The Mischief of Impositions, Sect 4
SECT. IV. Of the Obligation that lies upon Chriſtians to walk by the ſame Rule. The Doctor's two queſtions propounded. The former conſidered; but no anſwer to it given by him. Several preliminaries examined.
THe Reverend Doctor having at length got over the flats, and bars, that lay at the mouth of the channel, is now hoiſing up his main Sail to the wind: And can we expect his diſcourſe ſhould run more naturally and ſmoothly? for having begg'd one half of the controverſie, he may more eaſily borrow the reſt of it. And therefore from the obligation that lies upon Chriſtians, to walk by the ſame Rule (that is, ſuch a Rule as he has made for the Apoſtle, and us) There will ariſe (ſaies he) two very conſiderable Queſtions: that is to ſay, where one abſurditie is granted, two more (nay twenty) will follow.
1. Queſtion. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an eſtabliſht Rule, and to preſerve the Peace of the Church we live in? This Queſtion I confeſs is conſiderable, very conſiderable, had he told us what the Rule eſtabliſht is: for there are very crooked ones in the World; and who muſt be the Rule maker? for there are many pretenders; and then proved that we are to comply with it; but to enquire how far we are to comply, and not make it out, that we are to comply at all, to ſuch Rules as he has contrived, is not ſo conſiderable as he would perſwade us. And yet ſeeing the hare is ſtarted, I wiſh it were caught, and ſince he has propounded the queſtion, it had been well if he had anſwered it, which we might demand in Juſtice, but ſhall take it for a ſpecial favour, if he will at any time hereafter, tell us how far we are to comply with an eſtabliſht Rule.
At preſent he cannot be at leiſure; in the mean time, for the preventing all miſunderſtanding the deſign of his Diſcourſe, he deſires us to conſider;
(1) That he ſpeaks not of the ſeparation, or diſtinct communion of whole Churches from each other: we are glad of that: Firſt, becauſe if he allow ſeparation by whole ſale, we ſhall do the better, if the retail trade be denyed: And ſecondly, becauſe hereby the Churches of the diſſenters will be out of the way his anger: for (as he adds) Theſe whole Churches, according to Scripture, Antiquity and Reaſon, have a juſt right and power to reform themſelves: If then the Churches of the diſſenters be but true Churches, and whole Churches; If they have in them all the eſſentials of Churches; If they have paſtors rightly qualified, duly choſen, the word of God purely preached, the Sacraments duly adminiſtred, and all other ordinances of Chriſt regularly uſed, they have then power to govern and reform themſelves.
But by whole Churches, he means the Churches of ſuch nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire reſumed their juſt right of government to themſelves, and upon their owning Chriſtianity incorporated into one Chriſtian ſociety under the ſame common Ties, and Rules of Government. To which I anſwer;
1. It's not material in this Caſe what Churches he means; for if they be true Churches of Chriſt, his ill meaning will not deprive them; if they be not ſo, his good meaning will not give them a power to reform themſelves.
2. It may be quaeried how thoſe Churches of the nations which ſeparated from the Roman Empire, came by this great priviledge to reform and govern themſelves, more than others? for if it be an inherent power, and right, all Churches have it; if not, who could give it to ſome more than others?
3. We ſhould be glad to ſee what right to govern and reform themſelves was given by the Scripture to national Churches; (which yet the Doctor affirms) It had been very convenient to have proved their Being from Scripture, before he aſſerted their right and power: And it will make men admire, that the Scripture ſhould give a right to ſuch Churches as it never knew.
4. And if the Churches of thoſe nations, that were incorporated into national Churches upon the decay of the Roman Empire, did by conſent embody for their own preſervation, it can hardly be believed, that they deſign'd their own deſtruction; that is, that thoſe particular Churches ſhould grant a power to National Eccleſiaſtical Governours that would deprive them of that power that they had within themſelves: For as it cannot be imagined that ever any number of families would embody to ſet a civil Governour over them, and entruſt him with a power that would deſtroy propriety, or take away paternal authority, or the juſt power of Maſters over Servants; ſo neither can we ſuppoſe in a dream, that particular Churches ſhould agree to unite in ſuch a national frame, as ſhould deſtroy the power of the Paſtors and Elders of the particular aſſemblies, ſo as they ſhould be but the Curates, and their Churches but Chappels of to the Cathedrals, and Biſhops, which were prudential Creatures, erected meerly by their own conſent.
