Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 1 · Section 2
SECT. II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation.
HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth, about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists, and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters, and how little that little Truth, that is in his Histories, doth make against our Cause; I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections, to prove, That when Separation began, it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists, who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church. By the Non-conformists, who opposed the Separation, he cannot mean all the Non-conformists, the Separatists themselves being also such; but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church, and others opposed it. And so it is at this day; some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God, and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them.
Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse, I shall premise some things, that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter, and partly may render it more easie, and expedite. The first thing that I premise, is, That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth, from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part, it would conclude nothing against our Cause, for it amounteth only to this; That some good men were not of our Opinion, nor practised as we do, but used the Ceremonies, tho' they were dissatisfied with them. If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences, we should not be Non-conformists; for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren, is, Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word, and that in all the parts of His Worship, greater and lesser; or, may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God, and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore, if the Dr. could prove, That all men that ever were (who were not infallibly guided) did worship God by Humane Traditions, this cannot warrant us to do so. And yet this doth not inferr Self-will, or pretending to be wiser, or more consciencious than all men; yea, or any men; (an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths, and more frequent with Papists against Protestants) for it is not Will, but Conscience, guided by Scripture-light, that we are determined by: And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word, if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us, tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice: And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice; they stand and fall to their own Master; let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind: But we dare not be so far the servants of Men, as to subject our Light and Conscience to them. If we may retort without offence, It seemeth to us a less fault (if it be any) to seem wiser than those that have gone before us, (if differing from them import so much) than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles; from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ, in the things we now controvert about.
Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise, is, That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England, in which these Non-conformists lived, and this new Edition of it, who now require Conformity from us, that their Example cannot, in reason, be judged sufficient to oblige us; even Apostolick Example, in some cases, is not declarative of what is our duty, as it is in other cases: Beside that, the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox, and the Doctrine of the Pulpi…s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church, contained in their confession of Faith, the 39 Articles. Now, it is far otherwise with the greatest part, (I am far from charging all with this blame); who knoweth not how frequent (yea, almost universal) Arminian Doctrine is? How some of them preach and print Socinianism, and without a check from the Church? and, How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some, is too well known by them who converse in England. In the Old Church of England, pious men were cherished: In This, we know how not only Dissenters, tho' never so sober and religious, are persecuted to their utter undoing: But men of their own way, who are sober and serious, are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted, under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers. So that, if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith, and the Temper of her ancient Clergy; the Presbyterians, with a few of the Conformists, do best deserve that Name. But this, tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church, is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations.
Sect. 4. I say then further, as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time, That Church was a reforming Church; even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign, they were about purging out of the old Leaven; and therefore many good men, who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church, yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding, till a better Season should appear for purging it out (tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition.) But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things: What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud, Bishop Cozens, and others, to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies, is not unknown; and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours, which yet are not imposed, but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies, and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni, waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation, none is ignorant, who know any thing of English Affairs. The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery, not in these things only, but in greater matters, cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose; of which before. If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed, as other things of the same kind had been a little before, it doth not follow, that we should comply with them, when we see them like to grow upon us; yea, when we see them made use of, as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants, that Popery may the more easily re-enter.
Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists, in former times, is, We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God, without the mixture of mens Inventions, as they never were: Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward, but our doing so were going backward. Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel, to be slow to entertain Moses, proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt, as to talk of returning back thither: Nor in Lot, to linger in Sodom, as in his Wife to lo…k back toward it. I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned, not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned, but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding, than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss; Licet magna componere parvi…. If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession, I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation; but the thing being our due, by Gospel-Right, we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free, Gal. 5. 1. I do not know, that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar, though, I am sure, it could at GOD's Bar, and so can ours.
