The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 7 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
Of the lawfulness of Gathering Churches out of other Churches. How if rightly stated it is not a Separation. That the Christian Magistrate may lawfully tolerate such Churches.
THAT the lawfulness of this our desire to be indulged us by the State, may appear, we humbly present these two things.
1. The Principles upon which our selves do go in this desire.
2. The Reasons upon which the State may indulge it unto us.
1. It is not a separation as from no Churches, but a secession as from such Churches as we cannot, as our Judgment stands, with a good Conscience continue Members in, and wherein by reason thereof, we should want the enjoyment of the Lord's Supper and other Ordinances. And we desire that this profession of ours not to continue Members, may be but as charitably interpreted, as our Presbyterian Brethren would desire that their profession in one of their Petitions should be, wherein they profess that they cannot with a good Conscience continue to officiate in the Administration of the Lord's Supper as Pastors in their Congregations, whilst no further power for Suspension of persons who appear unto them scandalous, from the Sacrament, is given them; and that they shall in Conscience be enforced to lay down their Ministries; and many of them in private and in publick have said, that they must turn Independents. Now as to them and their Consciences as Ministers, such an evil doth arise as would make them lay down their Ministers; so to us, as Members, there ariseth so much as causeth us not to renounce, but to withdraw from present Communion. The same kind of Principle that they now go upon, did we go upon, in withdrawing from our Parishes, which Principle they now hold forth, to persuade a yielding by this State unto that Rule they have presented to them.
2. It is not a gathering of Churches out of Churches, as it hath been interpreted; which imports, 1. An activeness to persuade men from their Churches, and to gain Proselites by all ways of industry, which the State may put restraint upon. 2. It imports a rending them from those Churches, whilst there yet remains an obligation to continue in them, and to remain Members of those Churches; but such a rending we acknowledge to be unlawful. But we desire in the behalf of those that are scrupled in Communion with their Churches, and whose Consciences their Ministers cannot satisfie, and whom in that case they ought not for ever to retain among them without Ordinances, nor upon whom in such a case an indissoluble obligation lieth; we desire that these, rather than they, that remain out of Ordinances, may be gathered into new Churches; and such Churches, wherein they may enjoy for substance the same Ordinances, and the same means of Edification, as will save them, and build them up to life eternal, as well as in the Parish Churches, others of the Saints of God, who can and do communicate therein, do enjoy them; we may as well build up such Congregational Churches, as the Reformed Churches have built up their several Members amongst them, though differing each from other; as in England under Episcopacy, and without power given to Ministers to cast out the scandalous; and as those in Scotland, or Holland, or the Lutheran Churches.
3. This is not to set up one Church against another, Altare versus, Altar against Altar, but one Sister-Church by another, as the Dutch and French Churches in England are and have been unto the Churches of England, and the Parishes thereof; and this for the common edification of all sorts of Saints, and the whole Mystical Body of Christ, who otherwise are kept divided from Christ in his greatest Ordinances, and exasperated more one against another.
Now that this forbearance or indulgence of liberty from the common Rule establisht, and hitherto continued in this Church of England, may without sin by the Magistrate (of whom we humbly seek it) be granted to us, we humbly present this general Reason. That which is not unlawful, nor contrary to the Word of God for the Magistrates of this Kingdom (who have put this Case to us) to allow; nor destructive to the Peace of the Kingdom, this the Magistrates of this Kingdom may allow to us without sin. But this Request of ours is such.
The Proposition in it self is clear, and the Parliaments willingness to do it, they have expressed in their own Ordinance.
1. I shall prove that it is not unlawful, nor contrary to the Word of God, for the Magistrates of this Kingdom to allow the Liberty which we request. The contrariety to the Word of God for the Magistrate to grant this, must necessarily lie in one of these two things, or both; either that it is so as to the Magistrate's Judgment, who hath established the Rule of Communion, or else that in the verity and truth of the thing it self, the nature of the Rule by him establish'd, is such as is immutably commanded by God in his Word, and a command also of that high nature, as that it is not lawful for him to grant this Indulgence of swerving from it. That in either of these cases it would be unlawful to him, we do acknowledge. And look by how many degrees this Request of ours falls short of such an height of contrariety as this is, either in the Magistrate's Conscience, or in the thing it self, so many grounds and degrees of safety, as well as simple lawfulness there is as to the Magistrate's Conscience herein to grant it.
