The Two Steps of a Non-Conformist, Appendix
The Appendix, BEING My Judgment about coming to Church, and the Caſe of Private Meetings.
BEfore I leave my Province, I think fit to reflect a little on what I have ſaid, in reference to my Brethren of the Nonconforming Party, who will be apt, many of them, to be offended at me, that I, who am one of them, ſhould be ſo indifferent to either ſide, as I appear, which if it be a fault, I confeſs it; I am guilty of that impartiality or writing without reſpect of perſons, which I cannot help; and if that fault will make the Epiſcopal Party bear with me more equally than my Brethren, I think they deſerve to be blamed.
Indeed I hope that as for the moſt part of the Diſſenters, it is out of the true Fear of God that they chuſe the way wherein they go; but though I think that Fear of God to be true, I think it not pure and unmixt without Errour, and without Imperfection. They think (I will ſuppoſe, for I mean not as to all of them) the going to Church unlawful, and therefore ſet up Meetings: As they do this then, becauſe they are afraid to ſin, it is the Fear of God; but as there is Errour in this Fear, doubting of that to be ſin which is none, this Fear turns to Superſtition, and Superſtition can be no good ground for any thing a man does. The evil they fear being no evil, the cauſe for what they do is no cauſe, and to ſeparate from the Church without a cauſe, I hold to be Schiſm.
For my own part I am perſuaded in my Conſcience that it is lawful to go to a Meeting, and lawful to go to Church, and I am ſorry we have ſuch a company of ſuperſtitious folks of both ſides; Men and Women of the Conformiſts that think it a ſin to go to a Meeting, and of the Nonconformiſt that thinks he ſins if he go to Church, when there is no Communion of Chriſtians whatſoever, where the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity are, but to ſeparate from them without a cauſe, whether on one ſide or other, is Schiſm. I ſay not that every Conformiſt therefore that goes to Church, and never to a Meeting, does incur this guilt, becauſe, though he be locally never at a Meeting, yet does he not mentally ſeparate from the Meeters, who holds them for all that to be true Chriſtians, and counts it no ſin to joyn with them in Communion, if he h…d reaſon: Only he is himſelf well ſatisfied with the Service of the Church, and he hath no reaſon for his going otherwhere. It is not ſo on the part of the Nonconformiſt; there is a Command of the Magiſtrate, that he ſhall come to Church, & if he does not, he muſt have ſome more prevailing reaſon or cauſe that will juſtifie his refuſing it, or elſe his Separation being cauſleſs (I muſt ſtill ſay) cannot but be ſin, and conſequently Schiſm. If this pleaſe ſome, it may be I ſhall diſpleaſe them in what I ſay next; and if it diſpleaſe ſome, I may next pleaſe them; but I ſpeak my Conſcience. A Perſon is ſet apart for the Office of the Miniſtry; he being not able to conform, is prohibited to Preach in Publick; having a Call in Private, he Preaches in a Meeting; what is there in this, which the Apoſtles own caſe does not juſtifie? Whether it be meet to obey God or man, judge ye. I think moreover, that the Commiſſion of Chriſt which warrants a Miniſters Preaching, does alſo warrant the Hearers; becauſe Preaching and Hearing are Relata, which will mutually draw one another. I muſt add, if ſome good men farther, out of a ſenſe of wrong to the Ejected, do think themſelves bound to come ſometimes and hear ſuch Miniſters for acknowledging their Miniſtry, and delivering their Souls from participation of the guilt of thoſe that Ejected them (eſpecially if they were heretofore their own Paſtors) I take this to be ſo much more Chriſtian, and juſtifiable before God. But if theſe Miniſters and People do judg the Pariſh-Church no true Church, or that it is a ſin to go thither (not having any Exception which is particular, but what reaches all Parochial Congregations) and upon that ground ſet up their Meetings, I do not ſee (this ground of theirs being a miſtaken ground, or this cauſe for their Separation being ſuch as will not hold, and conſequently no cauſe) how they can be juſtified from the aforeſaid Imputation.