Sect. 6. A Third Difference is; At this time, Ministers of ancient standing, and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel, who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture, by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery; which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches; must be re-ordained, otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England, nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours: Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England, nor the Need of it ever asserted: P. Martyr, Bucer, and others that came from beyond Sea, had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England, as Ministers of Christ, without that. Neither was it ever heard of. that I have met with, in any of the Churches of the Reformation. Therefore People then might hope to enjoy God…s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely; which we cannot in your Church; and consequently, we have more cause to seek them where they may be had, than our Ancestors had. Fourthly, There never was in the Protestant Church of England, before our days, such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work, for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship, Two Thousand (some say more) in one day, before they were silenced, one, or two, or three, and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour: For, tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign, y…t Non-conformists preached, and People heard them: But here such a number laid aside, and that mee…ly for Non-conformity, and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church. Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves, than was before. And, to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors, more considerable, these Ministers were silenced by the Church, (tho' clave errante) ours only by the Magistrate, who never prete…ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority. Fifthly, We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition, (under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies) which our Ancestors were not: And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath.
Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's, is, That the S…paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose, was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us. It is of two sorts, that of the Brownists, or rigid Separatists, who denied the Church of England to be a True Church, but held it for an Antichristian Soci…ty, and therefore not to be communicated with. A…d that of the Independents, who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches, but thought it unlawful to join with them, because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints, that was among them. Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists; and that of the second, by the Assembly of Divines, and other Presbyteri…ns: Both these were active separation, chosen by the separating Parties, and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church, that a…e indefensible. But our Separation (if it may be so called) is pass…ve; we are driven away; we seek the Communion of our Brethren; we are willing to bear wi…h many things that are a Burden to us, and which we wish to be reformed, rather than have Separate Meetings. We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ; the Petition for Peace is a publick and authentick witness of all this; but our Brethren will have no Communion with us, unless we will own the Ceremonies that they, without any warrant from Scripture, impose on us, which we cannot do without sinning against God, and wounding our Consciences; and we can and do give good Re…son, and Scripture-warrant, for this our Scruple. Let then any Indifferent Person judge, Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the publick Worship of the Church, by the Authority of them who condemned these fore-mentioned Separations. But occa…on will be given to discourse this Matter further; wherefore I now forb…ar.
Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince, That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi, running through the whole Texture of it, and that it doth not t…uch the Question in hand; but I shall take a more particular, yet transient, view of it. He saith, Sect. 8. at the beginning, The Separation being now b…g…n, the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemen…y against it. If the Dr. would prove any thing against us, he must shew, That there was no forbearing of publick Ordinances, on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists, before this, the contrary of which I have shewed: Also, That it was Separation on that account, and no other, that they wrote against, the contrary of which is most evident. He may know, that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this; for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation, and can make it appear, that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice. It seemeth, by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker, that the Separation was charged on him, as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles; just as it is now with us. If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride, the two Characters given by Parker, to the Separatists; let the Guilty bear their blame: But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with, import no such thing; and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general, is not Brotherly dealing. We love not to recriminate.
Sect. 9. He alledgeth, p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood, against the Separation, Three of them were taken out of the Admonition, given in by the Non-conformists, to the Parliament. He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were, as very ridiculous men, who laid down Reasons for Separation, and yet were so much against other mens practising what they gave Reason for. If he think them such men, why would he bind us to their Authority, which is the tendency of this long Discourse? But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter: His Mistake is, In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances, to be redressed, not as Grounds of Separation. His Misrepresentation is, These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry, Government, and Worship, as wholly unlawful, antichristian, and false; for they owned the Ministry and Worship (whatever thoughts they had of the Government) as right for the substance, tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them, which they desired to be removed. It is true, Gilford saith, they make a vile Schism; rending themselves from the Church of England; but doth he not add, And condemning by their Assertio…s the whole visible Church in the World, even as the Donatists did of old time? Which sheweth, that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with, but nullifying of Churches, because of some Corruptions in them▪ Gilford's words that follow, p. 29. we are not concerned in: We know, that many were the sad effects of that Separation, diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion, to Janglings. And it is not without this effect on some, where the oppressed Party is Innocent, as to the main; but that proveth not, that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies, to shun this Evil, but that they should not be imposed on us. As to Gilford's blaming them, for not coming to the Book-Prayers, this he spake without Book, either in the heat of Disputation, in which many do over-reach; or, it was his Opinion, but is not ours. I agree with Gilford, That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian; and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian; not we, who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ, but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship. That Gilford was a Non-conformist, the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove. That all Non-conformists are fallible men, and some of them mistaken in some things▪ we willingly grant. We also close with what his next Author saith, p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church, where he is by Providence placed, and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church, only with this Exception, Unless that Church require me to sin; and if I will not do so, exclude me: Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention, that not belonging to the thing then controver…ed. It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases, not yet thought on, may afford. The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard, and the Confutation of the Errours of the Separatists, d…ne in name of the Non-conformists; so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor's is, —foreign.
