The Mischief of Impositions, Section 5
SECT. V. The ſtate of the preſent Controverſie between the diſagreeing Parties, (as laid down by the Doctor) what Conceſſions ſome Diſſenters make, and what uſe the Doctor makes of them?
THE former Queſtion being laid by at preſent, he comes to conſider the preſent Caſe of Separation, and to make the ſinfulneſs and miſchief of it appear: And this is it, which denominates the Diſcourſe, The Miſchief of Separation: Though to an impartial Conſiderer, how loth they are to ſtep over a ſtraw, or to forgo the leaſt of their Impoſitions, which have made the Separation, it might better have been ſtiled, The Miſchief of Union. Now to do this, (as he thinks more convincingly) he will firſt lay down ſome Conceſſions. It had been a more convincing method in the judgment of moſt Men, if he had proved Separation ſinful from Scripture grounds, rather than from ſome Mens Conceſſions, ſeeing I do not underſtand either that we are bound to ſtand to their Conceſſions, or that the Conceſſions themſelves will do his Cauſe the leaſt ſervice: And they themſelves have been ſo bang'd by the Papiſts by this Argumentum ad hominem, that one would think they ſhould have little comfort to uſe it. We cannot forget how in the Relation of the Conference between the A. B. Laud, and the Jeſuite, the Lady who gave occaſion to the Diſpute, asked this Queſtion, Whether a Perſon living and dying in Communion with the Church of Rome, might be ſaved? His Grace anſwered affirmatively. Now what Triumphs before the Victory the Papiſts have made upon this Conceſſion, the Doctor has ſufficient cauſe to underſtand: You (ſay they) confeſs that Salvation is attainable in Communion with us: we peremptorily deny it, That Salvation may be had in your Communion; And therefore the ſafeſt way is, to hold Communion there where both ſides agree Salvation may be attained. This Argument from that Conceſſion is much ſtronger, than one drawn from the Conceſſion of any one or many amongſt us; becauſe we own no learned Men to be our Eccleſiaſtical Head, as that Archbiſhop was ſuppoſed to have been theirs. But thus fared it with them for their Charity to Rome, and thus fares it with us for our Charity to them; they cannot own Rome to be a true Church, and that perſons in that Communion may be ſaved, but they muſt hear on't on both ſides of their ears; why then did you ſeparate from a true Church, wherein you might have been ſaved? Nor muſt we grant the Church of England to be a true Church, but preſently we are pelted with the ſame Reply that was thrown at their heads, why then did you ſeparate? But we had rather ſuffer by our Charitableneſs, and their Uncharitableneſs, than admit any the leaſt Temptation to deny the Church of England to be a true Church, and to hold all the eſſential Points of Faith, ſeeing the Doctor himſelf has granted as much as this comes to, where he allows of Separation; yet let us hear what theſe Conceſſions are.
§ 1. They unanimouſly confeſs they find no fault with the Doctrinal Articles of our Church. Doctrinal Articles? Are there then any Articles that are not Doctrinal? Every Article contains, as I always thought, ſome Doctrine or other; and which then are the Non-doctrinal Articles? more particularly,
1. It is not true, that the Diſſenters unanimouſly confeſs they find no fault with the Doctrine of the Church; for I am confident none of them but do find fault with that Doctrine, That Children baptized, and dying before the commiſſion of actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved. And that other, That whoſoever believeth not ſtedfaſtly all that is contained in the Athanaſian Creed, cannot be ſaved, but ſhall periſh everlaſtingly.
2. They do not believe all the Articles of the Thirty nine, and particularly not the 20th, of the Churches power to impoſe Rites and Ceremonies; and that alſo is a Doctrinal Article.
3. But if by Doctrinal Articles be intended no more, than thoſe that relate to the eſſential Points of ſaving Faith, it's true they find no fault with them, but then it's as true, that the Doctor has confeſt alſo, That the Church of Rome maintains all ſuch Articles, and yet he juſtifies the Separation from their Communion; whence it will unavoidably follow, that it is lawful to ſeparate from a Church which holds all the eſſential Points of Faith abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation.
