than the Aſſenters do, it will follow unavoidably, that the Aſſenters do them by other Rules, and in other manner than the Diſſenters do; which is the worſt that I know will follow, unleſs he can prove that the Rules by which they worſhip God, the manner in which they adminiſter Sacraments are nearer then, or as near the Rule and Preſcript of the Word, as thoſe of the Diſſenters: So that the Queſtion muſt come to this at laſt, Whether thoſe Rules by which, that manner after which, the Church requires to worſhip God, and adminiſter Sacraments, be conformable to the Scripture Rule of Worſhip, the Scripture manner of Adminiſtration? for if they be, then theſe Diſſenters flatly affirm, That they worſhip God, they adminiſter the Sacraments by no other Rule, in no other manner, than what the Church preſcribes. But if they be not, then they ſay, If they in all their ways of Worſhip Conform to the Canonical Rules, though they do ſwerve a little from ſuch as are Apocryphal, they hope, and believe God will acquit them, as their Conſciences now do of the guilt of Schiſm; and if others will not, 'tis not ſo much material, becauſe they ſhall not receive their final doom from the Churches mouth, nor be tryed by her Rules, when they come to be tryed for their All. And by this time we ſee, and ſo may the Doctor, how much better it had been for him to have follow'd his Text, and not to gather Doctrines thence, which never grew there; nor to have ſo confidently aſſerted, pag. 9. The neceſſity of one fixed and certain Rule, notwithſtanding the different attainments amongſt Chriſtians, unleſs he could have proved it more ſolidly, of ſuch Rules as Churches make, not contained in the general Rules of the Scripture.
3. Is the Doctor in good earneſt? On is this Rhetorick pro formâ tantùm? Will worſhiping God by other Rules, and in other modes and manners than a Church requires, make ſuch Worſhip Schiſmatical? then mark the fatal conſequences.
1. It's then apparent, that moſt of the Parochial Churches in England, are Schiſmatical Churches; for do not they worſhip by other Rules, and in other manner than the Church preſcribes? where is the preſcribed Rule for ſinging Pſalms in Hopkins's and Sternhold's Metre? which yet is univerſally practiſed in moſt Pariſhes that I have heard of. The Title Page of the Common-Prayer-Book, tells us there are contained in it, the Pſalms pointed as they are to be ſaid or ſung; but what Pariſhes ſing according to thoſe Interpunctations? The end of the Book tells us, Here the Morning Prayer is ended; and, Here the Evening Prayer is ended: And yet when the Church has ended, the Pariſhes begin, and ſet up their Notes in thoſe Metrical Verſions. Again, what Rule have we for bowing towards the Altar? the East? the Church? And yet theſe modes and manners of worſhiping God are commonly practiſed. Are all thoſe Pariſh-Churches which are got into the garb and equipage of the Cathedrals, with Organs, Choriſters, and the like, Schiſmatical or no? If not: Then to worſhip God in another mode than what is preſcribed by the Church, may not be Schiſmatical Worſhip; but if it be ſo, then are thoſe Churches Schiſmatical, and how then can it be Schiſm to ſeparate from them?
2. It will follow alſo, (there's no remedy for it) that either the Parochial Churches, or the Cathedral, are Schiſmatical Churches; for the former are as much below the ſplendor of the latter, as the latter are above the ruſticity of the former. If there be two Rules, one for the mode of Cathedral Worſhip, another for that of the private Pariſhes, let them but allow half as much diverſity to the Diſſenters, and all the pother and duſt, and clamor of Schiſm will be over.
