The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1 · Section 17
Sect. 17. It remains now, that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles of their Predecessors, as to private persons undertaking to reform the Discipline of the Church, and setting up new Churches, against the consent of the Magistrate, in a Reformed Church: and particularly, as to the Preaching of their Ministers, when Silenced by our Law's This I am the more obliged to do, because when I said, That I was certain, that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws, is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times, Mr. B. is pleased to say,Answ. to my Sermon, p. 21. That my Assertion is so rash and false, in matters of notorious Fact, that it weakeneth his Reverence of my Iudgment, in matters of right. I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie, than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact; and if what I said be true, and notoriously true, I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies.
Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism,Giffard's Answer to the Brownists, p. 104. That Churches are to be set up, and Discipline reformed, without the consent of the Christian Magistrate: Brown maketh many Arguments, saith he, to prove, that Princes are not to be stayed for, nor yet to have to do, by Publick Power, to establish Religion. Which Opinion of his, is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes, and such horrib… Injury to the Church, contrary to the manifest Word of God, that if there were nothing else, it is enough to make him an odious and detestable Heretick, untill he shew Repentance. But to clear this matter, he distinguishes, (1.) of Princes that are enemies to Christianity; as they were in the time of the Apostles; to what end, saith he, should they, having Authority from Christ, to establish Discipline, sue unto the Courts of such Princes, or attend their pleasure. (2.) Of such who profess Christianity, but are Idolaters. In this case, he saith, they are neither …ound to forbear Preaching, nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it. (3.) Of such Princes, who own the true Doctrine of Christianity, but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline. In this case he determines, That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience, yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful, or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform: which he there proves, and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary.
In Answer to this, Barrow against Giffard, p. 105.Barrow saith, That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Commandments of God, upon any restraint, or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever; and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles, who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion, if Princes had been to be stayed for, or their restraint been a sufficient let: and adds, That they only, according to Gods Commandment, refrained from their Idolatry, and other Publick Evils, and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner, to Worship the Lord our God, and to joyn our selves together in the Faith, unto mutual Duties, and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church, and for the Church to erect the same.
To the Instance of the Apostles, Giffard had Answered, That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ, to set up his Kingdom: but ye have no Commission from God, it is the Devil that hath set you forward; And will ye, in such vile and wretched manner, pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches? Barrow replies, If the Commandment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work, though all the Princes of the World resisted; then must the Commandment of the same God, be of the same effect to all other Instruments, whom it pleaseth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also, though all the Princes in the World should withstand, and forbid the same. By this we see, this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists. Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob. For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with, Page 70, 72.whom they called the forward Preachers; these are two.
1. That the planting, or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate, and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants, except they have Authority from Earthly Princes; which Doctrine, saith he, is against the Kingly Power of Christ, and three whole Lines of Scripture, which he there puts together.
2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching, and to forsake his Flock, at the commandment of a Lord Bishop: Which Doctrine, he saith, is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more, with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse. But, lest it should be supposed, that these two were among those which Iacob saith, he falsly laid to their charge; we find both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-conformists,Confut. of the Brown. p. 51. who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists. For, say they, As to the Peoples power of Reforming,
First, We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scripture, for them that are private Members of any Church, to erect the Discipline, no not though the Magistrate and Ministers, who should deal in this work, were altogether profane and ungodly.
Secondly, We esteem our Prince to be a most Lawful and Christian Magistrate, and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ, and therefore we are justly afraid, that by enterprising a publick Reformation, not only without, but contrary to the direction and liking of them, who by God's word ought to have, if not the onelyonly, yet the principal hand in that work, we should highly offend God.
Thirdly, That for the want of Publick Reformation, the Magistrate is every where blamed, and no where the Church, for ought we can find: Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry,Page 2… ▪ but never for that they plucked it not down, when their Princes had set it up; neither can we find, whether ever the Church, under a Christian Magistrate, was by any Prophet, either commanded to deal (otherwise than by perswasion) in publick Reformation, when the Magistrate neglected it; or reproved for the contrary.
Fourthly, To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things.
I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave; yet not contrary to his liking; or when he opposed his Authority directly, and inhibited it; they never erected the Discipline, when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates.
II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then, yet would it not follow, that we may do so now; for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church, as the Christian Magistrate is; neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power, to pull down, and set up Orders in the Church, as the Apostles (those wise Master-builders) had.
Fifthly, As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced, they declare,
1. So long as the Bishops Suspend,Page 41. and Deprive, according to the Law of the Land, we account of the Action herein, as of the Act of the Church, which we may and ought to reverence, and yield unto; if they do otherwise, we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them. If it be said, the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us, for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient. We Answer, That it lieth on them to Depose, who may Ordain; and they may shut that may open. And as he may, with a good Conscience execute a Ministery, by the Ordination and Calling of the Church, who is privy to himself of some unfitness (if the Church will press him to it) so may he who is privy to himself, of no fault that deserveth Deprivation, cease from the execution of his Ministery, when he is pressed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltless person, put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority, may yet continue in it, What proceedings can there be against guilty persons, who, in their own conceit, are alwayes guiltless, or will at least pretend so to be; seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudgment, That they are called of God, and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops?The Second Quaere.
2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects.
First. They that Inhibited the Apostles, were known and professed enemies to the Gospel.
Secondly. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Gospel, which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto, than this of our Bishops, who, though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government, and Reformation of the Church, yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached, but are also Preachers of it themselves.
