Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 2 · Section 2
SECT. II. Of the Ministry of the Church of England.
FRom Sect. 7. and forward, the Dr. debateth against Separation that is grounded on the Church's want of true or rightly qualified Ministers. Here I shall have but little Debate with him; I shall, to cut off Debates, as much as may be, lay down mine own thoughts (which, I think, are not different from those of most sober Non-conformists, especially Presbyterians) in a few particulars.
1. We look on some of the Conforming Ministers as Persons of great worth, and excellent Ministerial Qualifications, and could live with great satisfaction under their Ministry, if it were permitted to us, without our Sin. 2. Others of them we know to be very bad men, and ill qualified for the Work that they undertake; they are Strangers in England, who have not seen this. 3. We are dissatisfied with some things in the Calling and Practice of all the present Clergy; we think the very Office of some of them unlawful, as Bishops, Deans, A…ch-Deacons, &c. and their Ordination by a Bishop alone not warrantable; their Call by Patrons, we judge such also; and their using the Liturgy and Ceremonies we look on as sinful. These things I now only assert, and shall debate them with the Dr. as they fall in. 4. Yet we deny not any of them, on any or all of these accounts, to be true Ministers, nor to have the substance of a lawful Calling: Let this be understood of Bishops and De…ns, &c. as Ministers, not as in these superiour offices. 5. Tho' we think a better and more edifying Ministry than that which most of the People of E…gland live under, very desirable, yet we do not think, that any defect that is in their Ministerial Call, or in the Truth of their Ministry is a sufficient ground for separating from the Church.
Sect. 2. These things being premised, I am resolved not to take the defence of all that some have written of the defects of the Ministry, as a ground of Separation, tho' I find many things cited by the Dr. that at first view may seem to have that tendency, (a…d he improveth them with all the advantage that he can) and yet were not so meant. In the very entrance of this discourse, I meet with a most unjust Imputation laid on us by the Dr. In general (saith he) they declare, that they only look on those as true Churches, which have such Pastors as they approve; and for this, citeth not o…e Author, but Mr. Baxter. Is this fair dealing? Did ever the Non-conformists make Mr. Baxter their general Representative? or, Hath he so much as pretended to write in the Name of them all? Were it candid in us, if we should pick out some passages out of Dr. Sherlock's Book of The Knowledge of Christ, and impute those opinions to the Conformists, as their Doctrine in general? Beside, Mr. Baxter, nor no Non-conformist never made their Approbation the Rule, by which Ministers are to be judged, the having of whom maketh a true Church: But the Dr. looketh on us as a Company of silly Rediculous Men, and is pleased often so to expose us. Mr. Baxter's Notion about true Pastors, and true Churches, I know he himself can best defend: And therefore I leave him and the Dr. to debate that Case.
Sect. 3. He saith, Sect. 8. If the People judge their Ministers to be unworthy, or incompetent; they allow th…m Liberty to withdraw, and to separate from them; and promiseth to prove it from many passages, in several Books of Mr. Baxter's and others Still he representeth us as making the Peoples Judgment the Rule; and that this Judgment is sufficient ground of Separation, not considering whether their Judgment be right or wrong; or that there is a Superior Rule, by which all Judgment, whether of people or others, is to be governed. All this we disown; neither can the Dr. prove that any of us ever owned it Yea, we further deny, that we own a Power in the People to withdraw and separate from every Pastor, who is really unworthy and incompetent. But what he asserteth, he endeavoureth to prove by three Arguments. 1. Saith he, p. 122. They leave it to the Peoples Power, notwithstanding all Legal Establishments, to own, or disown whom they judge fit. This we deny. And the Proof he bringeth of it, is, Mr. B. speaketh against the right of Patronage, and the Power of Magistrates in these cases, for the unalterable right of the People. Mr. A. saith every particular Church hath power to chuse its own Pastors. Dr. Owen maketh the depriving the people of this Right, a Ground of Separation. If Dr. Owen hath done so, let it pass for a part of the Independent Judgment, which was the mistake of that Eminent Servant of God; others are not of that mind. For Mr. B. and Mr. A's words no such consequence can be drawn from them. The People (and neither Patron nor any other) by the Laws of the Gospel, have the right of Election of their Pastors; but it doth not follow, that they ought not to bear with being hindred the Exercise of this right, for the sake of Peace and Unity.