1. If to the Magistrate's Conscience and Judgment, the Rule should in that wherein we desire a Liberty, be prudential and humani juris, of humane right, though about spiritual things, which himself may vary and alter as may suit best for the Subjects of this Kingdom; then he may lawfully grant us this Liberty; for Quicun{que} potest Legem condere, potest etiam Privilegium concedere, Whoever may make a Law, may also grant a Priviledge, whereof this reason is given, Privilegium est Lex privata quaedam, ergo ab eo maxime dari potest, qui potest Legem universalem condere. A Priviledge is a certain private Law, and therefore it may chiefly be given by him, who can make the Ʋniversal Law. This (as becomes us) we humbly leave to the Judgment and Conscience of the Magistrate himself; yet withal humbly propound these considerations. The unlawfulness of granting this (as to the Magistrate's Conscience) must be either in respect to the Terminus a quo, or ad quem; that is, either in regard of the leaving the Parish-Churches wherein men scrupled do live, or in the setting up distinct Churches from them: For of these two parts only is what we desire made up of.
1. As to the first; The obligation for men that dwell in the Precincts of a Parish cannot be such, as that it should be unlawful for the Magistrate to give allowance, for men dwelling in Parishes, to be of another Church than that in that Parish: For the bounding of Parishes in this Kingdom, after the manner that now they are, was by a prudential Law, and therefore being the Magistrate's own Ordinance, it may be by him dispensed with. And although that now de facto, and thorough long continuance, Churches by this Ordinance have been formed up in Parishes, and that those men that desire this Liberty, have been Members of some Church therein; yet it is not unlawful for the Magistrate to give them leave to cease to be Members of those Churches, and retain their dwellings, and to become Members of some distinct Church collected out of many Parishes. For, 1. The Magistrate might permit the People of this Kingdom to be cast generally into Churches otherwise bounded, without sin, and therefore may allow and permit particular Members who are scrupled, to cease to be Members of the Parish-Churches they are and were in: For otherwise this form of Parishes, now there is a Church-State in them, is by reason of that State, as it were consecrated, and so exempted from all alteration by the Magistrate or themselves.
2. The late Ordinance seems to permit as much as we have said to the Servants and Retinue of the King, his Children, and Noblemen.
3. Nor is this unlawful to the Magistrates Conscience in respect of the Terminus ad quem, viz. to permit setting up new Churches of men having left the Churches they were in; For, 1. If it were so, then they cannot Erect by their Authority in this Kingdom any new Church: But this they have done; as for instance, Covent Garden, and the Inns of Court, authorizing them for all Ordinances of Worship and Government, though the most, or many of the Members came up out of several other Parishes throughout the whole Kingdom: And such is the case likewise of the King's Houshold and Noblemens Families, instanced in before: Besides, might not the Magistrate give leave to any company of true Worshippers of God to set up a new Church, if they removed their dwellings and made a new Parish, even as lawfully as to grant a new Corporation?
Obj. 1. But it may be objected, That the sin lies in neither of these, but in permitting men to set up Churches of another Constitution and Government from what is Established by the Rule.
Ans. 1. We reply, That we do not set up Churches of another Constitution, having the same Ordinances for substance as the Churches have which we leave, and not taking in any Members but whom our Brethren may, or will acknowledge meet to be Members of Churches, such as are Saints and truly godly, though of differing Judgment from them. And as for Presbyterial Government, there are none, nay not those that hold it to be by Divine Right, who judge that it is of the Essence and Constitution of a Church, though a necessary Ordinance therein, for the preserving of it pure.
