Sacrilegious Desertion of the Holy Ministry Rebuked, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Whether to gather themſelves into diſtinct and ſeparate Congregations, is unlawful in the judgment of the Presbyterians themſelves?
Sect. 1. THe proving the Affirmative is his work, pag. 7, &c. But the Preſbyterians do not love confuſion, nor to diſpute ſuch blindly-ſtated Queſtions. They diſtinguiſh,
1. Between bare Local distinction, and ſeparation; and that which is eminently called Separation in England, and denominated from the Separatists, which is [ſeparating from the Pariſh-Churches, Miniſtry, & Worſhip, as being no true Churches, Miniſtry and Worſhip; or at leaſt ſuch as no Chriſtians may lawfully Communicate with, in Doctrine, Prayer, and Sacraments, when they can have no better.] In the former ſenſe (as is ſaid) one Pariſh-Church is ſeparate from another. And if there be any difference in their Forms or Modes of Worſhip; ſo was there between Baſil at Caeſarea, and the Church at Neoceſarea, and between Rome and Millane, and between almoſt all the Catholick Biſhops for many hundred years. And ſo now, one Pariſh-Miniſter prayeth freely in the Pulpit after Sermon, and before; another by a Form; a third biddeth prayer before; and a fourth prayeth not afterward at all. And yet theſe are not ſeparated Churches, any otherwiſe than Locally and in ſuch Modal differences.
2. They diſtinguiſh between a Pariſh-Church that impoſeth nothing on the Miniſters or People that God forbiddeth, and one that doth.
3. And between a Pariſh-Church that is Reformable▪ in that which notoriouſly needeth Reformation; and one that ſolemnly Covenanteth againſt Reformation.
4. They diſtinguiſh between a Pariſh-Church that is ſuch, and owneth it ſelf for ſuch: And a Pariſh-Congregation that hath no proper Biſhop, nor Paſtor who hath the power of the Keys of Government, but is called by its Rulers only a part of a Church, (Dioceſan) and the Miniſter, but the Dioceſan Biſhops-Curat.
5. They diſtinguiſh between a Pariſh-Church where the Miniſters in queſtion are forbidden to preach, and the People to have the Sacrament, or their Children to be baptized, unleſs they will ſay and do ſuch things, as they dare not do for fear of God's diſpleaſure; And a Pariſh-Church, that driveth none ſuch away from Miniſtry or Communion. And now will this Adviſer prove that what any Presbyterians ever ſaid in one caſe, muſt reach to all others, that are ſo different.
Sect. 2. He next queſtioneth, 1. [Do you not allow our Parochial Churches to be true Churches?]
Anſw. Yea, thoſe of them that have true Paſtors, but no others, (in a political or organized ſenſe.)
2. Queſt. [And will you not account ſuch Congregations as ſhall be gathered to your allowed places to be true Churches alſo?]
Anſw. In ſome places we will, and in ſome we will take them but as parts of the Pariſh-Church; And in ſome we will take them but for temporary Aſſemblies, waiting for a fixed better ſtate; And in ſome we will take them for Churches ſecundum quid, but not ſimpliciter; Even as the caſe of each particular place requireth.
Sect. 3. And hence follows the cry of Schiſm, Independents, Browniſts, rank Separatiſts, &c. As if the Miniſters of Chriſt did know no difference between noiſe and ſenſe. Yea, we are told of Schiſm from the Church of England, when I would give him all the money in my purſe, to make me underſtand what the Church of England is.
1. I know that the King is the Civil-Head or Governour of it. But it is a Conſtitutive Eccleſiaſtical Head that muſt denominate it, as an eſſential part.
2. I take it for granted he ſpeaks of a Church organized in a proper political ſenſe, as conſtituted of a Pars regens, and a Pars ſubdita; and not as an ungoverned Community.
3. I take it for granted that we have two Archbiſhops, and they tell me, that one is not under the Government of the other. And if that be true, we may have a Church of Canterbury, and a Church of York, but no one Church of England as denominated from one of them as Head.