Sect. 10. He thinketh, Sect. 9. to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies, with the Separation of the Brownists, (for if that be not desig…ed, I know not what his Discourse tend…th to) by setting down the concessions of these Separatists, (to wit) That the Doctrine of the Church of England, is sound and saving; that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church. So far we agree. But they pleaded (saith he) that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such, as overthrew the very Constitution of a Church; in which we differ from them, as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did, of whom he saith that they held, That nothing could justifie Separation from the Church, but such corruptions which overthrow the Being of it. And he saith, The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation, lay in this, and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church. For proving of this, he sheweth, That the Separatists thought nothing could justifie their Separation, but that which nullified the Church; and it is no wonder, for they minded nothing but an active Separation, and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed. It is true, they mention the Service, as one of their Pleas for Separation, but not barely as unlawful to be used, but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded: For, what he addeth, p. 35, &c. that the Non-conformists, when they would disprove the Separation, only proved the Church of England to be a True Church: It is no wonder that they minded no more, seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause. But, Did they ever teach, that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful? which is the one half of the Controversie that we now manage. He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists, p. 36. at the end, That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ, and such a one, as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself, cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this, without giving the least advantage against our Cause; for we do not separate our selves, but the Door is shut against us, by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies, which we cannot use without Sin, and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these. Again, We do not continually separate from the Church, but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances, whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out; the Separatists could say neither of these. That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is, is evident; for they were men of so much Sence and Reason, as that they could not imagine it impossible, that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church, because of sinful Terms of Communion required: They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus, to refrain from the Communion of that Church, if that Communion were denied to that Member, unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, or at least consent to the tolerating of it. Such is our Case; we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church, unless we will approve, by our practice, the Ceremonies which we judge sinful; with what Face can they blame us, for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do? Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them, 1 Sam. 26. 19. They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord, saying, go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile, because he waited not on the Temple Service? And yet the Necessity that he was under, of abstaining from it, was not so great as ours: That was Bodily Hazard, ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God.
Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion, p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted, as any that readeth and understandeth them, may perceive. What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson, and Ball against Can, is nothing against us; to wit, That the Church of England is a true Church. From p. 39. He sheweth that Non-conformists held, That the Corruptions of the Church of England, were not such as did over-throw the Being, and Constitution of it, which we willingly yield to. What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists, p. 40, 41. about Forms of Prayer, and the English Liturgy, shall be examined in its due place; if the Lord permit. I know some Non-conformists have had, and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have: But as now there are, so of old there were, others that could not comply with it. What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian; if he thought them Lawful to be used (which is our Question) I know not why he should be reckoned a Non-conformist: But indeed there is nothing of that, in what the Dr. Citeth, p. 41, 42. What he bringeth, p. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. out of several Non-conformists, to shew that the Ministry, Discipline, and Hierarchy of the Church of England, is not Antichristian, nor the Church-Antichrist; we are not concerned to disprove, and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing, it being wholly beside the question. Some things he maketh them say, that deserve a little Animadversion; but I will not now Digress to take notice of them.