Ans. 2. But 2. If you will suppose that Differences in the framing of Churches should make them of another Constitution, yet the Magistrate might permit them: For, 1. This State did permit the Dutch and French Churches, when of a differing, if not of as differing a Constitution (in these respects) from the Churches amongst us then, as these of ours, which we desire, are now, who yet in continuance of time were become as Natives, and understood our Tongue. The Bishops, when they would have reduced them unto their Government, urged this very thing, and yet prevailed not in it, in the worst times. Again, 2. If a company of Scotch-men inhabiting among us, scrupling kneeling, and the Government by Bishops, &c. had then petitioned our State, as was in Consultation, to have Churches according to their Order and Constitution; might not our State then have permitted them?
Obj. 2. It may be objected, That though it were lawful for the Magistrate to permit leaving or removing from these Churches, and to set up new and distinct Churches simply considered; yet the ground and principle upon which we do it is unlawful, because we leave those Churches upon an Errour, viz. that we cannot without sin communicate in them, &c. and so to permit them upon this Errour is unlawful for the Magistrate to do.
Ans. 1. We reply, 1. The Magistrates Conscience need not be scrupled to permit what is in it self in the outward Act, warrantable, to them that yet do it out of an erring Conscience. We have all in the Assembly professed, that if we could agree in the same practices, though upon differing Principles, which were openly professed (whereof the one or the other must be an Errour) yet we would not only permit th…s, but rejoyce in it. Magistrates in such cases when the outward Act is lawful, and disturbs not the outward Peace, enquire not into Principles: The Apostles themselves rejoyced in Christ Preached, though they allowed not the Principles of all that Preached him; If Christ be Preached out of envy, yet I will rejoyce, says the Apostle; yea perhaps it will appear if it shall come to be debated, that the Magistrate may tollerate an outward Act, which is evil as to his Conscience, as well as an Act, which outwardly may be good, only the Principle being erroneous: And that he may do this, when there is not only an erroneous Principle, but an hardness of heart in men that desire it of the Magistrate; for so Moses did in the case of Polygamy, and that for the hardness of the Jews hearts.
2. This ground would utterly make void the Ordinance of Parliament concerning us, in that last part of it: For when the Honourable Houses did put it to our consideration, how far tender Consciences that come not up to the Rule, may be born withal, they judging their own Rule to be lawful, must needs suppose all those tender Consciences that could not come up to it, to be in an errour; and so far judge their practice to be unlawful, and yet are willing to indulge some practices to them, notwithstanding this erring Conscience. And therefore the Magistrate in Conscience may indulge this to us, unless it can be demonstrated by our Brethren, that there is such a peculiar sinfulness in this Principle in its contrariety to the Rule, as the Magistrate cannot indulge it of all other.
3. This ground will put an impossibility upon the Magistrate (if differing in Judgment about Church-Government, &c. from our Brethrens Principles) ever to grant them by way of Indulgence, much lest to Establish by a Law what they have so earnestly sought: Nor indeed can our Brethren (if they be of this Opinion) petition the Magistrate for this. For instance; our Brethren have desired power of judging of scandal for Suspension, to be lodged in the Elderships, as that which belongs to them Jure Divino; if the Honourable Houses be never convinced in their Consciences, but do judge those that request it, upon this ground, to be in an errour, then they can never so much as indulge this to them, much less by an Authoritative Law give forth this Jurisdiction to them over the Subjects of this Kingdom. This Principle, besides what other Reasons the Honourable Houses have had, will teach them to deny it. And then because some, or perhaps most of our Brethren hold National and Provincial Assemblies, to be Divino Juro, and thereby do challenge a power of Judicature and Jurisdiction over all mens Consciences, yea, over that of the Supreme Magistrates, in matters which they shall discern to be scandalous and unchristian, and the Magistrate withal, thinks this Principle to be, not only an Errour, but of as much danger to his Authority, as what this of ours can be pretended to be in the Church, the Magistrate hereby will be constrained to undo (upon the discovery of this Principle) what he hath set up. Yea and further, it is a Principle of many of our Brethren, that the Church Universal is a Politique Body in the whole, and the parts of it Jure Divino, and that every Elder is an Elder of the Church Universal, and so may and ought to unite into general Councils with the same right of Jurisdiction that National or Congregational Assemblies have. The Supreme Magistrates of Europe judging this an Errour (as they well may, and yet these are the Principles of many of our Presbyterian Brethren, if not of the most) they are taught hereby, not to grant the Presbyterial Government, the Principles whereof tend to this, even the setting up a Body of Elders invested with Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, unto which Divino Jure all Churches and Christian Subjects and Kingdoms must be subject, and so a Forreign Power Ecclesiastical is set over all Kingdoms, in an Aristocratical way of Government, as was the Pope in a Monarchical way, though with this difference, that there is a renouncing of Infallibility in the one, but a requiring subjection upon pain of Excommunication in both.