4. And what is it to the Laity, what Doctrinal Articles are contained in the Book compiled 1562. if the contrary Doctrines be now openly preached in thoſe Parochial Churches to which their adherence is required? For if their Communion with the Pariſh Churches be the thing which he mainly inſiſts on, it's of more concern to them what is there preach'd, than what Faith they were of an hundred years ago.
§ 2. They generally yield, that our Parochial Churches are true Churches, and it is with theſe their Communion is required. And are not then the Parochial Churches more beholden to the Diſſenters, than to the Doctor, whoſe Principles do deny them to be true Churches? For ſo he tells us, p. 27. That although when the Churches encreaſed, the occaſional meetings were frequent in ſeveral places, yet ſtill there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptiſtry, and one Biſhop: So that the Parochial Congregations are but occaſional meetings, members and appurtenances of the Cathedral, Chappels of Eaſe under the Mother Church, but no true Churches, becauſe each has not its proper Biſhop: And ſo they make the Dioceſan Biſhop the onelyonly Paſtor, and the Parochial Teachers to be onelyonly his Curates, to eaſe them of the trouble and cumber of Preaching. And ſome have obſerved a ſtrange Innovation in the very office of the Miniſter of late years; for whereas in the old Ordination of Prieſts, they enſtated them in their whole office, by reading that Text, Acts 20.28. Feed the Flock, whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you Overſeers, or Biſhops. This Text is now omitted, and Miniſters are ordain'd to preach when and where the Biſhops ſhall give them a Licence. And thus the Parochial Teachers are no Officers of Chriſt, but creatures of the Biſhops making; nor have they any Juriſdiction, any power of Government or Diſcipline in their hands, (which all thoſe Paſtors whom Chriſt appointed are veſted with) but ſerve to execute the Decrees, Sentences, and Awards of the Chancellors, Officials, and Commiſſaries, without liberty to interpoſe ſo much as a judgment of diſcretion: And though they retain the name of Rectors, yet 'tis rather a footſtep of what once originally they were, but not any term that carries or imports in it any real Authority. And what if the Diſſenters do not deny that you have all the Eſſentials of true Churches, true Doctrine, true Sacraments, and an implicit Covenant between Paſtors and People? Do not alſo our great Clergymen own and allow, that Rome hath all theſe? The Doctor, I am certain, allows them to be true Churches, to have all the Eſſentials of true Churches, and that they have true Sacraments too; elſe why are not they re-baptized which from Rome are converted, and brought over to the Church of England? And true Miniſters, elſe why are they not re-ordained, who, after reconciliation, are allowed to exerciſe their Miniſterial Function? when yet a Miniſter ordained by the Reformed Churches, ſhall not enjoy that priviledge, meerly for want of Epiſcopal Ordination. And will the Doctor deny that they have the Euchariſt in all its eſſential parts, though they have ſuperadded many groſs Corruptions? as they have many Errors in the Doctrine of Faith, which yet does not in his judgment, deſtroy the eſſential points of the Chriſtian Doctrine.