I would therefore propound one modeſt Queſtion, Why is this practice of ſinging Hopkins's Metre ſo univerſally practiſed, and yet ſo little or not at all preach'd againſt in the Pulpits? Is it for fear they ſhould have none left to preach to? That is not to be imagined of conſcientious and mortified men! Though it's true, Engliſh Men, they ſay, are like your Iriſh Cows, that will not give down their milk kindly, except their Calves ſtand by; or however, to humor them, the Calves skin ſtuft with ſtraw: Or is it lest they ſhould ſeem to condemn themſelves, that make Diſſenters Schiſmaticks, for that very thing which they themſelves practiſe? This looks ſomewhat oddly, I confeſs, and the tenderneſs of a man's mind in ſuch a caſe, may, out of meer ſhame-facedneſs, keep him from declaring a Truth which flies in his face while he ſpeaks it. What can it then be? Do they fear the reproaches of the People? I will not determine, but by asking the Doctor his own Queſtion, How comes it to be Schiſmatical in ſome, and lawful in others? Have they two weights and meaſures? Are the Diſſenters Schiſmaticks, for worſhiping God by other Rules; and the Pariſh-Churches pious Sons, who do the ſame thing? Or are they reſolved that all the World ſhall be Schiſmaticks beſides themſelves?
But the Doctor has got a Notion in his head, that theſe men are unwilling to confeſs a Separation, and he gives us the reaſon of it, becauſe they have formerly condemned it with great ſeverity, and yet they do the ſame things for which they charg'd others as guilty of a ſinful Separation.
A heavy Charge! and wants nothing but the old thing Proof. Is it not a wiſe courſe to pretend to give a Reaſon of nothing? To aſſign a cauſe of a thing, before it's clear that there is ſuch a thing in the World? To tell us why they are unwilling, before it appears they are unwilling? So far as they do Separate, they are willing to confeſs it; and would he have them confeſs more than the Truth againſt themſelves? They own that they do not locally hold Communion with all Pariſhes, at all times, in all the parts of Worſhip, and this they are ready to prove is not Schiſm, is not ſinful. They avow that they do hold Communion with ſome Pariſhes in ſome Ordinances, at ſome times, and this, they ſay, will avoid the charge of a total Separation. They ſay, they never condemned that for Separation in others, which they practiſe themſelves. How will he evince this? Why he has ranſacked and rumaged all the Papers of Accommodation that paſt between the Presbyterians, and the Independents, and there he finds, That the Aſſembly of Divines urged their diſſenting Brethren to comply with their Rules of Church-Government, and charged them with Schiſm if they did it not. Well, what then? Were the Rules propoſed by the Aſſembly the ſame with theſe that are urged now? Were they of the ſame nature? doubtfulneſs? difficulty? What if it was not the Aſſembly, but a Committee, a Sub-Committee, or a Subter-Sub-Committee of the Aſſembly? What if it was not the final judgment of the Aſſembly, but the private opinion of that Sub-Committee? And what if we be no ways obliged to abide by their judgments or opinions? And what if the Preſbyterians were too rigid, the other too ſtiff in their Sentiments, muſt the Church only imitate them in their weakneſſes, when they had ſo many excellencies which deſerved imitation? And laſtly, what if the Doctor has miſreported the matter of Fact as there laid down? Any of theſe, much more all theſe will render the moſt plauſible part of his Sermon preached, or his Diſcourſe printed, manifeſtly impertinent. All which particulars, and many more, I ſhall make out from thoſe very Papers.
(1) The Order of the Lords and Commons, Die Jovis, Novemb. 6. 1645, which Ordered the Committee to Act, gives them theſe Inſtructions, That they ſhould take into conſideration the differences in Opinions of the Members of the Aſſembly in point of Church-Government, and to endeavour an Union if it be poſſible; And in caſe that cannot be done, to endeavour to find out ſome way how far tender Conſciences, who cannot in all things ſubmit to the Common Rule, which ſhall be Eſtabliſhed, may be born with according to the word: Here we ſee a proviſion deſigned for Tender Conſciences, and that before the Rule was Eſtabliſht, in caſe an Union could not be procured, which had it been done in our caſe, all differences might have been compoſed.
(2) The Diſſenting Brethren ſay, p. 15. That they agreed in thoſe things which contained the Subſtance of the Service and Worſhip of God in the Directory, according to the Preface, and were confident they ſhould agree in the Confeſſion of Faith; ſo that here was nothing but a Punctilio of Government about which they differ'd.