This may suffice touching the Magistrates Conscience in relation to what may be supposed his Principles and Practices. Next we come to the Nature of the Rule of Institution it self, which Christ hath laid upon Members of Churches in respect of departing from other Churches, and setting up new. The obligation (say we) laid by Christ in this respect, is not such, but that the Magistrate may permit it with a good Conscience. The lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof (if it be said to lie in respect to Christ's Rule of Institution) must accordingly be measured by what in the Rule given by Christ is by Institution and also by considering what sort of Institution and Obligation it is, whether it be such as the Magistrate cannot dispense withal without sin. Let us therefore consider the Nature of the Rule.
1. It may be taken for granted by the Magistrate (as it is acknowledged by us) that Church-Fellowship is by the Institution of Christ; so as both every Believer is obliged to be of some Church, where he may enjoy Ordinances; as also that the Churches themselves, the Seat of Ordinances are setled by a Divine Right authorizing of them; and further, that whilst any one doth continue a Member of any particular Church, he is so long obliged to the Duties to be performed by Members therein.
Yet 2. The unlawfulness of leaving this or that Church, and gathering new (which is the thing controverted) depends upon a further thing, namely, what, and how great (and that by Institution) the obligation of Members is to particular Churches, whereof they are Members; As if the Question were, Whether it were lawful for the Magistrate to tollerate Divorces and a Marriage with another; the measure and proportion of the unlawfulness or lawfulness hereof to him, must be fetcht from the nature of the Obligation and Tye which in Marriages God hath made to arise not simply from this, that Marriage is God's Ordinance (for so the Relation of Servant and Master, of Subject and Magistrate also is, and the Duties, whilst that Relation continues, are by God's Ordinance, such or such.) But further, it is from the strictness of the Obligation or Bond of the Relation by God's special Institution: For though the Relation of Master and Servant, or Servant and Family, be (as was said) God's Ordinance, yet there is not that Obligation upon men for not leaving it and entring into a new. Let therefore the Obligation of Churches and Members (so far as from Christ's special Command and special Institution it may any way be made appear) be impartially weighed; for thereupon do the proportions and degrees of unlawfulness depend; both how far it is lawful or unlawful to the persons that leave the Churches, or to the Churches that permit them so to do, or to the Magistrate in whose Dominions they are. For a right estimating of the firmness or looseness of this Knot in which the strength of this Controversie lies, we propound these things to consideration.
1. The Obligation of Members to this or that individual Church under the Gospel, is far less than under the Old Testament the Obligation of Members was to that National Church: So that to take a Judgment of it, or an Argument from the Jewish Church against removing from Churches now, and gathering new, would (as it hath done many) much deceive us. And the difference herein is manifest, and also the ground of it; for the Church under the Old Testament was but one by God's Institution, and so one, as there were to be no more set up, and therefore (though it proved Idolatrous) there was no setting up a new one. It was Jeroboam's sin, and the sin of the Ten Tribes, to set up Altare versus Altare, Altar against Altar, as they did. But now every where pure hands are, and may be lift up to God, and Spiritual Sacrifices be offered every where as well as in the Holy Mount; only we are now bound unto Church-Fellowship, and the enjoyment of Publick Ordinances as well as they, and so if we cannot have it in one Church, we are to seek it in another.