Sect. 12. He proceedeth, Sect. 12. To give Accompt of the Independent Separation, and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines, by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation. I confess there is a present Separation, that these Reasons do hold against; for that same Separation doth still continue: But he doth not prove his point, unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude, that we should use the Ceremonies, rather than forbear Church-Communion with the Prelatists. But his Reasons for what he saith, we shall attend in their course. What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists, by the breaking of Brown's Church in Midleborough; and his jugling in the Matters of God, I know not. This long Story hath either no design, which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts; or an ill design, which I am loth to impute to one of his Worth. However it be, we disclaim all concern in it. There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others, as well as among Non-conformists. That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Publick Assemblies▪ a Cursed Conven…ic…e; it may be there was cause, if Brown was such a bad Man, as the Dr. maketh him: But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with, are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissentions that followed, to the Judgment of God on them; this we are no way concerned to Apologize for: Their way was Evil, and it did not prosper: If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil, let him pass what Judgment he will on what befalleth us, but till then, Sobriety in judging is becoming. No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them, because of the Confusions, and Ruin that followed in Germany, on the Reformation. We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us; but we are not convinced, that the Things in Controversy are to be reckoned among them. Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy, at his pleasure, we can bear it: In this we are Murus Aheneus—in the Poets Se…se.
Sect. 13. He telleth us, p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson, the Fo…nder, (as he maketh him) of the Independent way, who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer: He should have told us who these are▪ It is true, they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too, by denying us all Church Privileges, for not submitting to the Impositions; and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances, where we can have them in his way; but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice. This Discourse against the Independent Separation, I meddle not with, and therefore pass over all that he saith, from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages. What Mr. C…n saith. p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation, is so far True, that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies, doth inferr on them who act conscientiously, that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church, than own the one, or use the other: And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church, we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers. p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions (a Word the Dr. is very angry with) because unordained men were not suffered to Preach, when and where they listed, is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions, when they are Excluded the Church, for not using Humane Ceremonies: In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture; no imposing in the other. That is imposed to be done, which is without warrant; yea, condemned in Scripture. Such mean …rtifices the Dr. reacheth at, that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill, in the VVorship of God. p. 58▪ he saith, Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience: Who ever said otherwise; or can say otherwise, unless they would first burn their Bibles? We never made Conscience the Rule; it must be guided and ruled by Scripture. What he saith of Popular Government, let them answer it who are concerned. He saith, Humorous and Factious People, will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions. (This Title of Mr. A's Book, is a great Eye-sore to him) but he should consider that on the other hand, an Imperious, Superstitious Clergy, that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance, in dispite of the Apostles Words, will always be Imposing, and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden; as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious. He saith, the Principles of Liberty of Conscience, will unavoidably lead men into Confusion. Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions, are more like to lead Divines into Confusion, in managing their polemick Discourses. Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot, and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth? Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience? Hath Conscience no use, but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will, or what the Act of Parliament saith? We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience, as the Dr. is; but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience, is liker to lead Men into Atheism, than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion. Let Conscience then have Liberty, where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth (which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves) and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion, where they that profess Conscience, are otherwise sober and peaceable; and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience. It is a more innocent thing, where it is rightly dealt with, than the Dr. taketh it to be, and we think it is more to be regarded, than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church, which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it. I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising. It is false, that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants, as to the pretence of Conscience; nor they the Anabaptists. For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake, and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth: And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes, because of their Conscience.
Sect. 14. He telleth us, Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren; with being the occasion of an inundation of Error, by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience. I am far from justifying that Toleration, which the Independants pleaded for, and which (by their means, some say) was used in our late times of Distraction: Then there was no King in our Israel. All Error should be opposed: Gross Error punished and restrained by force: But will it hence follow, that we must not have leave to Dissent, even from those things that the Church imposeth, without Warrant from the Lord? All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth, p. 59, 60, 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration. The Vniformity in Religion, that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of, is not to be understood of Words in Prayers, and Humane Ceremonies (for would they not then have first setled that way at home?) but of Doctrine, and Discipline, and Worship so far as commanded by Christ.
Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble, from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates, that were between the Assembly of Divines, and the Dissenting Brethren: But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case: For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians, whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship, but what was commanded: They left the Church for supposed Corruptions, which were none of their personal fault, nor were they put under a necessity of approving them. VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church, if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin, if we should do them. But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates, p. 73, 74. The 1st. is, That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England, and did look on Separation from it as Sin, notwithstanding its Corruptions. This he thinketh he hath so proved, that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied: Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed, and with what measure of clearness, let others judge; also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters, hath been shewed. The 2d. Conclusion is, That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church, to go so far as they were able: So that the lawfulness of Separation, where Communion is lawful, is one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to: and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary, I know not. I hope he will not blame us, when we are thrust out of the Church, that we do not lie about the Church-walls; rather than go to another place, to Worship God by our selves. If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for, let him blame us. 3d. Conclusion. Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation, altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled; provided they have used the best means for a right Information. I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion, that I shall say more than the Dr. doth; to wit, that bare scruple of Conscience, cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled, whatever means have been used for Information: For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground (and what else can be meant by bare Scruples, I know not) make an Erring Conscience; which however it may excuse ae toto, can excuse from nothing, in totum. But if our Scruples, such as they are, (and we may say, we have used the best means that we could for Information) do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled, and if by the force of rigid Men, we be deprived of Gods Ordinances, unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars; I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God, and not live like Atheists, will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation; that it will be hard for him to disprove it, unless he retract this conclusion; by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause. I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences, that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in, the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism, who saith, That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism, but true and unpretended Conscience: Also, that requiring the doing of an unlawfu… or suspected Act, is a just cause of refusing Communion.
Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church, in which a Man is a Member, and hath his constant Residence; otherwise it is manifestly false; for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France; but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England, if my Occasions call me often abroad. But take it in the most favourable Sense, the Assertion is not true: It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure, Exemp. Gr. Preaching: I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance, but if there be nothing else pure, or that I can partake of without Sin, in that Church, I am obliged to look after another Occasion, where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions; and having got that opportunity, I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church, rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity. What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons, against the Dissenting Brethren, doth not all quadrate with our case; for the Congregational Men could not alledge, that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians, in one Ordinance more than another; and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance, they might in all; and so had no excuse from constant Communion, if occasional Communion was lawful. But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward; therefore enough of it at present.
Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th. That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church, and setting up Congregations for purer Worship, or under another Rule, is plain and down-right Separation, as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines, to the dissenting Brethren. It is strange that this Learned Author, should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice, who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own, and he is pleading against, particularly Dr. Burgess, Mr. Case, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Newcomen, &c. whom he nameth. They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves: Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that, wherein they allowed themselves. Where…ore it is evident, that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned (for such is both innocent, and necessary, when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members) but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church, which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters, either to be practised or approved of by them, and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned; and that with good reason; for where the Church is a true Church, and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining, Separating can have no shew of Reason.
Sect. 18. He inferreth, Sect. 16. From what he had said, That the present Practice of Separation, cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists: Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines. The former I have disproved, tho' he saith, …t's clear by undeniable Evidence: The latter, he saith, is, in effect, confessed by all his Adversaries; to make out which he citeth in the Margin, Mr. Baxter, and Dr. Owen: For the latter, no wonder he confess it, seeing he was for that very Separation, which the Assembly opposed. And the former is yet alive to speak for himself: And it is as little wonder that he should say so; for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians. I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert, That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical; the men that they debated against, separating or such Grounds, as either proved the Church false; or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism: But they could not understand it without Exception. He taketh a great deal of pains, p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation, and that which the Assembly condemned, is but in some Circumstances, that do not make the one unlawful, and the other not: But that it is otherwise is clear, if we consider (as hath been said) that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty, and as Terms of Communion, which had been their Personal Sin to do, as we have. If this make not a material, and pertinent Difference, I know not what can do it. But, saith he, the Assembly used general Reasons, that have equal force at all times. Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception; which they did not, nor needed not mention, because it was not the case in hand: Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time; but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion.
