The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 11
Sect. 11. (2.) That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it.
This will best appear, by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation.
I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery. To which Giffard thus Answers, The Church of England in the time of Popery, was a Member of the Vniversal Church,Giffard's Answer to the Brownists, p. 55. and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome, nor took not her beginning of being a Church, by Separating her self from that Romish Synagogue; but having her Spirits revived, and her Eyes opened, by the Light of the Heavenly Word, did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist, with his Abominable Idolatry, Heresies, and False Worship; and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith,Grave Confutation, &c. p. 9, 10, 11. and True Service of God; and so is a purer, and more faithful Church than before. Others add, That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church, and so to make a visible Church: Neither were sufficient means wanting, in our Case, for the due Conviction of Mens Minds; but then they add, That the Question must not be, Whether the Means used were the Right Means, for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith; but, Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling, and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors, whose Fellowship they had forsaken; which they Iustifie, by the Examples of Jehoshaphat, and Josiah, Asa, and Hezekiah.
II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God, which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers, using Popish Ceremonies, &c.
To this they Answer;
1. That it is evident by the Word, That the Church hath used,…rav…con…utation, &c. …. 12, 13, 15. and might lawfully use, in God's Worship, and Prayer, a stinted Form of Words: and that not only upon Ordinary, but Extraordinary Occasions, which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit. Nay, they say, They are so far from thinking them unlawful, that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church, they are many times more fit, than those which are called Conceived Prayers.
2. If Formes,Ibid. thus devised by Men, be Lawful and Profitable, What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church, to Command, that such Fo…ms be used; or, for us, that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them, to use them? unless they will say, That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word, Receive the Sacraments, Believe the Trinity, and all other Articles of Faith, because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do: Whereas indeed, we ought the rather to do good things, that are agreeable unto the Word, when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate▪
3. It is true,Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8. the Non-conformists say, The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship; for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy. A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil; we cannot more credit the Man of Sin, than to say, That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichristian, for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ, to read the Scriptures, to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation. Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all shew and apperance of Evil; though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations—But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book, how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass, that both cannot possibly stand together? Yea, so many points, saith B…ll, are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery, that it is not possible Popery should stand, if they take place. And, saith he, it is more proper to say, the Mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book: for most things in our Common Prayer, were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church, long before the Mass was heard of in the World.
4. As to the Fasts, and Feasts, and Ceremonies retained, they Answer, That what was Antichristian in them, was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome, which being taken away by the Reformation, the things themselves are not Antichristian. As namely,Giffard's Plain Declaration, &c. Preface. saith Giffard, the Remission of Sins, and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting▪ which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church; the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels;Answ. to the Brown. p. 10, 11. the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross, and such like things, which the Papacy is full of, but rejected by us.
III. That our Ministery was Antichristian. To this they Answer.
1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture,Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation, Sect. 2. highly commended by Mr. J. Cotton, in his Preface before his Commentaries, on 4 John. not by his unlawful outward Calling, or Office, that he should exercise in the Church; but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach; and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp, to give Laws to Mens Consciences, and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God. Which two Marks of Antichrist, as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy, so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised, were faulty, and unwarrantable by the Word, yet you in your own Conscience know, that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers. For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine; and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience; neither is any thing among us urged to be done, upon pain of Damnation, but only the Word and Law of God.
2. That the Office,I…. Sect. C, 7, 8. which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood, is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word;V. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson. and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office, which the Law alloweth, is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord. Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently? so, by our Laws, he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do, and forbidden to Teach any thing, as required of necessity to Salvation, but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture: yea, it Commandeth him, with all faithful diligence, to banish, and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines, that are contrary to Gods VVord. Doth the VVord Authorise him, to Administer the Sacraments? So doth our Law. Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach, but also oversee, and look to the Peoples Conversation, Exhorting, Admonishing, Reproving, Comforting them as well privately as publickly? So doth our Law. Lastly, Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ? our Law doth also command the same. So that, although many, to whom the execution of these things appertain, do grievously fail in the practice thereof, yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister, is the same in substance, with that which the VVord layeth upon him. Tell us not then, That the same Name is given to our Office, as to the Popish Sacrificers. Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists? And, Shall the Holy Office and Calling, which is so agreeable to the VVord, be misliked, because it is called a Priesthood? considering, that though it agree in Name, yet it differeth in Nature and Su…stance as much from the Romish Priesthood, as Light doth from Darkness.
IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church. To which they Answer.
1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ, Hildershams Letter, Sect. 3.which concern the Discipline of his Church, and the outward calling of his Ministers, is no such sin, as can make either the Ministers, or Governors of our Church Antichrist, or our Church an Antichristian and False Church. And Mr. H. adds, That no one place of Scripture can be found, wherein he is called an Antichrist, or Antichristian, who holding the Truth of Doctrine, and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental, as we do, doth swerve, either in Iudgment, or Practice, from that Rule, which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church. Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture, whose Doctrine is sound. If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound, VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists? If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation, through no other door than Christ, How dare you, that say you are Christ's, refuse to be guided by them? If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock, How can you deny them to be True Churches?
2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us;Grave Confutation, &c. p. 17. in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord, and Administration of Sacraments, as well as the Censures of Admonition, Suspension, Excommunication, and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor; which, say they, by Law, ought to be in all our Assemblies; and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ; but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ; which is most substantial, do want the other, and so exercise it not rightly, that is to say, not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed. And farther they add, That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table, all such as are Vncat…chised,Giffard's Answer to the …rownists, p. 47. and out of Charity, or any otherwise publick offenders; as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion, and in that which is after Confirmation.
3. That although it were granted,Grave Confutation, &c. p. 18. That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures, and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by, yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding: as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat, yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign. The Church of Corinth was a True Church, even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline. The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church,Acts. 8, 12, 19, 31. before the Discipline was established there. And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline (for want whereof they Condemn us) were established there; yea, it is evident, that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time, before the Discipline was setled, or exercised: by all which it is manifest, that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline (which we want) be, to the Beauty and Well-being, or preservation of the Church; yet are they not necessary to the being thereof; but a True Church may be without them.
4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Consent of the Christian Magistrate,Grave Confutation, &c. p. 51. 52. and Governors of the Church:Giffard's Answer, p. 59. 95, 100, 101, 102. Nay, they declare, that in so doing, they should highly offend God. Giffard saith, That the Fetters and Chains, can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists, then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience, and the Fear of God, from presuming to take upon them Publick Authority. And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together, and choose a Minister and Ordain him, it would make him no more a Minister before God, then if all the Apprentices in London, taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor, and Minister an Oath unto him, should make him a Lord Mayor. But of this more afterwards.
V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under (as they speak) an Antichristian Hierarchy. To which they Answer,
First, Grave Confutation, &c. p. 19.They deny that our Bishops can be called Antichristian, since they do, and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Fundamental; yea, some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks, that have gainsay'd it; some have not only by their Doctrine and Ministry Converted many to the Truth, but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel.
Secondly, Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke, which they deny; yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church, or Mi…istry under it. Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches, have frequently born such a Yoke, and yet have been the True Churches of God still.
Thirdly. That there is nothing unlawful, or Antichristian in the Office of Bishops, if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners, to see that the Pastors do their Duties. And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church, to cast many particular Churches,Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson, p. 65. Ed. 1642. under one Provincial, or Diocesan Government. Yea, Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this, not only lawful, but expedient, to that degree, that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty, as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches within his Dominions, without it: as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it. Page 49.But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them, this, saith he, doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations, so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors; which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do, and by the Laws cought to do.
These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness, from the Authors of best reputation on both sides, that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation, between the Old Non-conformists, and the Separatists of that time.