A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 38 – Section 39
Sect. 38. E. B. Every Pariſh Church is part of the Dioceſane: And if a Dioceſane Church as ſuch is not to be Communicated with, then a Pariſh Church as ſuch is to be ſeparated from; ſince there is the ſame reaſon of the parts as of the whole: And you muſt find out a new Logick before you can prove, that if the whole be corrupt, any of the parts are clean, and fit for our Communion.
R. B. The name of Logick is incongruouſly uſed in ſuch an Argument, as is ſo palpably fallacious. A Pariſh Church ſtands before us in three reſpects. 1. As it is a true Church of Chriſtians, having all things Eſſential in Paſtours and People. 2. As theſe Chriſtians live in the bounds of a Pariſh. 3. As this Pariſh Church by the Laws of the Land is ſubject to the Dioceſane, and ſo a part of his Dioceſs. How a Pariſh Church is or is not part of a Dioceſane Church.Both the latter are meerly Accidental, and it hath all that is eſſential to a Church without them. As Mr. Jacob inſtanceth in Ordination, and ſo in Marriage; He that is marryed truly, is truly a Husband, though a Prieſt or Ring or ſome unneceſſary accident was adjoyned.
Your reaſon is, 1. Ridiculouſly fallacious, 2. And if all were granted, reacheth not the Caſe.
1. It is Ridiculous, to argue, If a Dioceſane Church as ſuch is not to be communicated with, then a Pariſh Church as ſuch is to be ſeparated from. For the [as ſuch] in the Antecedent and Conſequent denoteth two ſeveral things: You ſhould only have inferred [Then a Pariſh Church as part of a Dioceſane is not to be Communicated with] Which is nothing to the queſtion. And when you ſay that there is the ſame reaſon of the Parts and whole; I anſwer, that muſt be only as they are parts; but not in all other alien reſpects. If a Pariſh Church be to be diſclaimed or not owned only as it is a part of a Dioceſane Church, yet it may be owned, 1. As a true Church of Chriſtians, in its conſtitution. 2. And as a Pariſh Church, limited by thoſe bounds, without reſpect to the Dioceſane.
2. And if it were to be diſowned as a Pariſh Church, that alſo is nothing to the Queſtion; For it may yet be owned for its Conſtitutive parts as a Chriſtian Church.
I will ſhew you your Argument in another caſe. Suppoſe that Uſurpers ſhould alter the form of Kingly Government, and ſet up themſelves in another form, and ſhould allow all the Independent Churches in the Land, but ſet over them Civil officers in every County of their own; and ſhould make a Law, that none ſhall be a member of a Church that liveth not within five miles of the Meeting place. In this caſe, the Church is a Church in its own Conſtitution; and that it is confirmed to a Parochial circuit, or that it is under uſurping Magiſtrates is an accidental thing, which doth not nullifie it. And if you argue [If the Vſurpers Commonwealth as ſuch, be not to be communicated with or owned, then the Church which is part of it is not to be owned. Yes, as a Church, but not as a part of the Common-wealth.
If Independent Churches were under the Turks Government, they may be parts of an Infidel and perhaps uſurped Kingdom, and yet be true Churches and to be owned.
If Presbyterian Claſſical Churches be ſuppoſed ſinful, and the Law ſaid that all the Independent or particular Churches ſhall be under the ſeveral Claſſes, and be part of thoſe Churches, the Churches will be true Churches nevertheleſs. For, 1. Perhaps moſt of them conſent not to the Laws determination, but only forbear an open contradiction. 2. And in others of them the people may not conſent though the Paſtor do. 3. And if they do conſent, and it be their ſin, it will not nullifie the particular Church; being but an unwarrantable Accident.
If Vniverſities were as unlawful as many Separatiſts judge them, yet Dr. Goodwins Church, e. g. in Oxford might have been part of the Univerſity, and yet a true Church, and to be diſowned as part of the Univerſity, and yet not as a Church.
If you were a member of an unlawful Society, Army, Church, &c. You may be diſowned as a member of that Society, and yet not as a Chriſtian, or as a Man.