(3) The Committee, p. 19. render this Reaſon, why the deſire of their Brethren could not, in Terminis, be granted, Becauſe it held out a total Separation from the Rule, as if in nothing it were to be complied with, nor their Churches be Communicated with in any thing, which argued Church-Communion, and that more could not be done or ſaid against falſe Churches, wherein though they might be miſtaken, yet it ſhews upon what Reaſons they proceeded; but the Perſons againſt whom the Doctor diſputes neither plead for, nor practice a total Separation, nor do any thing that may imply the Parrochial Churches to be falſe Churches.
(4.) The Committee, or Sub-Committee, had many things to urge, which the Doctor cannot make uſe of againſt the Diſſenters, as 1. That they were now endeavouring a further Reformation according to the Word of God; and therefore there was more ground for Hope, more reaſon for Patience to ſee what the Iſſue of their Conſultations might prove: And herein perhaps the Diſſenting Brethren might be a little too haſty and nimble with them; who knows but matters might have been adjuſted to their ſatisfaction? But things are much otherwiſe with us. For, 1. they are ſo far from Reforming according to the Word of God, that they own it not for a perfect Rule of Reformation. 2. They have taken up their Reſt, and will not proceed one Step farther, not to King Edward's Beginning, nor Queen Elizabeths Beginning, much leſs to what Poſture things were in at Chriſt's Beginning. 3. When they had power in their hands, by His Majeſties Commiſſion, to have reformed the Liturgy, to have eaſed the People of their Burdens, they would not Abate an Ace of their Pretenſions, but rendred the Terms of Communion more ſevere and difficult. 4. The Pariſh Churches are meer Minors, and under Age, they move by the Motions of others, cannot Reform themſelves, but are ſtrictly tyed up to the Rubricks, Canons, and Conſtitutions of the Convocation, ſo that we have not the ſame Reaſon to hope for their Reforming of Worſhip according to the Word of God, 5. And yet this ſhall not be any prejudice to them, for if they ſhall do ſo, though it were to morrow, or a year, or ten years hence, we ſtand ready to fall in with ſuch Reformation: And farther, 2. the Committee did plead, That they had both of them Covenanted to endeavour the neareſt Conjunction, and therefore, for their Oaths ſake, were bound to part with as much of their Right as with a good Conſcience they could foregoe: But Diſſenters are under no ſuch Obligation, that they know of, to endeavour ſuch Conjunction with them who obtend their meer Wills to their Edification; and ſome pretend farther, That they are under a Solemn Covenant to endeavour a Reformation according to the Word of God, in their reſpective places and ſtations, and therefore ought not to comply with any Declenſions and Departures from ſuch Reformation.
(5) the Committee were willing, That ſome Expedient ſhould be endeavoured, how to bear with Diſſenters in the Particulars wherein they could not agree; But we ſee no ſuch expedient endeavoured after, nor once thought of, nay declared againſt, notwithſtanding the many Humble Petitions for Peace that have been preſented to them, notwithſtanding His Majeſties Gracious Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, and the Parliaments Inclinations to ſhew ſome favour to tender Conſciences; nay they have declared againſt any Condeſcentions, and are daily provoking Magiſtrates to the utmoſt Rigour, and are like the immovable Bank, to which if the Diſſenters will not wholly come over, the Boat and the Bank muſt never meet.
(6) Such was the tenderneſs of that Committee, that we find not ſo much in a dozen Convocations. For firſt they offer, That ſuch as, through ſcruple or error of Conſcience, cannot joyn to partake of the Lords Supper, ſhall repair to the Miniſter and Elders for ſatisfaction, which if they cannot receive, they ſhall not be compel'd to Communicate in the Lords Supper, provided that in all other parts of Worſhip (wherein there was an agreement) they joyned with the Congregation. 2. They offer, p. 22. That ſuch as are under the Government of the Congregation where they live (not being Officers) ſhall ſeek ſatisfaction (as before) which if they cannot receive, they ſhall not be compel'd to be under the power of Cenſures from Claſſes or Synods, provided they continued under the Government of that Congregation. How joyful at, how thankful for ſuch Moderation would thouſands of poor Engliſh-men be, if they might enjoy the Benefit of ſuch a Canon, to ſave their Perſons from a Priſon, their Eſtates from Ruine, and their Families from Deſolation!