Sect. 4. The 2d. Argument is, The People are made Judges of the Worthyness and Competency of their Ministers. This, saith he, followeth from the former. Ans. I have disowned the former; and therefore this falleth with it. Yet I here distinguish: The the people have a discretive power of judging the fitness of the Man that is to be set over them with respect to their Souls; so as he ought not to be obtruded on them, without their being satisfied with him. But the Peoples power of judging is not Authoritative, nor Supreme, much less absolute, in this matter; but Subordinate to the Pastors of the Church, who have power of trying the Person Elected by the People, and rejecting him if unqualified: For the Spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets; not to the People. As for Pastors not now to be Elected, but obtruded on the people, and s…tled among them, tho' in an undue way, I shall not say, that it is the Peoples part to separate meerly for the Insufficiency of the Minister, if the Ordinances be Administred, so as they can partake of them without Sin. That which can warrant withdrawing, must be a Depravation of the Ordinances; and that such as importeth my personal Action, in partaking of that depravation of the Ordinance, and not every defect or fault, either of the Minister or the Ordinance. What Mr. B. saith of peoples Duty to get the best supply they can, which the Dr. taxeth him for, is not meant of d…ferting, or separating from a Parish, meerly on Accompt of the defective Quali…cations of the Minister; but either, of Occasional Communion with a better supplied Society; which if the Dr. do altogether condemn, he should Preach against the Throngs that resort to him, and leave others under whose particular charge they are. Or, when withdrawing is founded on other good Grounds, that people should chuse better qualified Pastors, than those they leave: What he saith, himself must Explain and Defend. What Mr. B. further saith, of the warrantable Preaching of Silenced Ministers; and of the Magistrates imposing Pastors, obliging people to adhere to and own these; and forsake their own Pastors, settled among them in the way of the Gospel, come afterward to be debated; and hath in part been spoken to above.
Sect. 5. Argument 3d. They give directions to the People, what sort of Ministers they should own, and what not. And doth not the Scripture so too? We Affirm people to have a Judgment of Discretion, both of their Pastors to be Elected; and also of the Doctrine and Administrations of their Pastors already in possession of the cha…ge of their Souls: And yet that they are not to separate from the latter for any defect, save that which doth so vitiate the Ordinances, as that it is their Sin to join in them. And if the Dr. will not allow them this Judgment (as he seemeth to deny it, by his Sarcasm, of which, saith he, (to wit, utter Insufficiency, and Heresie) the People are admirable Judges) he must introduce implicite Faith and Obedience: And by this Doctrine, it had been a Sin in the People even to have left Rome it self; for were not they admirable Judges of the Heresie and Idolatry of that Church? He that chargeth other mens way so fiercely, with a Tendency to Popery, should take heed of giving ground for such a Reflection to be made on himself. Our Lord doth not speak with such Contempt of the People, as this Learned Dr. doth. He saith, My Sheep hear my Voice; and they know not the Voice of strangers, Joh. 10. 27. and 5. to deny this Spirit of discerning to the People of God, is to make them Sheep in a literal Sense; that men may Rule over them as Beasts. I see not such Inconsistency in Mr. B's Words, as the Dr. would make us believe; while he speaketh, p. 123. of withdrawing from the utterly Insufficient and Heretical; and p. 124. that people are not warranted to withdraw for a Ministers personal Faults, nor for his ministerial Faults, while his ministration is not utterly untolerable; if the Dr. can shew either the Falshood, or Inconsistency of these Assertions, we shall own it. He also wrongeth Mr. B. and the Non-conformists, while p. 124. he telleth us of Mr. B's outcries against the People, as Heady, Rash, C…nsorious, Proud, Ignorant, such as are ready to Scorn and Vill fy the Gravest and Wisest Preachers: And hence He (the Dr.) inferreth, that such are unfit to discern the Qualifications of Ministers. I ask the Dr. if ever Mr. B. said that the People were all, or generally such: We deny not there are too many that de…erve severe Reproofs for such things (and Mr. B. hath not been too sparing in his Censures of them) but is there any shadow of reason for in…erring thence, That all the People should be deprived of the Right, that Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed to them? It were as reasonable to say, that because many men Misguide, or Debauch away their Estates; therefore no man should ha…e the Power of managing his Estate. Christ hath provided Discipline and Authority in his House to Curb the Extrav…gancy of such persons, and to restrain the Power of Election, when it is mis-managed, as is above-said: And he needed not the Dr's, and t…e …elates device to prevent this mischief, by putting the power of Election into the Hands of a Patron; who (may be) a Papist, Atheist, or Enemy to Godliness, and so less fit to chuse one to take the charge of mens Souls, than any of the Persons described.