For the Miniſter to Preach (I muſt inculcate) upon the account of Chriſts Commiſsion, preferring his Maſters Authority before Mans, that is, upon the plea of greater duty, and for the People to come to hear by virtue of the ſame Commiſsion, upon the ſame plea ſtill of farther (or greater) Edification (as men go ordinarily to hear other Miniſters than their own) not in a way of Separation from the Publick Miniſters or Pariſh-Churches, but in Conjunction with them (ſpeaking ſtill ſo far as concerns God's word) I do maintain lawful: But if any of my Brethren do offer another Plea that muſt draw with it a ſeparation from the Pariſh Church, whether it be that of holding ſuch Churches to be no true Churches, or that the Church does impoſe ſuch things as conditions of her Ordinary, Conſtant Lay-communion which are ſinful or intolerable, As I am of Opinion, that they can make no ſuch plea good; ſo muſt I heartily adviſe them to take heed, becauſe if they do ſtand upon ſuch a one, their Separation being without cauſe, if the Pariſh-Churches be true Churches, and it be no ſin to go to them, they know the Charge lyes againſt them. I will add, To ſeparate from any Church, upon a reaſon common to others, as becauſe we have a Liturgy, or the like, is virtually to ſeparate from all that have one, and conſequently from the moſt of Churches in all Ages of the World.
The truth is, there is ſuch an impreſſion got on the imaginations of ſome of the Diſſenters, that if they ſhould come in to the Church ſo as to be ſubject to the Hierarchy, and ſubmit to her preſent Impoſitions; nay, if they ſhall but touch with the Conformiſt almoſt in any thing, though only to go to Church with them, and take the Sacrament there (which yet as to Lay-conformity is in effect indeed all) they are afraid, as if it were the receiving upon them the Mark of the Beaſt (I mean, the doing ſome very horrid thing they know not well elſe what) and were therefore to be caſt remedileſs into the Lake of Fire. A buſineſs really of very ſad conſequence to our ſelves at home, as exceeding ſcandalous to the Reformed Churches abroad, who have their Liturgies and Ceremonies as we have, and perhaps ſome or other of them leſs innocent than this of the Church of England.
But I will ask here, What think we of Bradford, Philpot, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, and the reſt that ſuffered in Q. Mary's time? Were there not amongſt theſe holy Martyrs an Archbiſhop and Biſhops, and did not they go ordinarily to Church, and receive the Sacrament according to the Liturgy as we do, and admit of all the Impoſitions beſides in King Edward's days? Nay, what think we of the old Nonconformiſts in Q. Elizabeth's and K. James his time, who, though they laid down their Miniſtry rather than to conform to ſome Impoſitions afterwards, did yet maintain Communion with the Pariſh-Churches all their days? Did any of theſe now, or all theſe receive the Mark in their right hands, or in their foreheads by this means? And muſt they therefore be everlaſtingly damned?
I argue: The receiving the Mark in the Revelations muſt be a ſin certainly, becauſe the receiver is caſt into Hell for it. But to obey the Law, or to conform only ſo far as we can (which is the Rule of theſe Papers) is the duty of every man, & no ſin.
Again; if receiving theſe Impoſitions be receiving the Mark, it muſt be the promiſcuous receiving them, without caution, (which to beware of is the end of theſe Papers) or againſt Conſcience, that is, ſinfully receiving them: But to receive them (as I here propoſe) with Explication (which is to receive them no otherwiſe but ſo as they may and ought to be received) is to get a victory over the Mark, avoiding the ſin in the doing.