5. To ſay that the Church of Macedonia would have been National, if from being a Roman province, it had become a Chriſtian Kingdom, is to ſay thus much and no more: That there would have been a national Church in Macedonia, but for a ſmall inconvenience, that there was none.
6. And to ſay, that the ſeveral Churches of the Lydian, or proconſular Aſia would have been a National Church, if they had been united in one Kingdom, and governed by the ſame authority under the ſame Rules: is to ſay, juſt as much, that is, nothing or nothing to the purpoſe: for the uniting of ſeveral Churches under one Prince, who governs them by the ſame Authority and Rules, will not make one Church.
7. And what ſtrange kind of Churches were they, who having aſſumed their juſt right of Government, did then own Chriſtianity, and then incorporate into one Church? where had they their juſt right of Government, before their owning of Chriſtianity?
8. And if theſe particular Churches of Nations, had power to incorporate into one National Church; then the particular Churches are of Chriſts inſtitution, and theſe National Churches only prudential contrivances for common ſecurity: and then it will follow that the National could have no power but what was freely given them by the particular Churches, which cannot be imagined was ever given to their own Annihilation, or rendring them meerly titular; and perhaps they may reſume their right, when as weighty reaſons do appear for the reſumption, as ever there were for their reſignation.
9. And if theſe particular Churches have ſo far devolved all the intrinſick power which Chriſt veſted them with, upon the National frame, and conſtitution, that they cannot now govern themſelves, reform themſelves, or exert the power which they ſometimes had and enjoyed; then have they unchurched themſelves, and remain only ſo much matter without form; and then it can be no ſchiſm to ſeparate from them, ſince all corruptions among them muſt be immortal when they have fooliſhly quitted the power of reforming themſelves, except the National Church pleaſes.
This word Church, has made a great noiſe in the world, and we hear every moment, what wonders, what miracles the Church can do: Now there's a natural curioſity in all men to ſee that perſon or thing that boaſts of this wonder-working power, and accordingly, we would gladly be acquainted with this body called Church: To ſatisfie our Humour, the Doctor tells us, That the true Notion of a Church, is no more than a ſociety of men united together for their order, and government, according to the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion: which deſcription I perceive marvelouſly edifies all that hear it: For a Parliament is a ſociety of men, and of men united, and united for their order and government, and truly I believe according to the Rules of the Chriſtian Religion. Quare now, whether the Parliament of England, be not the Church of England.
I humbly conceive the Doctor fell aſleep in the next words; It's a great miſtake (ſays he) to make a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worſhip; and conſequently that the true Notion of a Church, is an Aſſembly for Divine Worſhip: For never certainly was any ſo bereaved of common ſenſe, as to aſſert that this is the adaequate Notion of a Church. It had been civil to have quoted ſome one obſcure Nonconformiſt, that in ſome Book which none ever read but the Doctor, has aſſerted ſuch an Abſurdity. We ſay that the Publick Worſhip of God is one of the Ends of uniting into a Church Society, but not the onelyonly End; and to exclude Worſhip, (as the Doctor ſeems to do in his deſcription) is as bad, if not worſe, than to exclude Diſcipline and Government: But we agree that Worſhip is not the onelyonly End, there muſt be Government, Diſcipline exerciſed in every Church; what will the Doctor gain by all this, but that our Parochial Churches are not true Churches? And when the Doctor ſays further, There must be ſome other Bond to unite Churches, (ſome other beſides Worſhip) I cannot enough admire at the abſurdity of the expreſſion, ſeeing Worſhip is not the Bond, but the End of Union.