Sect. 6. And if Mr. B. say, That the heady Persons mentioned, are comm…nly the most violent, and will judge in spite of the rest: Yet the Remedy that I have mentioned, is for restraining of them, and is like to do it bet…e… than what the Dr. is for, can do. Neither doth Mr. B. nor any of us, allow these heady persons to be the decisive Judges either of who of his side, or who of our side are true and sufficient Ministers: Which the Dr. might have known, and so spa…ed much of his discourse; which I shall not Transcribe. That which Mr. B. telleth of many young, rare, injudicious Preachers in England, was never look'd on as sufficient ground of Separation by it s…lf; as the Dr. insinuateth. But it is a sad grievance, and these men withal imposing sinful Terms of Communion on the people (for who greater Zealots for Liturgy and Ceremonies than they) and there being many faithful and qualified Ministers laid aside from their publick work; is it any wonder that people leave the one, and cleave to the other? The Ground that I have already laid down, will justifie our withdrawing from the Ministers even in London, however Grave and Learned they be, and however Capacious their Churches be: For even their sinful Terms of Communion are imposed.
Sect. 7. He alledgeth, Sect. 9. That by this means Separation cann…t be kept out of any Church whatsoever. This is true if the Dr. have liberty to make our opinion to be what he pleaseth to have it, that he may the better refute it. But if our opinion be rightly understood, and if we be heard speak for our selves; it is most false. I hope there are Churches where the Ministers generally are sound in Doctrine, and mix nothing with God's Ordinances as Terms of …ommunion with them, that is unlawful: In a Word, There are Church…s where, tho' Ministers be not faultless, yet the ordinances are pure; or if there be any thing amiss in the Ordinances, people are not required to own it pe…sonally: From such we will not withdraw. He bringeth Four Qualities that Mr. B. required in Ministers; the want of which may warrant to withdraw from them: Tolerable Knowledge: That they be not Heretical: That they be not opposers of serious Godliness: That they be not so vicious in their Lives as to do more hurt than good. If these qualities were to be considered by a People about to Elect a Minister, it is not difficult to determine what Obligation lieth on people to shun the man that wanteth them: But it is another case, when the Qualities of a Minister under whom we are, come to be considered in order to warrant casting off his ministery. A general Determination of this I have already given; to wit, that no other qualities of the Minister doth warrant withdrawing, but such as so vitiate the Ordinances, as my personal Concurrence with them is Sin.
Sect. 8. But to consider these Four Ministerial Qualities in reference to this Case: Two things I shall say of them in general. 1. It is either supposed, that all the Ministers of a Nation are so ill qualified; or that some one, or a few, or most of them: In the first case there is more need of separate Meetings: In the last some less need; in the Third yet less; and in the Fourth least of all; because peoples wants are more easily supplied by Neighbour Ministers in the one case, than in the other: tho the need to the Soul under that one bad Minister to shun him, is as great as that of others to shun many. 2. These bad ministerial qualities may no doubt arrive at that height, and have those Aggravations and Circumstances, that they may warrant withdrawing from such Ministers; and when people cannot otherwise have God's Ordinances, may warrant separate Meetings. The reason of this, a priori, is, b…cause they may so pervert the Ordinances of God, as to make them unlawful to be used: This may without difficulty be supposed to be possible: Ignorance may be such as neither Word nor Sacraments are so much as right for the Substance. It is so clear in Heresie, that none can doubt it, as in Papists, Socinians, &c. opposing serious Religion may be the all of some mens Preaching. And even personal wickedness of Ministers (which seemeth to be more remote from this Hazard than the rest) may affect the Ordinances, as is exemplified in Eli's Son, the Priest of the Lord; their intemperance and covetousness made Non-conformists in Israel, that were not chargeable for their withdrawing: For their taking the Flesh by violence from the People, before the Fat was burnt, was contrary to the Institution of that Ordinance; in which first the Blood was to be sprinkled, then after the slaying and opening, the Fat was to be burnt: And after that the Priest was to have his part; as may be seen, Levit. 7. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And before the burning of the Fat to the Lord, the Flesh was not Holy, and so not the Priests Portion, saith J. Martyr, in locum. This was so observed among the very Heathens (who imitated in many things the Jewish Sacrafices; That haud immolata sacra devorare, was proverbial, to express a Belly-god; such as Eli's Sons were. This was their Sin, whereby they did pervert Divine Ordinances from the Institution, 1 Sam. 2. 14, 15, 16; and it is said ver. 17. That Men abhorred the Offerring of the Lord. Some Translate it, Retrah…bant homines a Sacrificiis Domini, they shunned offerring Sacrifices (saith Vatablus) beholding the Avarice of the Priests, and when they saw that the wonted rites of Sacrificing were not observed, saith Menochius: And it yet further appeareth from ver. 24. that this their Fact did affect the Ordinances, and made people withdraw from them; You make the People of the Lord Transgress, saith Eli. There is no reason to restrict this to their uncleanness mentioned, ver. 22. For Eli heard beside that, of all that they did to Israel; and no doubt his Reproof had respect to all. Some Translate ver. 24. Abigitis populum Domini, i. e. efficitis ne huc veniat populus ad Sacrificandum. So vatablus. All this considered, we must not think it absurd, to say that people may see such things in their Ministers, as may warrant deserting of them.