Sect. 19. He saith, it cometh to the same point, whether the Scruples (on which men separate) relate to some Ceremonies required, or to other Impositions, as to Order and Discipline; if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation. Ans. 1. The Dr. then maketh no difference between a Scruple that hath ground for it; and one that hath none. If he can make our Scruple appear to be groundless, as he confesseth theirs to be, he hath advantage against us. Ans. 2. Is there no difference between having probable grounds for a Scruple, and having no such grounds? Is there any comparison between scrupling at using Religious Ceremonies, that have no warrant in the word, but are in general, at least, condemned in it, and scrupling at some pretended Corruptions, that no Scripture Condemneth? Ans. 3. If the Dr's reasoning be good, either we must bear with none that scruple, unless we scruple the same thing: Or we must bear with all that Scruple. The first of these excludeth all Christian forbearance; the last he will not alledge. Ans. 4. He mentioneth Impositions as to Order and Discipline, only that we may seem Imposers as well as his party is; that is unreasonable, not only because we can shew Christ's Laws for our Order and Discipline, which he will not pretend to shew for the Ceremonies: But also because we can bear with sober and faithful Brethren, that cannot approve of all that we do; which his Party will not.
Sect. 20. He mistaketh the Case when he insinuateth, That we have no more but scruple of Conscience to plead. The Dr. should not have alledged this, till he, or some of his party had answered all our Reasons of Scrupling, in many Books, neither touched by him, or any other: But now he will Knock down our cause with one blow. He saith, he put the Case as clear as possible, to prevent all Subterfuges, and slight Evasions. He supposeth five scrupling Parties, one at the Liturgy, a Second at the Cross and Kneelling, a Third at wrong gathered Churches, a Fourth at Infant Baptism, a Fifth at Preaching by set Forms, and being stinted by an Hour-glass: And he saith, the Nature of the Case doth not vary according to these. If this be the Dr's Herculean Argument, we shall not need to fear his Strength so much as before. Surely the Learned Dr's parts could let him see more Reason to bear with sober and intelligent men, who dare not join with a Church in worshipping God, by Religious Ceremonies not instituted by Christ, than with Fantastick Quakers, who cast off God's Ordinances, because of an Hour-glass; but that his prejudice doth, in this, darken his understanding. But the Tendency of his Discourse seemeth to be; either Church-Authority must lead us Blind-fold, so as we must scruple nothing imposed; or neither Scripture, nor Reason shall limit our Fancy; but we may scruple what we will. He saith well, p. 76. (and the Non-conformists before him had said it) If they alledge Grounds to justifie themselves, they must do it ex natura rei, and not from the meer errour or mistake of Conscience. We will most willingly join issue with him on this Condition, provided the natura rei may be judged by Scripture, as all the Worship of God should be. If he can prove the Ceremonies that we scruple, to be such as we may use without Sin; or, if we prove not the contrary, let him call us as vile Separatists as he pleaseth. If the Dr. had pleased at first to hang the matter on this Pin, and not to have filled his Book with so many Citations, to strengthen his Cause with Humane Authority; he might have saved both himself and me all this labour, that hitherto we have been at. It is no great commendation either of the wisdom or of the sobriety of his Church, that he saith, Sh… hath as much occasion (cause he should have said) to judge their (the Presbyterians) scruples unreasonable, as they do those of the Quakers. What followeth about occasional communion, is answered above. That which he citeth out of Mr. A. of the Assemby's being transported in the heat of Dispute, is not so derogatory from that venerable Meeting, as he would make it: It is rare to find it otherwise with sinful men. How many things did thus slip from the Pens of several of the Fathers, that the Dr. will not approve? But we do not hereby give up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren, nor forsake the Assemblies Principles; it is one thing, not to approve all that men say, and another thing to condemn the Cause that they plead for.