(3) Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful. And then 1. Who is the true Catholick Chriſtian, and who is the real Schiſmatick? He that holds Communion with all Proteſtant Churches occaſionally lawful, and accordingly holds Communion with them actually as Providence gives him opportunity; or he that denying all Churches to be truly ſuch, except his own, refuſes Communion with them, for want of a Ceremony or two, and the neceſſary conſequence of a Ceremony, A Biſhop? 2. That they hold Communion with this Church to be lawful, is one of thoſe dubious Propoſitions which will do the conceding Party no harm, nor them that make uſe of it any ſervice. First, many of them declare ſo, and many declare otherwiſe; but they do neither of them prejudge the other, nor intend to bind them to their private ſentiments: and it's as good an argument to prove Communion unlawful, becauſe many declare againſt it, as 'tis to prove it lawful, becauſe many declare for it. Secondly, they declare Communion lawful, but do they declare total Communion lawful? The ſame perſons will tell us, that both theſe Propoſitions are true, Communion is lawful, and Communion is unlawful; Communion in ſome parts of worſhip is ſo, in others not: And thirdly, they will further tell us, that Communion with ſome Pariſh-Churches is lawful, with others unlawful; that there are not the ſame Doctrines preached, the ſame Ceremonies urged, the ſame rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted. And laſtly, that occaſional Communion is or may be lawful, where a ſtated and fixed Communion is not ſo; and they give this reaſon for their judgment and practice, becauſe to hold Communion with one Church, or ſort of Chriſtians, excluſively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches; and that there are ſome things tolerable which are not eligible, wherein they can bear with much for peace-ſake, but chuſe rather to ſit down ordinarily with purer adminiſtrations.
It is a dangerous thing to give us uncertain ambulatory Notions of Schiſm, other than what the Scripture has given us, both becauſe the Scriptures alone can inform us what is the Notion of a true Church, and by conſequence what muſt be the true Notion of ſinful Separation from it; and becauſe theſe unſtable mutable Notions of Schiſm, will make that to be Schiſm in one Countrey, which is an innocent thing in another; and that to be Schiſm one year, which perhaps the next may prove a good and Catholick practice. That was Schiſm in England in Edward the 6th's days, which was not ſo in Queen Maries; and that was Schiſm in Her Reign, which became none in the days of Her Succeſſor. And we may be Schiſmaticks here in England, when if we croſs the water we ſhall be none, though we practiſe the ſame Worſhip, and retain all that which at home would have faſtened that brand upon us. And if we travel through Germany, though perhaps we cannot be Schiſmaticks and Catholicks twice a day, becauſe the miles are very long, yet may we be both backwards and forwards forty times in a Twelvemonth, and continue the ſame men both in principle and practice that we were when we went our pilgrimage.
It is little to our purpoſe, what the Doctor is pleaſed to tell us, what one told him, viz. that An. Dom. 1663. Divers Preachers met at London, to conſider how far it was lawful, or their duty to communicate with the Pariſh-Churches, where they lived, in the Liturgy and Sacraments: or that 20 Reaſons were brought in to prove, that it is a duty in ſome perſons, to join with ſome Pariſh-Churches three times a year in the Lord's Supper: For, 1. If they conſider'd how far it was lawful: I hope they ſpoke ſomething at leaſt to the Queſtion, and left it not as they found it, a Queſtion forſaken of its Anſwer, which ought to be individual Companions. 2. They met to conſider what was lawful for, or a duty to themſelves, not for or to others in whoſe names they had no commiſſion to hear and determine the Queſtion. 3. If they inquired how far it was lawful, or a duty; they ſuppoſed that it was not unlimitedly ſo, for to what end ſhould they inquire how far they might go, if they had once thought they could go through? 4. And the deſign of the twenty reaſons abundantly proves it; for it was but ſome perſons, whoſe duty it was adjudged to be to receive the Sacrament thrice a year, and it was but in ſome pariſhes neither, where thoſe ſome perſons might communicate, ſo that there might be ſome others, many others, poſſibly the greateſt number, whoſe duty it was not ſo to joyn; and other ſome pariſhes, many others, and and poſſibly the greateſt number with whom it was not lawful or not a duty to hold Communion. The Caſe then is this, a Chriſtian may be placed in ſuch circumſtances, that he may receive the Sacrament from ſome perſons who will indulge him in the queſtionable Terms, in ſuch places where he cannot enjoy that ordinance at all if he do not receive it there; and thus with many reſtrictions, limitations, diſtinctions and clauſes a Caſe may be put, wherein the twenty reaſons may conclude ſome thing, but yet nothing to the Doctors advantage: But what effect, what operation had theſe twenty reaſons upon the Company? Why! none of them ſeemed to diſſent, that is, they did not enter their ſeveral proteſtations, nor formally declare againſt the Reaſons of their Brother; like wiſe and wary perſons, they would adviſe upon them: They came to conſider of the lawfulneſs of Communion, and they would go away and conſider of the ſtrength of the Reaſons propounded to convince them. I ſee it's more dangerous than I had thought it to have been, to come into the pariſh Churches, leſt naked preſence, and ſilent appearing in thoſe aſſemblies, ſhould be brought againſt us, as an interpretative approbation of whatſoever is there done or ſpoken.