Sect. 9. If this should be denied, the Clergy should be Lords over God's Heritage, to all ends and purposes, and might teach what they would, and do what they would, and bring into the Church what they would, instead of Christ's Ordinances; and the People be still oblig'd to hear them, and join with them in all these abominations; they might lead the People in the way to Hell, who were still obliged to follow them. 3. The People have a Right of discerning and judging, in reference to their own practice, whether their Ministers be so qualified, as that they may safely live under their Ministry: This doth neither import, that they may determine in this what they will; nor that they are not to blame, if they judge amiss; nor that they have Authority to pass a Sentence on their Ministers (that belongeth to the Pastors); nor that all of them are so qualified for this Judging, as were to be wished; yet, that they have such a Right, cannot be denied, without obliging them to blind obedience, and regardlesness of their own Souls; and Scripture alloweth it, when it alloweth People to admonish Ministe…s in reference to their work, Col. 4. 17. This Command the Colossians could not obey, if they had no power of discretive judging, whether Archippus fulfilled his Ministry, or not. Without this, people were obliged to cast themselves into Temptation and hazard of Soul-ruine by a Deceiver or Soul-murderer. This was both the Principle of the Primitive Church, Cyprian, Ep. 68. Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini a peccatore praeposito separare se debet. And it was their common practice, (tho' I confes… sometimes on no sufficient grounds) they separated every where from the Arian Bishops and Pastors. The Magdeburgenses, Cent. 4. 1, 10. p. 746. tell us out of Ruffinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, that when Foelix B. of Rome had communicated with the Arians, the People of Rome separated themselves from him; and that when he taught, none of them came to Church: Also, ibid. p. 772. That Moses refused to be ordained by Lucius B. of Alexandria, because he was an Arian, and a Persecutor, but went to the Exiled Orthodox Bishops to receive Ordination. I may here put the Dr. in mind (using it only as Argumentum ad hominem) that an eminent light of their own Church, Bishop Jewel, giving reasons why the English Bishops went not to the Council of Trent (a formal Separation) was, because of Pope Pius's Simony in getting the Chair, and manageing it with Murders and Cruelty. Full. Ch. Hist. lib. 9. p. 70.