Sect. 21. Our Author doth next undertake Sect. 17. to shew how we have deserted the Principles of the old Non-conformists, as to private Persons reforming Church-Discipline, setting up new Churches, and the preaching of Ministers, when silenced by the Laws. For the setting up of Churches and Discipline, he citeth several Non-conformists against it, without the Magistrate, p. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. To all which, I answer, That two things are expresly in these Citations, that make what they condemned not, to reach our Case: For, 1. They condemn private mens endeavouring a publick Reformation, that belonging to the Magistrate; so it is thrice expressed, p. 81. out of Confut. of the Brownists. Now we meddle not with a publick Reformation, otherwise than by our Prayers and Advice, as we have occasion, (which is there also expresly allowed by them) but content our selves to serve God privately, when we cannot do it publickly without Sin. To this same purpose is that which is cited out of Giffard, p. 79. That tho' every one ought to keep a good Conscience, yet no private Persons are to take on them publick Authority to reform. If we do so, blame us for it. 2. These Non-conformists all along speak of private Persons reforming the Discipline of the Church. Now, what is done among us of that kind, is done by Ministers, who, though in the State they are private persons, and therefore are not to meddle with matters of that concern: Yet in the Church they are publick persons, and have Authority from God, to dispense his Ordinances. But I do not, by what I have said, intend to homologate all that the Dr. citeth out of these Non-conformists; several things they assert, that cannot well be defended; but I shall not digress so far, as to particularize them.
Sect. 22. I shall only say, That had this Principle of not reforming the Ordinances of Christ by People, among themselves, till the Magistrate gave countenance, taken alwaies place in the World, not only Christianity had not come in the place of Jud…ism, but Arrianism had extinguished the Orthodox Profession. Have we not Examples of People who were under Arian Bishops, setting up new Bishops over themselves, in Epiphan. Haeres. 73? Doth not Hilary exhort the People to separate from Auxentius, their Arian Bishop, adversus Arianos, when yet there was no Orthodox Magistrate to countenance these things? Yea; had this Principle obtained, there had been no Reformation from Popery, in most places, where now, through the Lord's mercy, it is. Say not, that our reforming of Worship and Discipline is not in things of that moment; for tho' that be true, yet it is not of no moment; without it we should either join with men in Sin, or live without the Ordinances of God. Let me here make use of the Testimony of a worthy Person, one whom the Dr. afterward bringeth against us; and therefore, in reason, cannot refuse his Suffrage, (tho' we are far from hanging our Cause on mens Opinions, as the Dr. doth) that is, the learned Monsieur Claude, in his excellent Book called, the Historical Defence of the Reformation; the design of which, is, to shew, that every man hath a right to believe the truth, and to dissent from Errour, and to profefs this, and to reform Religion, by setting up Religious Assembles, for the true Worship of God; when they cannot have Truth, nor right Worship in that which goeth under the name of the Church. He saith, (Part 2. p. 169.) As it is ridiculous to demand of a man, in a civil Society, what personal Call he had to live, to labour, to avoid that which would be hurtful to his Life, and to have a care of his own Preservation; so it is also an Absurdity to demand of our Fathers, what Call they had to believe aright in God, and to worship him purely, and to remove far from them all that which they believed to be contrary to a spiritual life, and their own Salvation. And much more to this purpose. He objecteth, p. 170. Is not this to rend the Church by Divisions? and answereth, No; for the Vnity of the Church lieth not in Errour, or false Worship; it is love to the Church, to endeavour her cure, by shewing a good example. And, Part 4. p. 14, 15. When it is objected, That the Protestants could not separate, because their Pastours were against it; he answereth, That many Pastors went along with them; and if that had not been, they might have chosen Pastors; all which he discourseth at length. We have an Example of setting up God's Ordinances without, yea, against the Laws of men, in the Word. It is clear from Ezr. 5. with ch. 4. 21. that the Temple was built against Law: And it is clear from Hog. 1. 2. that it was the Peoples Sin, that they neglected it so long, even when Law was against them; and that they ought to have done it before Haggai and Zechariah put them on it.
