The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 2 · Section 11 – Section 12
Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Ministers of the Church of England to be Vsurpers; and from such they say, they may lawfully separate. Is it Separation, Answ. p. 4….saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are Vsurpers, and have no true Power over them? But Who are these Vsurpers among us, since we have a legal establishment, and we thought Law and Vsurpation contrary to each other? But notwithstanding Law, it is determin'd,
First, All that come into the places of ejected Ministers are Vsurpers, at least to as many of the People, as do not consent to their coming in: Answ. p. 54.How prove you, saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected London-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved, and that the succeeders, were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks? When faithful Pastors, saith he in his Plea (written in the name of the Party, Plea for Peace, p. 55.and by consent, as he saith, of many of his Acquaintance) are in possession,Answ. p. 44. if a lawful Magistrate cast them out; and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fidelity.
I. The Princes Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church, before, or without the Peoples consent.
II. Nor will it alwayes bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schismaticks, because they do it not.
The bottom of all this, is, they are Vsurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish; although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors, and putting in of others. And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Principles as these, I leave others to Judge. For upon these grounds, when Salomon deprived Abiathar, and put Zadok in his room;1 Kings 2. 35. any part of the People might have pleaded, They never consented to Zadok's coming in, and therefore he was their High-…riest still; let Salomon do what he would; he could not dissolve the relation between them, without their own consent. For the Question is not, Whether Abiathar did not deserve to be put out, but to whom it belonged to do it, whether to the King, or the People? And whether any part of the People might still own that relation which he had before to them, without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority? Especially if the People had given their own consent, and the thing had been done not only by Salomon, but by the States of Israel; as it was in our case. They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government, have very little insight into Affairs. For it follows, that a small part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament, and choose other Governors, to themselves in opposition to those established by Law: and why they should not do it, upon an equal pretence in other cases, I do not understand. For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right, especially a small part against the whole, in one case then in the other. Which makes me wonder at those who da…e call them Vsurpers, who enjoy their places by the same Laws, that any Men do enjoy their Estates. And they who assert, that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to adhere to their former Pastors, as Mr. A. doth, who saith,Mischief of Impos. Preface. They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors, do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws, passed by general consent in Parliament; but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation. For, the Papists then had the very same Plea, that these Men have now, v…z. That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation between their former Church Guides and them: and therefor… notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, they were still hound to adhere to them. For the Magistrate had no power in such matters, and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides; just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers. So much do these Men, in pursuing the interests of their Parties, overthrow the principles of the Reformation. For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers, and to put others in their places, or he hath none: if he hath none, then, What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation, when the Popish Bishops and Priests were ejected, and others put into their places? If they say, He hath a just power in some cases, but not in theirs. Is not this a Plea common to all? For whoever thought themselves justly ejected? Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment? What then is to be done in this case, if Men think themselves unjustly cast out? The old Non-conformists said, They ought to sit down quietly; with this satisfaction, that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly, although they did not. They might by joyning in their private capacities in Communion with our Churches, and drawing the People to it by their example and encouragement, have done more good both to the People and to this Church, than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either▪ But if they go upon such principles …s these, That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them, That others are Vsurpers who come in their places, That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws, And that 'tis Schism to separate from them, notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our publick Assemblies, I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government, or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians. This I the rather insist upon, because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it, but that it is made the standing Plea for the necessity of the present Separation, among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful. So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question, Whether they can be said to erect new Churches, Rector of Sutton &c. p. 26.or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations, who were true Ministers, and had their Congregations before others came into their places? If they had done nothing worthy of ejection, or exclusion from their Ministry, whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function. And consequently, whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them, as they are charged with the same practice? There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation. For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned, if Ministers be ejected without or against Law, they who come into their places are no Usurpers; and if they are cast out by Law, they that succeed them are Usurpers; so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration.
Secondly, All those who come into any Pastoral charge, whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings Nomination, or others by the Presentation of Patrons, are Vsurpers, unless the People be pleased to give their free consent; and if they do it not, they may lawfully withdraw from them. For, saith Mr. B. the People have an antecedent Right to consent,Plea, p. 55. which none can take from them.Answ. p. 9. And he saith, he hath proved it by many Canons, that he was no Bishop, that was not chosen by the Clergy and the People; or came in without the Peoples consent. Nay, if they have the consent of some, and not of the greater part, those who did not consent, may proceed to choose another Bishop, if Mr. B. say true. For these are his words. If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600, or 300 Parish Pastors,Plea, p. 81, 82. and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People (or 50000 or 20000, as ye will suppose) and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters, and a Thousand People (or none) chuse the Bishop, this is not the Election or Consent of the Diocesan Church; nor is it Schism for twenty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand. Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling, as Mr. A. suggests, there is nothing hinders them, but that in spite of Laws, they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops, and new Pastors of Churches, wherever they think they can make the Majority. For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People, say they, to choose their own Pastors. Again, saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea, Ibid.If Bishops that have no better a Foundation, i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination, and not by the Majority of the People, shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches, and command the Peoples acceptance and obe…nce, i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presentation, the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such; nor is it Schism to disobey it, no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom. It is plain then, all Bishops of the Kings Nomination, all Ministers presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers: the People may give them a good Title if they please; but they are not to blame if they do it not. For in them, Mr. B. saith, Answ. p. 49.the chief Power is, and sometimes he tells them, they are bound to Separate; however, while they do not consent, they are no Churches, which they are set over;Plea, p. 82. and it is no Schism so to pronounce them; nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church. Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace; and the true and only way of Concord, which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions, only that they might have some pretence for their present Separation?
Sect. 12. 3. Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent (implicit at least) of the People, and so are no Vsurpers, yet if they be Persecutors, or Ithacian Prelatists, i.e. if they either act towards, or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists, the People may Separate from them. When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book, called, The Cure of Divisions, to satisfie the People who were much displeased with him for it; one of the material Questions,Preface to Defence of his Cure, p. 9. he Asks about his Book, is, Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors? As though that had been an unpardonable Crime. In the Plea he saith, If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin, Plea, p. 42.i.e. Conformity, but also prosecute them with Mulcts, Imprisonments, Banishments, or other Prosecution, to force them to transgress, this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism: and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such. And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this persecution, appears by the example he makes of me, for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers, and declared, I intended only to speak of Lay-communion; Answ. p. 61.yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design. And by such consequences, all that speak against Separation may be Separated from, as Persecuters, and Ithacian Prelatists.