Sect. 10. 4. Breaking the Peace and Unity of the Church, is a matter of so much weight and consequence: And the Sin of it (on whatever side it lieth) of so deep a Die, and so great Aggravation; that the greatest caution is to be used, that we do not separate for imagined, but real; for small, but very great; for uncertain, but very Evident want; not of every ministerial quality that is …sirable, but of such as is necessary for the Ordinances being so Administred, as we may partake of them without Sin. If People do mistake in any of these, and run into Separation without sufficient grounds, thinking that fault of a Minister true, or great, or evident, or intolerable, which is not so; we do not plead for this practice: But we must not, to shun that inconvenience, say, that it is in no case lawful. I know no Truth but it may be abused by men of Corrupt minds, as well as this. I know there are faults in Ministers, which render them in the secret Judgment of God, and to the Jealousie of good Men, no Ministers of Christ, but of Satan; which yet will not warrant Separation from them, while they have Ordination unrepealed by a Church Sentence of Deprivation, and Administer God's Ordinances, so as the partaker of them is not involved in Sin. Gildas said of some Pastors in his time; Apparet cum quem vos sacerdotes—sciens ex corde dicit, non esse eximium Christianum: And O inimici Dei, & non Sacerdotes: O li…atores malorum, & non pontifices traditores, & non sanctorum Apostolorum successores; Impugnatores & non Christi Ministri. When we can apply all this to a Minister, the Church ought to cast him out, as unsavoury Salt: But till that be done, private Persons ought to withdraw from his evil Deeds; but not from the Ordinances while they are pure. I know this hath been, and is, a Controversie in our Neighbour Church of Scotland, and hath given rise to much disquiet, much Confusion, and many Persecutions there: I shall not much dip in it; our Case being more clearly Stated: and our withdrawing from the publick Assemblies, being founded not on personal faults of Ministers, but on sinful Impositions in Worship. I have not met with one judicious Writer of that Nation; nor one Minister that I remember of in private discourse, who denieth, in thesi, that it is lawful to partake of the Ordinances from a Minister, meerly on Accompt of his personal faults, where the Ordinances that we are to partake of are incorrupted; but they state the Controversie upon some Specialities in their Case. One or Two little Manuscr…pts I have seen, that in Thesi and with as much Confidence, as little Reason, deny the lawfulness of hearing a scandalous Minister. To these, I only oppose this one Argument; Our Lord Commanded the Jews to receive the Ordinances from the Priests of that time, who were most of them very bad men, Matth. 8. 4. Luk. 17. 14. and what Christ bid them do, we may lawfully do in the like case. The Exceptions made against this Argument (that I have met with) are very Light, as that the Priests were not so bad as ours. 1. This is said without all Colour of Reason. 2. Let them shew what degree of Scandal in a Minister will warrant such withdrawing, and what not. Again, they object, That the Ordinances could not be had, but from these Priests. Ans. If it had been unlawful to partake with them, Christ would rather have had no Sacrifice offered, than that People should sin in going about it. He that preferreth Mercy to Sacrifice, would never preferr Sacrifice to shunning of Sin. And, beside this, if the hazard of want of Ordinances could inferr the necessity of joining with these Priests, so may the hazard of a sinful rending of the Church, perswade to join in the Case in hand. And further, where the Ordinances can, without any sinful circumstance, be had from better hands, I am far from advising any to attend the Administrations of bad men: But in that Nation they had better grounds of their practice, to wit, Subjection to Prelacy, required of them; and that their faithful Pastors were turned out, and others put in their Place. But I leave this Debate, as not being my present Work.
Sect. 11. I now come to say a word of each of Mr. Baxter's four Ministerial Qualities; in particular, 1. Knowledge and Vtterance: The Ordainers are the Authoritative Judges of these; and the People are not without very great and manifest cause to question what is in this done, by the Guides of the Church; yet must they see with their own Eyes, and lament the defects of this kind, that they evidently see, but not separate, while the Ordinances are not intolerably depraved, tho' there be considerable defects. The Dr. never heard, that the Apostle bid People turn away from their Minister for want of Vtterance; neither was such a Command needful, Nature and Reason injoining, That if a man cannot speak audibly and intelligible, People should not come to hear a noise, so that they cannot tell what is uttered. His declamation against Peoples judging of a Minister's Knowledge, is out of the way; we do not make them Triers, as he supposeth, neither give them Authority; and we think, (for all his scorn) that tho' many …annot well discern a Minister's Knowledge in Controverise, yet most can tell whether he understandeth the plain Truths of the Gospel, when they hear him discourse of them. If men, by prejudices, or want of due application of their minds, (as the Dr. speaketh) mistake about these, I shall hardly call them very good men; as he supposeth they may be. The Second Quality is, That a Minister be not Heretical. Except Taunts and personal Reflections on Mr. B. I see not what the Dr. answereth to this. We do not say, That Peoples thinking a man Heretical, when he crosseth their humours, is a good ground to separate on, as the Dr. would have it thought; neither is it needful for discerning this, that all the People be Learned Divines, or have read Epiphanius and Binnius, as he talketh; but we think, they that diligently read the Scripture, and pray for spiritual Understanding, may discern when manifest Errour against the Foundation of Christian Doctrine is taught; and where they find this to be the way of a Minister, may withdraw from him. I wish the Dr. would speak more plain, that we might see his mind more clearly than we can do by these jeers: Doth he think there are none Learned among the People? or, Doth he think that none of them that want Literature can discern Truth from Errour, in any Case? or, Doth he think, dangerous Errour being discerned to be ordinarily preached, People should attend on that Preaching, instead of the wholsome Food of their Souls, and not seek better means, unless the Bishops will give leave? If he be not positive in all these, he saith nothing against Mr. B. nor Us, in this matter.