4. I take it for granted that the Convocation is not the Conſtitutive-Head, 1. Becauſe it is ſo ſeldom in being, that then we ſhould ſeldom have a Church of England: For the Eſſence ceaſeth with the eſſential part. 2. And the Canon thundreth againſt them that deny the Convocation to be the Repreſentative-Church of England. If it mean of the whole Church, Paſtors and People, then the People rule, and make Canons by them (as the Separatiſts hold:) And it is the Head of the Church only that we enquire after. If they mean the Clergy, then the Repreſentative-Church or Head muſt be ſomewhat diſtinct from the Real repreſented. If it be the whole Clergy that is the Real Repreſented-Church or Head, then we are Popular, or Presbyterian; for the Presbyters are the major part by far. And what Rulers are they that never rule the Church as one, by themſelves, but only by Repreſentatives. I confeſs eaſily that many Churches united under one King, and living in one Kingdom, and having thereby ſpecial opportunity for Synods, and Correſpondence and Concord, may be called one Church, by a denomination, 1. accidental, 2. and humane, not uſed in Scripture; And we will not be ſo quarrelſome as to avoid that language where men will needs uſe it: But it is the Thing, and not the Name, that we enquire of: What is that One Eſſential Conſtitutive-Head which maketh the Churches of England to be all one Church, in a proper political ſenſe, that is, as a Governed-Society? None queſtion the Civil-Head; none queſtion the need of Communion and Agreement among all theſe Churches. But the Queſtion is only of the one Eccleſiaſtick Conſtitutive Head. And if you will have the Queſtion to be de nomine, pardon us for holding that forma denominat. But if you will denominate many Churches [One] from One Accident, inſtead of One Individual Form or Eſſence; and if you will uſe terms in Divine Matters, which God never ſo uſed in his Word, we contend not againſt you, but only deſire to underſtand you, when you charge us with Schiſm from the Church of England. We have obſerved what hath been the effect of ſuch another enterprize in the Roman Empire: It was thought meet by Princes that where the Empire was One, the Church ſhould be in ſome ſort One alſo, which was under them. Whereupon Rome had the chief Patriarchate. But in time, 1. this Humane-Unity (name and thing) is pretended to be Divine; 2. And this One Imperial Church (under one Emperour) is taken to be One Vniverſal Church; as if the Indians, Perſians, and all other Chriſtians (even the Abaſſian Empire) had been part of it, and the Orbis Romanus had been Orbis Univerſalis. 3. And then no man is a Chriſtian that is not baptized into this Papal Church, and made a Subject of the Pope. Tell us what you mean by our Schiſm from the Church of England? We divide not our ſelves from the King or Kingdom, or from the particular Churches as concordant in any neceſſary thing. If it be only that we agree not with the Major Vote in all Subſcriptions, Oaths, Diſcipline or Ceremonies: No more did the Biſhops in the Roman Empire, who had various Liturgies; nor Gildas with the Britains, nor Ambroſe and Martin with the French and Italian Biſhops; nor the Epiſcopal party in Scotland heretofore with the Presbyterians, when they were the major part. Is every difference in things unneceſſary from the major part, a Schiſm from them? The Biſhops thought not ſo in England fifteen years ago: We do not go ſo far with you, as Gildas with his Britiſh Clergy, who pronounced him non eximium Chriſtianum, no excellent Chriſtian, that called them Prieſts or Ministers, and not rather Proditores, Traitors, as he himſelf did. Nor do we make ſuch a Schiſm as Martin ſeemed to do, who renounced Communion with the Biſhops and their Synods (all his life) who had proſecuted the Priſcilianiſts with the Secular Sword. Yet neither of theſe holy men are called Separatiſts or Schiſmaticks.