I muſt confeſs I am ſorry that I have need to ſay thus much, I wiſh I had not; but there are ſome odd minds, ſome vehement Revelation-men, ſome melancholy Spirits, and I am much aſſured that ſuch a conception I ſpeak of is not uncommon to ſuch. As for thoſe that never had any ſuch kind of thought, but have their rational Exceptions, it will yet be well even for them, when they ſhall be able to get off their proper Objections, ſo as to come honeſtly to Church, with a Judgment that is ſatiſfied, and not only to avoid the Law, to be ſecured from this alſo after they have done; who can tell what impreſſion the ſuggeſtions of a mans own heart, if troubled, or the words of another upon occaſion may lay upon him? And as for ſuch as are for diſputing the Point, if they can produce thoſe Arguments as will prove that the Church hath indeed impoſed any thing as the condition of her Ordinary Communion, which is ſinful and intolerable, & thoſe Arguments be ſound, then muſt I acknowledge the Schiſm which is made by their Separation from her Communion through thoſe ſinful Impoſitions, muſt be imputed to her, & the Church of England is the Schiſmatick till ſhe removes them: But if thoſe Arguments be not ſufficient or unſound, then muſt the Schiſm which is made, be imputed to them. For if the cauſe upon which they ſeparate be found no cauſe (and an inſufficient one is none) I muſt aſſert ſtill, that the Separation here conceived being cauſleſs, muſt be Schiſm.
But what if it be Schiſm? There are many ſuch Miniſters, and ſuch People, who are rivetted in the belief, that the Pariſh-Churches are no true Churches, or at leaſt, that it is ſin to go thither, and what ſhall theſe do? I anſwer, I need not ſtand to ſay firſt what all will, that theſe men are to lay down their Errour, and ſo come to Church, as the only way to eſcape ſin; but ſeeing they can never be convinced of that, I muſt ſay, there are degrees of Sin and Schiſm, and the greateſt evil muſt be moſt carefully ſhun'd. To ſet up Meetings upon the account theſe do, is ſin, is Schiſm, I take it: but to hold no Meetings at all, and leave off the Aſſembling themſelves together, ſo as to rob God of his Worſhip altogether, this is certainly more ſinful, more wicked, more intolerable. It appears conſequently in the iſſue, that a Toleration (underſtand ſuch a one as is meet, or of ſuch as are Tolerable) is even almoſt as neceſſary to be granted by His Majeſty and a Parliament, when we have one, as a conſtant and continued Pardon from God Almighty is to this poor divided Nation.
Not that I deny but there may be Reaſons for the Meetings of Diſſenters (and perhaps very many) that will hold, and cannot be gainſaid; and when I ſay that ſeparating from the Church upon ſuch grounds as draw ill conſequences after it, and will not hold, is Schiſm, I do not ſay that every meer local Separation from the Pariſh-Meeting when there is cauſe, is ſo, who am ſenſible what a Scare-crow hath been made of that bare word only, as Mr. Hales hath obſerved. Suppoſe a man ſtands upon his liberty from God and Nature, to chuſe his own Paſtor for the benefit of his Soul, as his own Phyſician for the health of his Body, and ſo uſing thoſe means which he finds moſt conducive to his own edification, he ſits down with ſuch or ſuch a Meeting for his ſtated Communion, when yet he refuſes not to go to Church, maintaining occaſional Communion alſo with his Pariſh, I will not deny but ſuch a man hath reaſon. Indeed, if he quite leave the Church, I ſhall ſuſpect, according to my Principles, that his ground is not good, and that is all one as that he hath none.
You will ſay, if I go to Church, I muſt own the Pariſh, and I muſt own the Dioceſs, and I muſt own the Biſhop, and his Government. I anſwer, and ſo you may; but it is not neceſſary that you own them as of Divine Right, which others I ſuppoſe do. Upon that Hypotheſis I muſt confeſs I do not ſee how any Separation from the Church (unleſs in caſe of ſomething impoſed that is ſinful) could be juſtifiable, and the Conformiſts therefore taking up that Principle, do generally condemn all Meetings, accuſing them without diſcrimination of Schiſm: But it is one thing to own the Pariſh-Church, the Dioceſs, the Biſhop, & Epiſcopal Government according to Law, and another to won them as of Divine Inſtitution.