Sect. 12. The Third Quality is, That Ministers be not Opposers of Godliness. That is not to be understood of what people will call so without cause; nor of suspected malignity; nor of open opposing of it in the mans private actings, by word or deed; nor of close hints in Sermons against it; nor breaking out sometimes into more open maligning of it: But when this is manifestly the ordinary strain of his preaching; we say, in that Case people may withdraw from a man; for here the Ordinance of Preaching is wholly inverted and turned against that which it was appointed to promote. There is as good ground in this case to desert a Minister, as there is in a besieged Garrison, for the Souldiers to desert their Commander, when he turneth the Guns that are on the Walls, from the Enemy, upon the Town. The Dr. rejecteth this, as before, by tart Reflection on Mr. B. which whatever it may be, ad hominem, is nothing ad rem. If Mr B. hath sharply reproved some for Censoriousness, Pride, Divisions, &c. and these will count this opposing of Godliness, Doth this peevish mistake of theirs prove, that there can be no such thing really committed by a Minister; or if it be, that it should not be resented by the Hearers? Or, if Mr. B. sometimes speak at this rate, is this his ordinary Doctrine? or, when men make Railing their ordinary Doctrine, Should people sit and hear that, as God's Ordinance for their Souls edification? The Fourth Quality; That Ministers be not of a scandalous Life. Of this the Dr. saith nothing, and I shall say little more than is already said. We do not hold, That personal faults in a Minister, where the Ordinances are incorrupted, is a sufficient ground of Separation from him. But it cannot but be a sad Grievance, and make people wait on the Ministry of such a person with less comfort and satisfaction, and may warrant people that regard the advantage of their Souls, to lay hold on the first opportunity that they can get, to live under a Ministry that is more like to be blessed.
Sect. 13. He chargeth the Non-conformists (without exception) Sect. 10. with insinuating, that the whole body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such faults as the people may lawfully separate: A most false Assertion, and unjust Charge. Not one Non-conformist that ever I read or met with, hath said or written this, or words to this effect, but they do generally disclaim it: But the Dr. undertaketh to prove it by some particulars. 1. They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing, and then tell the people over and over again, That it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests, especially where the Scandal is so notorious. I am astonished to read this, from the Pen of one whom I am loath to have an harsh thought against. We do indeed think Conformity a Sin, and being open, it cannot but be a Scandal; and we think, that in some it arising from a regardlesness of knowing what is right, becometh yet more scandalous; but none of us ever thought, that a mistake of this nature in men, otherwise sober and conscientious, was a very scandalous thing; or, that it was such a scandal, as by it self could warrant Separation. But let the Dr. tell us of any one of our way, that ever held this general Thesis, That it is no Sin to separate from scandalous Priests, when the Scandal is notorious. I am sure Mr. B. (whom he only citeth on this occasion) teacheth the contrary oftner than once, particularly Christ. Direct. p. 718. and his looking on Conformity as Sin, and an aggravated Sin, and the pressing of it as that Sin which they charge us with, to wit, Schismaticalness, do no way prove what the Dr. asserteth. When Mr. B. saith, p. 133. Can you wonder if the people chuse more faithful Pastors? It doth not make the Clergy's Conformity the true Reason (nor the main Reason neither) of Separation; yea, nor doth it import an Approbation of Separation, (tho' he doth elsewhere shew his Approbation of it) but only sheweth how you tempt the people to it.