Sect. 23. Next the Dr. (p. 82.) bringeth in some Non-conformists condemning Ministers Preaching, after they were silenced. It is evident to any that readeth, p. 82, & 83. that it is silencing by the Church that is there spoken of; but our restraint is by the Magistrate only, who doth not pretend to give nor to take away Pastoral power. Pag. 86. he bringeth Mr. Bradshaw reasoning against Ministers preaching against the will of the Magistrate; but in the First part of Mr. Bradshaw's Discourse, it is evident, that he speaketh only against publick Preaching in such a place, in defiance of the Magistrate, and running on the Sword's point, or opposing Sword to Sword; which we are far from either practising or approving. I confess, p. 87. he is for the Ministers living privately; yet saith expresly, that he is to labour mean while privately, upon particular occasions offered, (why they may not be also sought, I know not) to strengthen and confirm in the ways of God those people that are deprived of his publick Labour. If this be not an allowance of his private preaching, I understand it not: But. Mr. Bradshaw will have the People to submit to the Ministry of another in publick, with the liking of the Magistrate, tho' he would have them to affect and love the former as their Pastor. How congruous this Advice is, I shall not enquire, not laying so much stress on mens thoughts of things, as to be turned out of our way by them. But Mr. Bradshaw seemeth to speak of a Case wherein the Magistrate is offended with a Minister on some personal account, and another is set over the People, with whom they may as lawfully join, as with the former; but that doth not come near to our Case, in which Ministers are restrained, because of a Scruple common to them and the People that join with them; to wit, using the Ceremonies. Would he have the People, over the belly of Scripture-light, to join with the new Incumbent in Ceremonies, and not rather enjoy the Ordinances in purity, tho' in private, from their own faithful Pastor? I cannot see how that can be gathered from his words; but if it was his Opinion, we crave leave to differ from him. Beside, Mr. Bradshaw did never advise, that some Thousands of Ministers being all laid aside at once, should deprive the Church of their more private Labours, when they were forcibly restrained in publick: The Non-conformists, in former times, were not in our Circumstances.
Sect. 24. The Dr. is now come to his Triarij, his last Argument to prove what was the general Sence of the Non-conformists in this. It is Mr. Sprint's Argument for Conformity, rather than to be deprived; to wit, That a lesser Duty should cede to a greater: He supposeth Conformity and Preaching to be a greater Duty than abstaining from the Ceremonies: And he confirmeth this (it seemeth) by the Apostles, who, he saith, submitted to the Jewish Ceremonies, rather than lose the Liberty of the Ministry. The Dr. I see, hath not kept his best Wine till the end of the Feast; this is one of the meanest of his Allegations; for the Non-conformists had an easie Answer to this Argument, that here a Sin, and forbearing a Duty, are brought in competition; which maketh an easie choice, to wit, using unlawful Ceremonies, with not preaching in publick. What he saith of the Apostles using the Jewish Ceremonies, is quite out of our way, for these Ceremonies for a time were indifferent, as all acknowledge; bu…, that ever any of the Apostles used them, after the full promulgating of the Gospel, and the Destruction of the Temple, when they became not only mortuae, but mortiferae, (as the Schools speak) we utterly deny. But even what he maketh the Non-conformists answer, concerning the greater usefulness and necessity of the preaching of the Apostles, than of their preaching, maketh nothing for his Design: Nor doth it prove, that they did not think that the Apostle's, Wo be unto me, if I preach not the Gospel, did reach to their Case; for it can import no more, but that if such a great necessity might warrant some things otherwise not warrantable, (as the abstaining from things strangled, and Blood, was warranted; yea, made necessary by a present necessity) their publick Preaching was not of that moment; and it was only their publick Preaching that was hindred by their Non-conformity.
And thus I have got through the Thicket of his Historical Coll… ctions, and proceed to the Rational Part of his Discourse, which, I hope, shall prove less tedious.