But perhaps it is our Diſobedience to the Church that is our Schiſm from it. 1. But every one that maketh himſelf an Eccleſiaſtical Governour over other Paſtors and Churches, is not therefore their rightful Lord. The King we know, and his Officers we know, but we know not all that call themſelves our Lords or Maſters. Not but that obedience is the eaſieſt courſe of life, to a quiet humble mind: But fidelity to our King commandeth the diſowning of Uſurpers.
2. We confeſs that we do not actually obey the Civil unqueſtionable Power in every particle about Gods Worſhip which hath been commanded us; I need not tell you why. No more did the Chriſtians for three hundred years after Chriſt; nor the Orthodox Biſhops in the dayes of Constantius, Valens, &c. nor the Proteſtants now in France, nor the Calviniſts now in Sweden, Denmark Saxonie; nor the Lutherans under Calviniſt Governours, &c. We compare not our Rulers to any of theſe, in any other reſpect, but only as Rulers; but if you your ſelves are reſolved to ſay and ſubſcribe, and ſwear, and do whatever lawful Rulers bid you, its poſſible that before you dye, you may ſhew that indeed you are not of our minds.
3. But who ever took every act of diſobedience in a Circumſtance, in a Family or Kingdom, to be a Schiſm from that Family or Kingdom? Do you rule by ſuch a Law of Works or Innocency, which cuts off men for every diſobedience, and cenſureth him that obeyeth not perfectly in all things?
4. And methinks this ſhould not be your meaning, becauſe by Nonconformity, we more diſobeyed our Rulers before their Toleration, than ſince; and yet it is our preaching after that you call our Schiſm from the Church. You ſee what trouble you put men to, to underſtand you, becauſe you ſpeak unintelligibly and confuſedly.
If you tell me that the Presbyterians owned a National Church in Scotland. I anſwer,
1. So do I, as before deſcribed, that is, as denominated, 1 From an accident, and not from an Individuating Form, and therefore equivocally and improperly, 2 And humanely, and ſo unneceſſarily,
2. And if Scots or any Presbyterians do it otherwiſe, that's nothing to me, who am no more bound to their Opinion than yours. And ſure the Church of England is not called One in the Presbyterian ſence, as an Ariſtrocracie, or as Headed by the whole Clergie conjunct.
Sect. 4. The reſt, p. 8, 9, 10. need no other anſwer, then
1. That the old Puritanes never held it unlawful for them to preach in houſes, even when they had no Toleration.
2. As they held it lawful to hold Lay-communion with Pariſh-Churches that have true Miniſters, ſo do we.
3. They never ſaid, it was unlawful to hold communion with any beſides the Pariſh-Churches; no more will we. What Law tyeth us to be ſuch Schiſmaticks as to renounce communion with all other Churches, except Parochial and Conformists, or what Nonconformiſts ever held it?
4. Whoſe conſcience ſhould ſooner accuſe him of Schiſm; A Conformiſts, that will hold Communion with none but his own party, but ſeparateth from all the other Churches in the Land? Or ours, that reſolve to to hold communion ſeaſonably with all true Chriſtian Churches among us, that teach not Hereſie, nor preach down Holineſs, Love or Peace, and deny us not their communion, unleſs we will ſin? Let the impartial judg which of us is the Schiſmatick and Separatist.
5. Do you not hold it lawful for a Miniſter to remove from one Pariſh to another; and for any man for his ſouls edification, to remove his dwelling into another Pariſh where is a better Miniſter? And what if forty Families do ſo? who calleth any of this Separation? And what if it had been into the Pariſh of Dedham, Aſhby, Whitmore, Preston, when John Rogers, Arthur Hilderſham, John Ball, John Dod, all Nonconformists, were allowed to preach there without Conformity. Had this been Separation and Schiſm, or not? If yea, what Law of God or Man forbad it? What Church did they divide from? If nay, why then is it Schiſm to joyn with ſuch men in other places? Where lyeth your Point of Schiſm or Separation? Is it for going out of their own Pariſhes? 1. So Men in London have ever done to other Pariſh-Churches. 2. And who ever made a Pariſh and a Church Synonymal, Jure Divino? Shall mutable conveniencies be turned into immutable neceſſities? What then? Is it for going to a Nonconformist? ſo did thoſe before mentioned. Is it for going to a private houſe? 1. So did many Epiſcopal Paſtors fourteen years ago. 2. And ſome in London ſince the Fire. 3. And its an ill argument againſt them, that would fain Preach in the publick Temples, if they could have leave. As far as I diſcern, this duſt of Schiſm which you would caſt into other mens eyes, obligeth you to wink hard, leſt it be blown back into your own.