I apprehend that Particular Congregations, where there is a Paſtor and Flock conjoyned for the Worſhip of God, & carrying on an holy life, are the Churches of Chriſts appointment, and that every Miniſter of ſuch a particular People hath a power of Governing them, as well as Teaching them, derived to him from Chriſt, being Epiſcopus Gregis, by virtue of his Office, & if any then ſhall go to ſet up an Epiſcopus Poſtorum, a Biſhop of the Dioceſs to diveſt him that is Paſtor of a particular Congregation (or the Miniſter of the Pariſh) of that Authority which Chriſt hath committed to him for governing his Flock (which he that makes a Dioceſs to be the only Church of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and the Dioceſan the ſole Paſtor, muſt do) let him conſider what he undertakes, ſeeing the burden which is hereby laid on the Biſhop, and the account he muſt make at the great day for the Souls of ſo many he takes no particular care at all of, is intolerable.
I will own the Biſhop and his Regiment, but not to the denial of the Miniſters. I will own a Dioceſs, but not to the unchurching Particular Congregations. There is another conſideration therefore to be had of the Church than this here underſtood, and that is, as it is National, and the King the Head of it. The Church as National is divided into two Provinces, and theſe into twenty ſix Dioceſſes, and they into ſo many thouſand Pariſhes. The Pariſh-Church conſiſts of a Particular Congregation, which is therefore a Church of Chriſts appointment, and the Authority or Regiment the Miniſter, Paſtor, or Biſhop of ſuch a Flock hath, is derived from Chriſt. The Authority the Dioceſan hath is derived from the King. The King makes the Biſhops (he might make them if he pleaſed, as Henry the Eighth by Commiſsion) and he is the Fountain of their Honour, for they have Baronies, and upon that account ſit in the Lords Houſe; and if we may look on them accordingly as his Officers, to exerciſe no other Authority as Dioceſans, but what they derive from him, then, As the Regiment of the Biſhop, and of the Paſtors are of a different kind, (the Power or Regiment of the Paſtor being internal, or in ſacris, and formally Eccleſiaſtical, flowing immediately from Chriſt, but the Regiment of the Biſhop external, or circa ſacra, that is, objectively Eccleſiaſtical, deriving from the King,) ſo muſt the Authority or Government of the one be cumulative to, and not deſtructive of the other.
And this is a Notion, which methinks ſhould not be hard of entrance to the Conformiſt or Nonconformiſt. On the one ſide the Biſhop ſhould receive it, becauſe it grants him his Honour, Dignity, and great Revenues upon a clear and open foundation, and it lightens his care and work. The Office of a Biſhop upon this Hypotheſis may be diſcharged as that of any other Magiſtrate under the King: But the Office of the Dioceſan upon the other Hypotheſis is a charge he can never perform, and if he live in the negligence of what he thinks his duty, and that wilfully, all his life, how can he be ſaved? On the other ſide, the Nonconformiſt ſhould receive it, becauſe it opens his Eyes, & lets him ſee how he may be ſubject to the Biſhop, as he is to the King and the other Magiſtrates under him, without moleſtation to his Conſcience. And this ſhould be the Stone which I would lay for the Foundation (if ever a Parliament would build upon it) of a ſound and laſting Peace in the Nation. Whither this tends, let the Reader ſee farther in the twelfth Section of that univerſally Learned ſort of Gentlemans late Book call'd The Samaritan.
FINIS.
An Advertiſement from the Bookſeller.
THere is a late new Book, Intituled, A Private Pſalter, compoſed by the ſame Hand that wrote theſe ſheets, which being a Devotional Book, is put in a fair Character for the ſake of aged Eyes, and ſold by me, whom the Reader may find out by the Title page.
Thomas Parkhurſt.