It has been familiar with this Reverend and Learned Perſon, having been employ'd in more important Controverſies, either to miſtake, or miſrepreſent the Notions and Principles of the Diſſenters: for ſo I find him, Anſw. to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 180, 181. laying this down as a fundamental Principle (of thoſe who ſeparate from the Church of England) as to Worſhip, (wherein the difference lies) that nothing is lawful in the Worſhip of God, but what he has expreſly commanded: And at the bottom of the ſame Page, he repeats the ſame thing, with the ſame confidence; wherein the Doctor treads in the ſteps of Archbiſhop Whitgift, (and he muſt tread in his ſteps if ever he reach Lambeth) who in his anſwer to the Admonition, does charge the Puritans to hold, That nothing was lawful in Worſhip, but what was expreſly commanded in the Word of God; upon no better ground, than that the Admonition had ſaid, nothing is lawful in Worſhip, but what God has commanded. To this Mr. Cartwright replies, Is this to interpret mens words? Are theſe Phraſes equipollent, [Commanded, and expreſly commanded?] Many things are forbidden, many things commanded, which are neither expreſly commanded, or forbidden. We ſay not, no Ceremony, no Order, no Diſcipline is lawful in the Church, but what is expreſly found in the Word of God; but that men may not act arbitrariouſly, that they are bound to conform themſelves to the general Rules of the Scripture, which are given forth as a Rule by which to ſquare all Religious matters. Thus far Mr. Cartwright. And ſo do we openly and freely own that direct, immediate conſequence from Scripture, or whatever is included in the general Rules of Scripture ſhall conclude and determine us in theſe diſputes.
Here again the Doctor thinks he has gravelled us with an unanſwerable queſtion.
If (ſaies he) it be mutual conſent, and agreement which makes a Church, why then may not national Societies agreeing together in the ſame faith, and under the ſame government, and diſcipline be as truly, and properly a Church, as any particular Congregation? I will tell him why, if he pleaſe to hear me out with patience. 1. Becauſe it is not mutual conſent and agreement and alone in the general, but ſuch agreement, and conſent as the Goſpel warrants, which we have for particular Churches, which were well known to the Scriptures, but not for National, to which conſtitution, the Scriptures are perfect ſtrangers. 2. Becauſe the end of that conſent and agreement muſt be conſidered, and looked at; which is union for worſhip, though not for worſhip alone, to which end national union ſignifies nothing, ſeeing that a National Church (unleſs it be a Church no larger than the Kingdom of Ivetot) can never meet together for that end. 3. Becauſe the particular Churches muſt conſent to nothing that may deſtroy their own government, and power of reforming whatever corruptions by length of time ſteal and creep in among them: But if his meaning be, that they may be called a Church, it's little to us, what he ſhall pleaſe to call them, ſeeing we do not intend to draw the Saw of contention about the Nomenclature of that or any other Body.
From reaſoning, the Doctor proceeds to wondring at thoſe who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England; and he will inform their ignorance concerning it: We mean (ſaies he) That ſociety of Chriſtian people which in this Nation are united under the ſame profeſſion of faith, the ſame laws of government, and Rules of divine worſhip. Whence it will follow that the Churches of diſſenters are each of them the Church of England: For every one of them is, 1. A ſociety of Chriſtian people; though perhaps in his judgment but bad ones, yet as good as their Neighbours. 2. They are in this Nation; though full ſore againſt ſome mens wills; who would have them removed by Capital puniſhments or baniſhment. 3. They are united under the ſame profeſſion of faith: that is, one half of them are not Socinians or Arminians and the other half Calviniſts. 4. They are united under the ſame laws of Government. 5. And they have the ſame Rules of divine worſhip: And then it follows too by the Doctor's conceſſion, they have a right of governing each Church its own ſelf, and of reforming errors in Doctrine, and corruptions in worſhip.
Notwithſtanding this famous definition, what man is the wiſer, or knows more than he did before what the Church of England is? For, 1. We underſtand not by this Deſcription, who is the viſible head of this Church; whether a civil or eccleſiaſtical perſon, and by conſequence are at a loſs whether the Church may be called a civil or eccleſiaſtical conſtitution. 2. We are not informed how this National Church became ſo united; whether they were driven together by violence, or drew together by their conſent; whether it was not ſome ſtorm or tempeſt that might joſtle them all on a heap, or whether the conſent of the particular Congregations was asked, and obtained in order to this coalition: We have ſeen ſome Churches in this nation, that have had their Paſtors torn from them, and the Sheep ſcattered; ſtrangers obtruded upon others, whoſe perſons they knew not, whoſe miniſterial gifts they had no trial of, and all his right to them was, that he was nominated by a certain Gentleman called the Patron, and the inſtitution of the Dioceſan, and if with their conſent it was ſuch a one as was obtained by dureſs; and do well call this uniting; what was it then which united them? why ſome of the Miniſters of the Parochial Churches met together, and choſe one or two out of their number, and ſent them up to a convocation, and theſe meeting with ſome others, they call Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, Deans, &c. agreed upon a national Church-frame, without the leaſt conſent of many of the particular Churches. And this is the too much boaſted Union.