Now would not the Boyes laugh at you if you ſhould reaſon thus: An uſurped Heatheniſh Kingdom or Common-wealth, as ſuch is unlawful, and not to be communicated with; A Claſſical Church as ſuch is not to be communicated with; An Univerſity as ſuch is not to be communicated with: Therefore ſuch or ſuch a particular Church as ſuch is not to be communicated with, which is a part of that Kingdom, that Claſſis, that Univerſity! E. B. a Chriſtian is a member of a Society which is not to be owned: Ergo E. B. a Chriſtian as ſuch is not to be owned. What more apparent than that the conſequent ſhould be but this? Therefore ſuch a Church ſhould not be owned, as it is a Part of ſuch a Kingdom, Claſſis, Vniverſity, &c. which is all accidental to the Church.
So that here is a double Equivocation, and more than four terms: 1. [As ſuch] ſpeaketh (as I ſaid) one eſſence in the Antecedent, and another in the Conſequent. 2. The word [Communicating] ſpeaketh ſeveral things in the Antecedent and in the Conſequent. For to Communicate with a Dioceſane Church, is not to Aſſemble with it in publick Worſhip: For a Dioceſs (in our ſenſe) cannot ſo aſſemble: but it is to own the Dioceſane Relation, and Prelats. But to Communicate with a particular Church in a Pariſh, is to have perſonal Communion in the Worſhip of the Aſſembly. So that this is your Argument if put in plain words: [If it be unlawful to Communicate with a Dioceſane Church as ſuch, by owning the Dioceſanes and the relation to them, then it is unlawful to communicate with a true particular Church in a Pariſh, (or bounded Parochially) in the Aſſembly Worſhip as it is ſuch a particular Church, which is part of that Dioceſane Church: But, &c.] Anſw. Yes, It may be unlawful to communicate with it as a Part, and that by Dioceſane Communion; but not as a true Church of Chriſtians by aſſembly communion.
Or thus [It is unlawful, e. g. to have communion with the Army of Maximus, Cromwel, &c. as ſuch: But many Chriſtians are parts of the Army of Maximus, Cromwel, &c. Therefore it is unlawful to have communion with thoſe Chriſtians: Becauſe there is the ſame reaſon of the parts as of the whole. Anſ. 1. Chriſtians are not parts of the Army as Chriſtians, but as thoſe Souldiers. 2. It is unlawful to have Military Communion with them as parts of that Army; but not to have Chriſtian Communion with them as Chriſtians.
May not even the ſimple now eaſily ſee (if you will not) by what ignorant erroneous reaſons you zealouſly labour to deceive the people of God, to divide the Churches?
Sect. 39. E. B. 2. A Pariſh Miniſter is (in that ſtation and office) but a ſervant of the Dioceſane Biſhop;The ſame fallacy with an untruth. and therefore rightly called a Curate, and if we may not own (as you grant) the Biſhop, I think it will neceſſarily follow, that his ſubſtitute and curate hath no reaſon to expect any reſpect from us—
R. B. The ſame fallacy is ſo palpable that a ſmall meaſure of reaſon may diſcern it. 1. It is falſe that he is in that Office [But a Servant] The truth is,Whether a Pariſh Miniſter be but a ſervant to the Dioceſane. the Law maketh him not a ſervant at all, but only an Eccleſiaſtical Subject. But if you had ſaid, He is but a ſubject, it had not been true, if [But] be excluſive of his other Paſtoral Relation. For he is by the Law, the Prieſt, the Teacher, the Rector of that Pariſh Church in ſubordination to the Biſhop.
2. But whatever he be by the Law of the Land, or by the Biſhops will, the faithful Miniſters in Pariſh Churches are by Chriſts own Commiſſion, the true Paſtors of the flocks; having all things eſſential to that Relation.
3. But deceive not your Reader by intimating, that I ſpeak of a Parochial Miniſter as Parochial, (not quâ but qui:) For Pariſh Bounds are but Accidents of the Churches: It is Chriſtian Churches as ſuch, though Parochial or ſo bounded, that I ſpeak of. A Chriſtian Paſtor with his Chriſtian flock (e. g. Mr. Gataker, Mr. Marſhall, Dr. Stoughtion, Dr. Seaman, Mr. Sedgwicke, Dr. Gouge and ſuch like) do conſtitute a true Chriſtian Church, though in Pariſh bounds. And as ſuch Paſtours they are the Miniſters of Chriſt, and not ſervants to Dioceſanes: And their ſubordination to Dioceſans by the Law is but accidental to their Paſtoral office.
How many volumes of the old Non-conformiſts give you this Anſwer? And if you have read them, why would you diſſemble it, and give no Reply to it? If you never read them, is it modeſty to deſpiſe them?