2. Hence it will be (we suppose) granted by our Brethren, that it is a matter of much liberty (so it be done with peaceableness and sobriety) to remove from one Church to another for civil conveniences; yea out of many Churches, to set up a new Church for civil conveniences sake (as for Trade and the like, when a place is not well inhabited) much more for spiritual advantages.
3. Take the outward matter of fact (in this thing controverted) namely, to remove and leave our Membership with these individual Churches now extant, and to gather new, if you take the fact barely out of some supposed erroneous Principle as the ground of it, or scandal and disturbance annexed thereto, it is a matter of Liberty: At least it is such as needs not a warrant by a new Institution or Example which is called for: Neither as such doth the evil and unlawfulness of it lie in crossing or thwarting an Obligation by Institution indissoluble; but only it lies in the manner, ground, or the ill consequents of it, which are extrinsecal to it: It hath been laid upon our Opinions and Practices, that we held Members of our Churches under so hard and strict an Obligation, and to that end do bind them by a Covenant (yea it hath been affirmed by some, that we bind them by an Oath) as that they must remove when we remove, and by Divine Right are so bound up to Membership, to that individual Church they are of, as not to depart from it. This as we utterly renounce, so it will rather fall upon our Brethrens Principles, who would hold their Members under so great a bond, that though they are scrupled in Communion with them, and cannot satisfie their Consciences, they, though arising to multitudes, must rather want these Ordinances, than leave their Churches and gather themselves into new; This hard Imposition will especially follow, if they should put this unlawfulness upon the Obligation of Members unto their Churches, or Churches of such or such a form.
These things premised, we argue the lawfulness of this permission to be granted to Members; and it is lawful both as to the Magistrates Conscience, and to the Churches they are Members of to permit them.
1. It is lawful to the Churches and Magistrates Conscience, to permit us our desire of being free of the Churches (which is the case we in this debate have to do with) notwithstanding any Obligation to continue therein Divino Jure. If this Obligation of Members to their Churches were by Divine Institution, yet the Magistrates might permit men scrupled, to leave them, and be free therein. For, 1. Your selves have granted a liberty to Consciences, scrupling, receiving the Lord's Supper in the Parishes, which yet is a duty lies on them by Divine Commandment, Do this in remembrance of me, &c. 2. Our Brethren, whereof some yet hold Classical and Synodical Assemblies to be Divino Jure, have granted also a freedom for such Members as scruple the lawfulness of being subject thereto. Yea, 3. If any one that is now of a Parish Church, remove his dwelling to another Parish (which is permitted him) and consents not to be of the Church in that Parish he removes unto, we believe, that as the Law of the Land frees him from being a Member of the Parish Church he came from, so our Brethrens Principles will free him from being a Member of that Parish Church he comes unto, until he doth give his consent so to be. Thus easie a loose is there for freedom of Members in respect of this Obligation, and so for the Magistrates Conscience to permit it.
But 2. If this Obligation were by a special Divine Institution indissoluble, as that of Marriage was (and as this is not) yet the Magistrates Conscience might permit a secession from it without sin. For so notwithstanding God's Institution was, that in Marriage the knot between two persons was such as man could not sever or put asunder, yet Moses without sin, not only permitted Divorces, and so a freedom from this so indissoluble Obligation, but second Marriages also, and this all the Kings afterwards also permitted, and so by like reason it may be here in this case. And this Instance evinceth not only the permission of the privative part of omission of Communion with such Churches, but the positive too, viz. the gathering of Churches also, though both were in the Judgment of the Magistrate against an Instituted Obligation.
2. As for the positive part, To permit new Churches to be gathered, of Members out of these Churches, the like Practices and Principles of our Brethren will not only warrant the lawfulness of the Magistrate to permit it, but make it warrantable for us according to our Principles to do it.