(2) Another thing he would have us conſider, is, He does not intend to ſpeak of the Terms upon which perſons are to be admitted to the exerciſe of the function of the Miniſtry, but of the Terms of Lay-communion. And it was adviſedly done; for if it be ſo difficult to render Lay-communion practicable, what will it be to juſtifie all thoſe terms upon which Miniſters are admitted to the function of the Miniſtry, or the exerciſe of it? But why does he mention the exerciſe of the function, and not the function it ſelf? Do they uſe to ordain Miniſters to a Miniſterial work, and then prohibit them to exerciſe the work of their miniſtry till further order? Muſt men pay for an Order to Act, and then be put to purchaſe another order that they may act according to their order? ſurely one of theſe fees might have been ſaved, and it might have been ſufficient either to buy a Licenſe to preach without ordination, or an ordination to preach without a Licenſe: The Country Chancellors are more merciful, who do not uſually, that I hear of, ſell a man a Licenſe to marry, and then Compel him to take another Licenſe to lie with his Bride,
It is confeſſed that the Terms upon which Miniſters are admitted to their function, and the exerciſe of it, are more ſevere than thoſe upon which the Laity (as they love to call them) are admitted to communion in the word and Sacraments; and there might be reaſon for it, ſeeing the Laity held no good fat Parſonages, that might tempt any to eject them: But yet the Terms are not ſuch eaſie things of digeſtion, but they lie upon the ſtomachs of thouſands to this day, and ſome of them are as hard to ſwallow as the biggeſt gobblets that are impoſed upon the Clergy; and they are apt to think that the ſame terms that are impoſed upon their Paſtors, are impoſed upon themſelves by conſequence, ſeeing they approve interpretatively their Miniſters ſubſcriptions, their declarations, their oaths, by owning them for their Paſtors, whom they know upon ſuch terms to have been aſſignned to them; nor do they love to have him for their Paſtor whom they know to be of a different Religion from theirs: But here are ſome particulars, wherein the Reader will deſire the Doctor's ingenuity, and that plainneſs which became a ſermon.
1. He aſſerts that there has been a great deal of art uſed to confound theſe two; this I ſay is not honeſt dealing; for they that Judge parochial Lay-communion lawful, and have the greateſt latitude that way, have from Preſs and Pulpit ſufficiently proclaimed their minds; and they that judge otherwiſe have by their own practice and example ſufficiently declared their judgment, unleſs the Doctor be angry that they do not fill up their publick worſhip with declamations againſt Ceremonies; and they that have made the neareſt approaches to Parochial Communion, have found ſuch bad treatment, that they are tempted to judge, the Clergy are more afraid of their coming wholly in, than keeping out of the Church, and they are to be allowed the fitteſt judges in this caſe, becauſe they know beſt what ſtock the Church-commons will bear: In the mean time they may take warning how they approach too near that flame which has already ſinged ſome or their wings, and may poſſibly conſume their whole bodies, but conſciencious men are above thoſe conſiderations.
2. The Doctor tells us, that in the Judgment of the moſt impartial among the diſſenters, little is to be ſaid on the behalf of the people from whom none of thoſe things are required. None of theſe things? what, not to dedicate their Children to God by the ſign of the croſs? not to kneel at the Sacrament? I am ſure the Canons of 1603. have declared (Can. 30.) that in memory of the Croſs, and other Reaſons, the Church of England hath thought meet to retain the ſign of the Croſs in baptiſm, taking it for a ſymbol, whereby the Infant is devoted or dedicated to the ſervice of him who dyed the death of the Croſs: This is the true import of that Canon, which I cannot now give the Reader the Engliſh of Verbatim, having only by me a Latine Copy of thoſe Canons. And thoſe of the moſt impartial among the diſſenters, and ſuch as have come neareſt to conformity in their Lay-Capacity, will tell you that there are ſome things which even they in their private ſtation cannot comply withall.