The Doctor adds, that they had ſuch another meeting after the plague and fire, (and if it were but ſuch another, there was no great harm in't) at which they agreed that communion with our Church was in it ſelf lawful and good; for which he quotes Plea for Peace. p. 240. But here the Doctor is tardy by his favour, and wrongs his Relator manifeſtly, by nibbling off the laſt and moſt conſiderable words of the ſentence—viz. when it would do no more harm than good: And we believe it lawful in that Caſe to hold Communion with any Church in the world, ſo that now we muſt come to another enquiry, and ſtart a new queſtion, when there are one or two already up before the Dogs, viz. whether Communion with the Pariſh-Churches will do more harm than good? which it will certainly do, 1. When ſuch Communion ſhall perſuade the Pariſh-Churches, that their Frame is eligible, and not only tolerable; that they are righteous, and need no repentance; pure, as well as true Churches of Christ, and need no Reformation. 2. When that Communion ſhall be ſo managed, that the perſons communicating muſt be obliged to ſeparate from all other Churches, which they judge to be of a purer mold, and wherein they may enjoy all Chriſt's Ordinances with much greater, and clearer ſatisfaction to their Conſciences, and more notable advantages for edification. 3. When ſuch Communion ſhall viſibly harden the Papiſts in their ſuperſtitious uſages; As kneeling at the Sacrament, bowing before Altars, Churches, the East, and at the word Jeſus, has apparently done; and ſo much T.G. the Doctor's grand Antagoniſt, has profeſſed in his Diſpute about Idolatry. 4. When ſuch Communion and Conformity ſhall notably prejudice the Chriſtian Religion in general; and that this would have been the effect of an univerſal Conformity, was well expreſs'd by a Conformable Miniſter of good Note in the Church, who told his Friend, a Captain in His Majeſties Service, That he was heartily glad that ſo many Miniſters had refus'd to Conform upon the Terms propoſed. And being ask'd with ſome wonderment, a reaſon of his ſtrange expreſſion, he anſwer'd thus: (Not that thereby they had more good Livings to ſcramble for, as one anſwer'd;) Had all Conform'd, the People would have thought there had been nothing in Religion; that it had been onelyonly a thing to talk of in the Pulpit, to ſerve a State deſign; but now by throwing up their Livings, and expoſing themſelves and Families to outward ruine, rather than Conform to the things impoſed, not agreeable (as they apprehend) to the Goſpel they had preached, they have convinced the world, there is a Reality in Religion, and thereby given a check to Atheiſm.
To ſhut up this Diſcourſe; If the Doctor would have us Conform as far as we judge it lawful, when ſuch Compliance is cloathed with all its particular circumſtances, we are willing to it, provided the Doctor can ſecure us, that ſuch Compliance ſhall be accepted in full ſatisfaction of the debt. But we doubt it muſt not be the Dean of St. Paul's, but the Convocation there, that muſt aſſign the Limits, Bounds, Terms and Meaſures of our Conformity. If hearing a Sermon, as we have occaſion, and going as much further as Conſcience warranted by the Word will permit us, would excuſe us from being reviled, and railed at as Schiſmaticks, Rebels, Traytors, and what not, would do it, it would be done, nay, it is done; but if he has no Commiſſion to treat with us, and compound the matter, I fear he has ſpoiled the Wit and Ingenuity of his late Allegory, and fought a Skirmiſh without the Command of his General; for though he ſtand upon very high Ground, he ſtands not as yet on the higheſt, and there are higher than he.