For, 1. Some of themselves have gathered a Congregational Church out of many Churches, receiving and admitting upon their reformation, and forming up a Church in their Parish anew, an addition of Members out of divers other Parishes in City and Country unto the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and to Preaching, &c. in a constant way. If it be said they had not Sacraments in their own Churches, we reply, yet they had Preaching, and they should have remained Hearers in their own Parish Churches, till God opened a way for Sacraments there; for to this or the like Law would our Brethren oblige us unto. And again, constancy of Communion for Preaching and Sacrament doth constitute them a Member of that Church they thus communicate with, more than dwelling in the Parish, and occasional coming to that Church doth constitute them a Member of their own Parish Church. If it be said that this is pro tempore, for the time, and until such time as their own Churches are reformed, when they will restore them again. We reply, that so also when the Parish Churches shall be reformed to our Principles, we will be willing to restore all their Members also, and will but relieve them with Ordinances according to their Consciences until that time; and will our selves then become Members of them. We only add this, that this some of our Brethren have done before any Authority of Parliament did warrant it, which may stop their mouths at least in this so inculcated clamour (in our Brethrens late reply presented to this Committee) against us, who went out of the Kingdom to gather new Churches without offence to the Magistrate.
2. Many of themselves have gathered a Church out of a Church in a Parish, and that of the lesser out of the greater number. Our Brethren do account all that have formerly received the Sacrament with them to be of their Church, and Members thereof; for else they make wholly a new Church; and why else do they claim power over all, and proceed by way of Suspension, which is a Censure (the Objects whereof are only Church Members) and not by way of Admission? Now for the Minister, and a few in the Parish whom he shall chuse, to begin to make up a new Body distinct from the rest, this act of theirs is either by way of separation and gathering a Church out of a Church (as they are pleased to call ours) or by way of Church Power and Authority towards its own Members. If the former, then we have our own Brethrens practices warranting ours: If the latter (which our Brethren by calling it Suspension seem rather to put it upon) we ask and demand, what Power Christ hath put into the lesser part of a Church, to take on them to suspend the greater part? And further, we desire our Brethren to resolve this Committee, whether they think not themselves bound according to the Principles of Church-proceedings, to proceed to Excommunicate (after two or three admonitions) all they do suspend, and so engage themselves to deliver to Satan, more than half this Kingdom in a month, if upon their admonitions they repent not; If they answer that they do thus take a few in a Parish to the Sacrament, and suspend the greater part by vertue of the Authority of the Magistrate: We reply, 1. That many have done this afore the Ordinance of Parliament came forth; And, 2. That then the Magistrate may not only permit, but Authorize us together a Church out of Churches, or at least out of a Church as well as our Brethren have done.
But, 3. …s our Brethren have gathered Congregational Churches out of a Church, yea Churches: So their Classical Churches are electively by picking and choosing made up now at first not of all the Ministers in the Parish Churches, but of some chosen out from the rest: Whereas according to the principles of their Ecclesiastical Obligation, the Ministers of all Churches should be taken in, but that would spoil Reformation. And yet if they will tye us to the Obligation of Members, according to the Law of particular Churches, that because all in the Parishes have Universally been Members of Churches, and so are theirs already; and therefore we must wait a Reformation of these Churches, and take them as Churches, and not make new; then should they by the like Law take these all as Ministers of Churches into their Classes, and trust God with his own Ordinance, as they account it.
If in the next place it may be Objected, That it is not simply the breaking of the bond of Obligation to the Churches of which we are Members, that the unlawfulness of this consists in, but in the erroneous ground which we leave our Churches upon, as if you cannot enjoy Communion with them without sin, which errour therefore binds ye, as an erring conscience doth, and not to remove, and also binds the Magistrate and the Churches not to permit this freedom from our Churches, but to continue in them till they recal that error.
We reply, Suppose this an errour in the person (as the Magistrate who hath propounded this Case doth suppose this Scruple of ours to be, and upon this supposition to resolve what forbearance he may permit) yet it is not unlawful for the Magistrate to permit them this freedom whom he judgeth to be in this errour. Besides the Reasons mentioned before, your selves also would permit us to forbear the Lord's Supper without your Censure, and to be free from the power of the Assemblies, which forbearance yet you judge to be upon an unlawful ground in us.
But more particularly, to reduce this Plea of our Brethren against us to its right State.