3. The Doctor does not underſtand, how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a ſin in hearing them. Either then the things are unintelligible, or the Dr. is not that man of underſtanding we have always taken him for: what the Diviſions of Reuben were, he does not well underſtand, p. 2. Why many Cities united under one civil government, and the ſame Rules of Religion, ſhould not be called one national Church, he cannot underſtand, p. 19. And if occaſional Communion be lawful, that conſtant Communion ſhould not be a duty, is hard to underſtand, p. 56. And now here how they can preach lawfully to a people, who commit a fault in hearing them, he does not underſtand. But what great difficulty lies in this? Some do ſin though they hear, and yet not ſin becauſe they hear; or there may be a ſin in the hearer, and yet no ſin in hearing; but whatever the tempers or diſtempers, the ends and deſigns of the hearers are, that which juſtifies the Miniſters preaching is his own call to the Miniſtry, not the qualification of the hearers: A man may come from the next pariſh to hear the Doctor, when by the Rules of the Church he ſhould have been in his own pariſh Church, and yet the Doctor will not think that this ſuperſedes the exerciſe of his Miniſtry. Some may come out of cuſtom becauſe they have uſed to trundle thither down the hill; others out of curioſity to hear a perſon of whom fame has ſpoken ſo much; others out of a carping humour to pick quarrels, as no doubt Prieſts, and Jeſuites have done, and yet the Doctor ſatisfies himſelf, that it is his duty to do his Maſters work, and however they hear ſinfully, ſchiſmatically, captiouſly, yet he is acquitted in his miniſterial ſervice.
(3) The Doctor tells us, he does not confound bare ſuſpending Communion in ſome particular Rites, with either total, or at leaſt ordinary forbearance of Communion in what they judge lawful, and proceeding to the forming of ſeparate Congregations. What great matter is it to us, or to the controverſie, what the Doctor ſhall pleaſe to confound, or to diſtinguiſh? The law of the nation, which is the aſſigned Rule and Reaſon of Conformity, requires total Conformity to all Rites. The Law conſiders not whether mens ſcruples be modeſt, or immodeſt, nor what they judge lawful or unlawful; Conformity is exacted to the whole Liturgy, Ceremonies, and the Laity muſt not pick and chuſe what they can uſe, and refuſe the reſt; they muſt like Travellours on the King's high way, keep to the road, and not break out here and there to eſcape the foul way: If the Doctor were the Church of England, or the Parliament, it were conſiderable, but as the caſe ſtands, we are under a peremptory law: Now then, if there be ſome things which we do ſcruple, and not only ſcruple, but upon the moſt impartial ſcrutiny we can make, do judge ſinful, and theſe be made the condition of enjoying one Sacrament, or other Ordinance of Chriſt, and that by a law of his as peremptory as any of theſe of men, and impoſed upon a far more ſevere penalty than man can inflict, we are bound to live in the conſtant uſe of all his inſtitutions; we muſt unite our ſelves to thoſe churches where we may enjoy them upon better terms.
Thus much in conſideration of his conſiderations: But yet we are to ſeek for the anſwer to the Queſtion: How far we are obliged to comply with an eſtabliſht Rule? Separation of whole Churches is ſhut out of the Queſtion; Miniſterial Conformity is ſhut out of the Queſtion; Suſpending Communion in ſome particular Rites is ſhut out of the Queſtion; But where is the anſwer to the Queſtion? That is adjourned or prorogued, or utterly loſt, and therefore if any honeſt Gentleman or Citizen has taken up the anſwer to this queſtion, loſt between St. Pauls and the Guild-Hall Chappel, let him reſtore it to the owner, and he will be well rewarded for his pains. And now let the Reader judge, whether the diſſenters are not likely to be well inſtructed by a Catechiſm, made up of Queſtions without Anſwers?