Sect. 14. Another Argument to prove his charge, is Sect. 11. That we count most of the present Ministers of the Church of England Vsurpers, and that from such we may lawfully separate. Ans. We deny both parts of his Assertion, whatever Usurpation some of them may be guilty of. We know most of them have the (tacite at least) consent of the people, a post facto; and therefore, however they might be guilty of intrusion in their entry, in their continuing in their places they are no Usurpers. Neither do we own it to be lawful to separate from every Minister that is an Usurper, meerly on the account of his Usurpation. To clear this, I shall lay down our opinion about this, in these few Assertions. 1. The regular way of entring into the Ministry, is by the Election or Call of the People over whom he is to have charge, and the potestative Mission or Ordination of the Pastors of the Church: This will fall in afterward to be debated. 2. It is consequential to this, That whoever do not enter this way into the Ministry, are in some degree or other Intruders into that Work. 3. Though the express Call of the people, and their free consent, be needful to the more orderly Entrance of a Minister among them; yet if they implicitely shew their consent, and they being prelimitted by the Presentation of a Patron, or Commands of the Magistrate, if they consent, that is enough to the substance of a Call, and maketh the Minister that so entereth no Usurper. The reason is, because he is only to consider the Will and Consent sufficiently declared, not the motives nor considerations that influence their will. Indeed, if the man had any hand by undue means, to influence them to consent against their Duty and right Reason, he is, in so far, guilty before God: But this doth not nullifie his Call, which consisteth in the peoples consent. 4. There are three sorts of Usurpers of the Ministerial Office or Work. 1. Such as fall upon that Work, without a Call from a people, or Ordination by Ministers. 2. Such as do it upon a peoples Call, but have no Ordination or potestative Mission by those in Authority, the Church for that end. 3. Such as have Ordination, but take the Charge of a particular Flock, wholly without consent, or against their will. The two former sorts usurp the Office; the third usurpeth that particular Charge that he hath no right to. 5. The Presentation of a Patron to the Living; the Civil Laws of men, injoining or owning a mans entrance into a place; due Ordination, Institution, and Induction, and what else men please to devise, can never make him the Pastor of such a particular people, without their consent some way had; but without it he is still an Usurper. This doth follow, from the peoples right of chusing their Pastors, which is to be afterward discoursed. 6. It is lawful to Separate from usurping Ministers of the first and second sort, because they are no Ministers; they have only the name of Ministers, like those that called themselves Apostles, and were not, Rev. 2. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny this. 7. When a Minister is obtruded on a People against their will; and so is an Usurper of the 3d. Sort; if there be no other cause of separating from him but that, I think (under correction of the more Wise and Learned) that they should rather cede of their right (with a Salvo) than break the Peace and Unity of the Church, or disoblige the Magistrate; and therefore they ought to give their consent. By this means, their right that Christ hath given them is not alienated; it being by them on that occasion Asserted; and the Rending of the Church is prevented.
Sect. 15. Let us now hear what the Dr. will say, to make good against us his charge of our separating on this Head. He saith, They have a Legal Establishment, and Law and Vsurpation are contraries. Ans. Establishment by a Civil Law, and Usurpation of a Civil Office are contrary. Also Establishment by the Gospel, and Usurpation of a Church-Office are inconsistent; but Establishment by a Civil Law, and Usurpation of an Office in the Church, are very consistent one with another: Because the Office of the Ministry is no institution of Man, but of Christ; and he giveth Laws to regulate that, and other affairs in his House; and hath not left these to be ordered by the Laws of men. I thought the Dr. had been for Episcopal Government in the Church, not for Erastianism. Mr. B. is cited, p. 134. asserting, That all that come into the places of Ejected Ministers, the people not consenting, are Vsurpers; that the Magistrate's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church, without or before the Peoples consent; nor will it always oblige the People to consent, and forsake their former Pastors; nor prove them Schismatical, because they do it not: For disproving of this, the Dr. first leaveth it to others, to judge of the dangerous Consequences of this; an Act being passed by King and Parliament for removing of some Pastors, and putting in others. And I desire that these others, who judge of this matter, may consider, that the ordering of the Ministerial Call, and the fixing a Religion between Pastor and People, do fall directly under the Cognizance, and Laws of him who is the Head and Lawgiver in his Church, even Jesus Christ, and under the Laws of men only, as the Civil Peace may be concerned therein; and let them also consider, that we by owning or disowning a Pastoral Relation, which the Magistrate hath passed an Act for or against, do manage our principle, and order our practice with that peaceableness and caution, that the Magistrate may as little as possible either know it, or be offended at it; and if we be Convicted of a Transgression of the Magistrate's Law, we patiently suffer the Penalties: Let them, I say, Consider these things; and withal Consider, that to differ from the Magistrate in Principle and Practice of Religion, was the Lot of the Primitive Christians; and then let them judge (if they be Impartial Men) whether any such dismal consequences as the Dr. insinuateth, are like to follow.