(7) The Sub-Committee do readily acknowledge, That Schiſm conſiſts not in every diverſity of Opinion and Practice, but in an open Breach of Love, and that no Uniformity is neceſſary to prevent Schiſm. p. 47. But the Doctor would make us believe, p. 32. That men may pleaſe themſelves in talking of Peace and Love under ſeparate Communions, but ſad Experience ſhews the contrary.
(8) The Committee, p. 48. think the Diſſenting Brethren wrong them, in ſaying That they make thoſe Impoſitions upon the people as qualifications for receiving Sacraments, whenas they deſired no more than that the people appeared to be Orthodox: But certainly here's ſomething more than Orthodoxy required of us (even in the judgment of their own Teſt of Orthodoxy) as a qualification for receiving Sacraments; and we muſt Submit to the Sign of the Croſs in the one Sacrament for our Infants, and Kneeling in the other, as neceſſary to our own receiving them, when neither the one nor the other were mentioned by the Aſſembly.
(9) The Committee expreſly declare, they would not have the Diſſenting Brethren walk by their Rule farther than as they had attained: But the Doctor is for the Rule of Severity, waving the great Rule of Charity, notwithſtanding the different attainments of Chriſtians.
(10) The Committee profeſs their Wonder (p. 49.) That their Brethren ſhould impute it to them, as if they arrogated to themſelves a power in Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies to determine and impoſe circumſtantial matters: Seeing, ſay they, our Propoſition doth mention nothing but Agreement in Subſtance. But the Doctor ſuppoſing that we are agreed in the Subſtantials of Worſhip with him, yet preſſes us to come to the Churches Rules in thoſe things which they themſelves call Circumſtantials.
(11) The Committee, p. 49. deſires, That the matters of Offence may be particularly expreſſed, profeſſing their earneſt deſire, as much as in them lay, to remove whatever may hinder comfortable Communion, that there may be no juſt cauſe of Separation. But the preſent Diſſenters have particularly expreſſed the matters of their Offence, and cannot obtain a removal of them, neither for Love nor Money; and it's a very hard World when neither of thoſe two Wedges will drive.
(12) And they ſay farther, That the Honourable Houſes may find out more for Reformation than haply the Aſſembly have Adviſed, or themſelves yet concluded, ſo that they will be willing to be farther inſtructed in the things that belong to the Churches Peace. But our good Maſters have ſet up their Hercules's Pillars, and Engraven on them Ne plus ultra, ſo that now Hope it ſelf is become hopeleſs, Patience worn to the Stumps, and all Endeavours out of breath; for after Cheeſe and Canon comes Nothing.
(13) Whatever the Altercations and Debates between the two Parties were in the Sub-Committee, yet the Reſolve, at laſt, (which is the main, if not only thing conſiderable) was this, Decemb. 15. Reſolved upon the queſtion, That they which agree in the ſubſtance of the Worſhip in the Directory according to the Preface, and agree in the Confeſſion of Faith, and with the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, contained in their Confeſſions and writings, as we do, who differ from thoſe Brethren in matters of Diſcipline, ſhall have the benefit of the Indulgence.
In ſhort, It may be a plauſible, but no righteous Method, to take the Arguments of the Committee, which were only concluſive in the Caſe before them (and perhaps not there) and to applie them to our preſent Caſe, which is quite another thing; And yet when all is ſaid that can be ſaid in this matter, it muſt be confeſſed there were undue heats and animoſities between the Brethren, both ſtanding too high upon their Pantables, which deſerves to be lamented, and not Imitated, and drawn into Argument and Example to juſtifie the inflexible Rigour of the preſent Terms of Communion.