Sect. 5. The love of peace, and the fear of frightning any further from Pariſh-communion than I deſire, do oblige me to forbear ſo much as to deſcribe or name the additional Conformity, and that ſin which Nonconformists fear and fly from, which maketh it harder to us that deſire it, to draw many good people to communion with Conformiſts, than it was of old. But when both Law, and Love of Peace and Concord forbid us, ſo much as to name the Cauſes, it is diſingenious for the culpable to take that advantage againſt us, and to urge us to do that which they themſelves cannot bear.
Sect. 6. But with full ſail of ſelf-conceitedneſs he next comes upon us, with this as an undeniable proof, that [our Members are taken out of true Churches.] Who would gainſay a man of ſuch underſtanding?
But 1. Do not thoſe, as aforeſaid, that remove from one Pariſh Church to another, remove from true Churches?
2. How many Biſhops have written that the Church of Rome is a true Church (as Halls Collection againſt Burton ſheweth you) and muſt no Churches therefore be gathered out of them?
3. What advantage then hath every fooliſh Superſtitious Prieſt above God, and over all good Chriſtians? God bids us worſhip him according to his Law, and to do all things in order and decently, and to edification. And muſt not God be obeyed? No, if the Prieſt will not conſent: For if he will worſhip God fooliſhly, with non-ſence, undecently, diſorderly, againſt edification, you cannot help it; his followers may be a true Church ſtill, and then no man muſt remove to worſhip God better than pleaſeth the Prieſt. He that is fallen under ſuch drunken Readers, as I was bred under in my youth, that were drunk many times oftner than they preached (I am ready to prove it, for they never preached, but were drunk oft;) this poor man and his Family muſt venture their Souls on this ſottiſh Drunkards conduct, becauſe it is a true Church, and they muſt not go from a true Church; What a trick hath the Devil found to bind men to conſtancy in his ſervice, ſo it be done in a true Church! Alas poor England, whoſe Teachers talk confidently at this rate, becauſe they can ſay that they do it in a true Church, & did not the Parliament take a Church out of a true Church, when they ſeparated Covent-Garden from Martins Pariſh. And ſo it is when Pariſhes are divided into two, one part is ſeparated from the other.
Sect. 7. But factious Diſputers ſee but on one ſide. You thought not that you your ſelf were all this while proving your ſelves Schiſmaticks. I undertake to prove that Paſtors and People are the Conſtitutive Eſſentials of a true Church: That Dr. Seaman, Mr. Calamy, Dr. Manton, Mr. Gouge, Dr. Bates, Dr. Jacomb, and abundance more ſuch, with the people ſubject to them, as Paſtors, were true Churches.
Prove you if you can, that on Aug. 24. 1662. they were degraded, or theſe true Churches diſſolved, on any reaſon, which any Churches for 600 years after Chriſt would own.
4. If not, you ſeem your ſelf to accuſe their Succeſſors, of Schiſm, for drawing away part of the people from them (meerly by the advantage of having the Temples and Tythes) and ſo gathering Churches out of true Churches; ſo ordinary is it for ſelf-eſteeming men to talk to their own reproach and condemnation.
Sect. 8. But as to his ſecond Objection, I will take his part; and though we differ not at all from the Doctrine of the Church of England (till the new Doctrine about Infants was brought into the new Rubrick) yet it is not in minutioribus that we differ from the Conformiſts; gather from it what you can. God knoweth we think the matters in difference, very far from things indifferent.