1. We say, if the Question be about the Magistrates or Churches Conscience, whether they may permit it or no, (as the Question is) then it is not, whether this be an errour in these Members, according to the Magistrates or Churches Judgment, but whether it be such an errour, as they have warrant from Christ, so to bind it upon the Conscience of the parties erring, as not to suffer them to practise it upon their own peril and account betwixt God and them, after due means be used to reclaim them. Our meaning in Stating it thus will be cleared.
If the Case be put as in foro Ecclesiastico, in the Ecclesiastical Court, if this errour come before the Church, these Members are of (and we hope our Brethren will not oblige the Magistrates Conscience to more strictness herein than of the Church it self.) The Question will not be whether these parties do err in their Judgment, or whether doctrinally the Church may not lay before them this errour; and their grounds why they judge it to be so, and so press it upon them as a good means to reclaim them from this erroneous ground; But the Question is, Whether they are judicially to bind the Consciences of them that are in this errour of scrupling Communion, &c. So as this sentence, according to the Law of Christ, should bind them up from practizing accordingly by vertue of this Ordinance and Power given the Church over them, though in the particular so judged their private Consciences remain as afore. And again, the Question is, whether it be such an errour as the Church is obliged not to permit them to remain in, or to practise accordingly, but is bound to retain them, and if they do otherwise to excommunicate them. In a word, the Question is, Whether there lye an Ecclesiastical Obligation both upon the Church to bind this errour judicially upon Conscience, and to retain these persons ever, and also an Obligation upon the persons, the Church so judging to continue still as Members.
Now this we take for granted, That Churches will not take on them to bind thus judicially upon the Consciences of their Members, whatever they account an erroneous principle, nor bind them up from the practice of what ever they shall Doctrinally declare to be upon an erroneous ground, especially when otherwise the outward fact simply considered is Lawful, which is the Case in hand. And that this alledged is such an erroneous principle as they ought judicially to bind upon the Consciences of their Members, it remains upon our Brethren to prove; for when they shall take on then to prohibit a practice otherwise Lawful upon this errour, the burthen lyes on them to make it forth, to be of that nature as that they that dare bind it upon the Consciences of others to so great a prejudice to them, as to deprive them of the Ordinances of Christ.
But besides the expectation of our Brethrens making this forth, We humbly present these Reasons why the Churches are not bound thus to bind this errour upon their Brethren who are Members of them, nor their Members thus scrupled, to be bound up thereby.
1. Because it is not an errour of that degree of erroneousness, as should be the Object of such a judicial binding it upon their Consciences, it being but such an errour as comes under that Rule which the Assembly hath voted, that may stand with Piety, wherein godly and learned men possibly may and do differ, and such errours the Assembly dischargeth from judicial binding by Censures.
2. Again, Our Brethren having granted that after due means used, they will not constrain (that is, by censures or otherwise) any that scruple Communion with them, and so run that principle, which is the foundation of what we desire, and do thereby grant that this errour is not the Object of Church Censures.
3. Therefore they are not to censure this practice, neither which we desire upon this supposed errour.
1. For if the unlawfulness of removing from these Churches and gathering New, be founded upon this supposed erroneous ground of it, and not upon the Law of the Obligation of Church-Membership; and if it is simply considered in the outward Act lawful, then if the errour it self be not worthy of an Ecclesiastical binding, the practice founded hereupon is not, and if it be not, then may the Churches tollerate it.
2. Otherwise if any Members of a Church remove from his Church to another upon a mistaken ground; as for example, his not edifying under that Ministry or the like, which the Church he is in, judgeth an errour, hath that Church power ever to retain him, because his going away is upon an erroneous principle, so as they may not dismiss him, or have they power from Christ to bind his Conscience not to remove, because they judge him to do this upon an erring principle?