Thirdly. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men, nor by the hands of Men, but immediately from God himself, and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men; whereas we, though we exercise a Function, whereof God is the Author, and we are also called of God to it, yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men, and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed, and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery.
To this,Answer to Letter, p. 22. which I had referred Mr. B. to, he gives this Answer, If Mr. Rathband hath denied this, it had been no proof. Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof? My words are, That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists, as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband. Can any thing be plainer, than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists, and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it? This way of Answering is just, as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament, and another should reply, If Curcellaeus said so, it had been no proof. Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers?
When Fr. Iohnson said, Vnreasonableness of Separation, p. 89.That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery, no not by Lawful Magistrates. Mr. Bradshaw Answered, This Assertion is false and seditious. And when Iohnson saith, That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal; but this, that they ought to obey God rather than Man; which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians. Bradshaw (a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter, and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson) gives this Answer.
1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God, as the Ground of their refusal, in so many Letters and Syllables, yet that which they do assign, is by Implication, and in effect the same with it. For it is as much as if they had said, God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us, and not Man; and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God, we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us. For, opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man, they therein plead a Calling from God, and not from Man; otherwise, if they had received a Calling from Man, there had been incongruity in the Answer; considering, that in common sense and reason, they ought so far forth to obey Men, forbidding them to exercise a Calling, as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling. Else, by this reason, a Minister should not cease to Preach, upon the Commandment of the Church, that hath chosen him; but should be bound, to give them also the same Answer, which the Apostles gave, which were absurd. So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson, there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever, to depose a Minister from his Ministery; but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State, the Minister is to continue in his Ministery.
2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit, plainly tending to Sedition, we are to know, that though the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, Preached Publickly, where they were not hindred by open violence; and did not, nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority, or Commandment whatsoever, because they did not enter into, or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever; yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate, whether they would or no; or in despite of them; but such, in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate, were as private and invisible as might be.
3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden, so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places; but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly intended in Silencing of them. But our Churches whereof we are Ministers, are no private and secret Assemblies, such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State; but are publick, professing their Worship, and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State; yea, and by his Countenance, Authority and Protection; and we are set over those Churches, not only by a Calling of our People, but also by the Authority of the Magistrate, who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action; who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel, in those places where he forbiddeth some. If therefore after our publick calling, to Minister to such a known and Publick Church, not by the Church only, but by the Magistrate also, the Magistrate shall have matter against us (whether just or unjust it skilleth not) and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church; I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word, we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still; except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us, that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate, or to oppose Sword to Sword. And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly, and against the will of the Church, and should therein sin; yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh, nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate; neither doth she stand bound, in regard of her affection to her Minister (how great and deserving soever) to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate, by leaving her publick standing, to follow his Ministery in private, and in the dark; refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery, which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy.
4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath, by Gods Word, in such a case, so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery, that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live; when in some competent measure they may publickly, with the grace and favor of the Magistrate, enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another: and (except he have a calling to Minister in some Church) he is to be content to live as a private member, till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him, and to call him again to his own Church; labouring mean while privately, upon particular occasions offered, to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God, those People that are deprived of his publick Labour. And I take it to be the duty of the People, in such a Case, if they will approve themselves faithful Christians, and good Subjects, so to submit to the Ministery of another, as that by Prayer, and all other good, dutiful, and loyal means, they may do their best endeavor to obtain him, of whom, against their will, they have been deprived, and still to affect and love him as their Pastor: now, if the People do thus, then is that Minister called to be Silent, not only by the Magistrate, but by them also, though with much grief.
To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw, Answer to Serm. p. 99.all that Mr. B. saith, is, That Bradshaw thought, we should submit to a Silencing Law, where our Ministery was unnecessary, and so doth he. If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes, he would never have given such an Answer as this. For, Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity, or no necessity of their Preaching, but upon the allowance, or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate. And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity, Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time, than there is now, when himself confesseth, several years since, That Thirty years ago, Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 55.there were many bare Reading, not Preaching Ministers, for one that there is now? And what was there, which the old Non-conformists more complained of, than the want of a more Preaching Ministery? This then, could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason; and Mr. Baxter, upon second thoughts, cannot be of that opinion.
I have yet one Argument more, to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists; which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation; Cassand. Anglic. p. 2.Which is, that where two Duties do meet, a greater, and a less, whereof both cannot be done at the same time, the lesser duty must yield unto the greater; but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming, teacheth, and the practice thereof causeth, to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less; therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine, and a Sin in Practice. The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose, That Ministers, deprived by Law, are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law's. And to confirm this, several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument, and to give an account of the disparity of the case, as to the Apostles times, and ours. For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose, since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery, they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground; to which they Answer; That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do; Page 232▪because their Ministery was of far greater excellency, and usefulness, and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles, than it could be with them. For, say they, What one Minister of the Gospel is there, that dare be so presumptuous, as to say, That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity, and use for the Glory of God, and good of his Church; as was the Ministery of his Apostles? The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles (viz. the planting of the Church, and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations) was such, as could not have been performed by any other, but the Apostles alone; but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity, there is no such danger, and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined; though they Preach not, the Gospel is Preached still, and that soundly, and fruitfully. Did these Men think, the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel, did reach to their case? Can Mr. B. imagine, that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach, although they were silenced by our Laws?
And now, I hope, I have proved that to be evidently True, which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false. But if after all this, Mr. B. will persist, in saying, That he knew those who did otherwise; all that I have to say to it, is, That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance, both of the one, and the other Party (if they were such, as he represents) are not to be the Standard for all the rest; for, it seems, he was not very happy in either.