Sect. 16. He objecteth next, On those Grounds when Solomon deprived Abiathar, and put Zadock is his room; any part of the People might have pleaded they never consented to Zadock's coming in—The Question is, whether it belonged to the King or the People. Ans. There is so little shadow of Reason, or affinity to the question in Hand in this Argument, that it is no small Derogation from the understanding of so Learned a Man, once to mention it; for the chusing of a High-Priest belonged neither to King nor People; but the Succession was fixed in one Family by the Lord; and it was neither in the Power of the King nor People to chuse any, but the nearest Heir of that Lin…. Wherefore what Solomon did in this Case, was no more but to inflict a Civil Punishment on Abiathar, to wit, Exile from Jerusalem (where only the Office of High-Priest could be Exercised) and Confinement to Anathoth: And this was done for his Accession to Treason against Solomon: And Solomon's putting Zadock in his place, was no more but obeying the Commandment of God, who had promised the Priest-hood to Phinehas; whose nearest Heir Zadock was: And it is the opinion of many Divines, that Abiathar's right to the Priesthood was not so good as Zadock's. Another Argument like the rest he hath, p. 135. is, That it follows that a smaller part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament, and chuse other Governours in opposition to those Established by Law, and they may do it in one case as well as in another. Which makes me wonder (saith he) at those who dare call them Vsurpers, who enjoy their places by the same Laws, that any men do enjoy their Estates. This is a Confounding of things most disparate one from another, a taking away all distinction of Civil and Church power. We utterly deny his consequence, That because people, notwithstanding of an Act of Parliament, may adhere to their Pastors; therefore they may chuse other civil Governours (for of these he must speak, or speak nothing to the purpose.) They may not do it in the one case as in the other; because the one case is regulated by Christ's Law, the other by Mens Law. But I now smell out a mistake in the Dr. that maketh such Choler and Zeal against us, That we count them Usurpers of their places, that is their Benefices: Let him no more fear that; we own their Title to these, to be as good as Men have to their Estates, both being disposable by the same Law: But all that we have said, is about their Usurping the Charge of Souls: Of which we Assert two things, 1. That there is no necessary Connexion de facto between a good Title to the one, and to the other, though de jure (I mean, divino) beneficium sequitur officium. 2. That the same Law may give a Title to an Ecclesiastick Estate, which giveth Title to other Estates; but another Law and not that, must give a Title to having the charge of Souls, and must make a Relation between Pastor and People: And the reason of this Difference I bring from that famous saying of Constantine the Great, to the Church-men, that they were foreign, but the foreign.
Sect. 17. He hath yet another Argument; to wit, That this overthroweth the Reformation, for the Papists had the very same Plea, that these Men have now, to wit, that the Magistrate had no Power to dissolve the Relation between them, and their former Church-guides. Ans. If the Dr. will say, that the Popish Clergy had no otherwise forfeited their Title to the charge of Souls, than by the Magistrates Law, then their Plea, and ours were the same. But I suppose he, as well as we, will fix that forfeiture on another Foundation; to wit, their Heresy and Idolatry, that they led the People into, warranted the People to withdraw from them, as none of Christ's Ministers, and disobliged the People from owning any further Relation to them, as their Pastors: And this not only warranted the Magistrate to protect those that did break off from them; but to suppress them, who should have done so, and would not, If he will not own this, he doth more to over-throw the Reformation, than all that he can charge Non-conformists with can amount to. We are far from questioning the Magistrates Power over Ministers, to inflict civil Punishments on them; if he do it on good Grounds, he is approved of God; if otherwise he must answer to him for it: But our Magistrates do not own any power of inflicting Church-censures by themselves; whatever some Flatters do on their behalf. The Objection from the Old Non-conformists, I have answered above. By what hath been said it will appear, whether he saith truly, p. 137. That not one word of our Plea, but might equally serve the Papists.
Sect. 18. What followeth, p. 137, 138, and 139▪ of the Peoples Power of chusing their Pastors, and the Nullity of their Title to that Charge without the Peoples Consentt, he Dr. it seems thinks that Recitasse is Refutasse, for he saith no more to disprove it, but Asserteth, That it layeth a Foundation for all imaginable Disorders, and Separations; which we deny: And enough I have said above to evince the contrary. He maketh another of our Grounds of Separation to be, the Persecution of the Prelatists, and their having a Hand in silencing of Ministers: This we disown. Indeed their Persecution for our not submitting to their Impositions, is a Barr by which we are forcibly kept out of the Church; but it is not the motive that determineth us to leave the Church; we are willing to wait on Gods Ordinances even Administred by them that persecute us, if they will suffer us to do it on sinless Terms. And if Mr. B. (whom he only citeth in this matter) mean any thing else, I cannot answer for him.