3. Yea, we humbly offer it to consideration, if after due means used to convince men of this errour, when they shall find they cannot persuade them, they should not say as they to Paul, The Will of the Lord be done. Though the thing be against their own Judgment (as that was) and not only permit them to go from them, but assist them in gathering a new Church, according to the principles of their own Consciences, whilst they therein set up the substance of God's worship, and profess to hold all Communion in other Ordinances with them as far as possible they can? For,
1. For the general Obligation by Christ's command and appointment to all sorts of Believers to be in Church-Fellowship wherein to enjoy all Ordinances, especially the Sacraments, is a greater Obligation, than the Obligation that Members can have to any particular Churches. We are all sure that this general Law is an Institution of Christ, and absolute; and the Obligation to particular Churches is far less, as hath been shewn. Now as the Law of lesser Obligations useth to yield to the more universal, so should this; yea in this case men keep more to the Law of Communion with the whole universal Church, for they partake of all the same Ordinances with them, by which the Communion of the Church Catholick with Christ their head and one with another is more observed, than if in being deprived of this Communion, they held Communion but in some things with a particular Church.
2. We humbly offer, that as for such errours for which Members should not be Excommunicated out of their own Church, and deprived of the Ordinances therein; For such errours, Christ's mind is, that they should not be deprived of them where else they may have them. If there were Churches extant of their Judgment any where in the world, why might they not be permitted to remove to them? as put the Case, when our Non-conformists were scrupled in kneeling at the Sacrament, or to have been present at the Liturgy, and so were deprived of the Ordinances; suppose this to have been an errour in them, to have scrupled the Lawfulness hereof (as we may well suppose, it may be the judgment of some of our Brethren, that it was an errour in them) might not these have removed into Scotland to those Churches where the pure Ordinances might be had? And then again, suppose there were no such Churches extant, were it not a lawful way of attaining to enjoyment of the Ordinances by making a new Church, such at least as the Magistrate in tenderness to them might permit?
3. If the Primitive Condition and Differences among the Saints in the first Erecting Churches give not an Example, yet they do afford a principle of Equity for this. The differences between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision were such, as the circumcised Jewish Christian would not eat together with the Uncircumcised, tho' professing Christianity: How many years this continued, we know not, nor how long it remained in many mens consciences after the decision of the Apostles about the Non-necessity of Circumcision, Acts 15. But suppose it did remain in many for a long while, as appears by the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, &c. Yet surely Jesus Christ did alike provide a way of enjoyment for Church Fellowship and Communion in Ordinances for the one as well as the other, though the difference in Judgment was such as the one could not eat with another. And that Christ's mind was, that both should have the Ordinances, though thus differing, is clear, because in Christ neither Circumcision nor Ʋncircumcision availed; and notwithstanding this difference (because it might stand with Piety in either) they all were baptized into one body, the Church Universal, and did drink (which alludes to their having the Lord's Supper) into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. 13. The Apostles did labour all they could to allay this difference, but did they forbid either to make Churches apart if they could not be reconciled in one? As Peter said in the like case, Can any man forbid water to them that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Jews? So, have the Apostles any where forbidden; or can any man forbid those to have the Sacrament in Churches truly Constituted, that cannot thorough an invincible scruple receive the Sacrament in the Churches they have been born in? Would not, and ought not general Counsels, if now called, if they could not reduce the Churches to one Rule, to permit each their way according to their several principles? And there are as great differences in the Reformed Churches as amongst us and our Brethren.
4. Yea, doth not God profess to accept practices for the substance good, though upon erroneous grounds? Rom. 14. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and he that eateth not (out of scruple of Conscience, which was an errour) his not eating was to the Lord also; and upon that very ground he commands us not to judge them in so doing, because he accepted them.
5. Is not charity more seen in allowing to such tender Consciences those Ordinances which are of so general influence to build them up to life, though with the practice of some errour or upon some erroneous principle (which God will pardon, and Men should indulge to them) than for that errour for which they cannot justly be punished with Civil or Ecclesiastical Censure, to detain them from those Ordinances, by which they may be recovered and healed. This is as if one who had some Disease of smaller moment in probability incurable, and yet not mortal in the issue, should yet be denied such food as would make him more vigorous and fitter for all duties to God and Men, when in this case 'tis more charity to allow it him.