The mischief of impositions, or, An antidote against a late discourse, partly preached at Guild-hall Chappel, May 2, 1680, called The mischief of separation

SECT. IV. Of the Obligation that lies upon Christians to walk by the same Rule. The Doctor's two questions propounded. The former considered; but no answer to it given by him. Several preli∣minaries examined.

THe Reverend Doctor having at length got over the flats, and bars, that lay at the mouth of the channel, is now hoising up his main Sail to the wind: And can we expect his discourse should run more na∣turally and smoothly? for having begg'd one half of the controversie, he may more easily borrow the rest of it. And therefore from the obligation that lies upon Christians, to walk by the same Rule (that is, such a Rule as he has made for the Apostle, and us) There will arise (saies he) two very considerable Questions: that is to say, where one absurditie is granted, two more (nay twenty) will follow.

1. Question. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an esta∣blisht Rule, and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in? This Question I confess is considerable, very considerable, had he told us what the Rule establisht is: for there are very crooked ones in the World; and who must be the Rule maker? for there are many pretenders; and then proved that we are to comply with it; but to enquire how far we are to comply, and not make it out, that we are to comply at all, to such Rules as he has contrived, is not so considerable as he would perswade us. And yet seeing the hare is started, I wish it were caught, and since he has pro∣pounded the question, it had been well if he had answered it, which we might demand in Justice, but shall take it for a special favour, if he will at any time hereafter, tell us how far we are to comply with an establisht Rule.

At present he cannot be at leisure; in the mean time, for the preventing all misunderstanding the design of his Discourse, he desires us to consider;

(1) That he speaks not of the separation, or distinct communion of whole Churches from each other: we are glad of that: First, because if he allow separation by whole sale, we shall do the better, if the retail trade be de∣nyed: And secondly, because hereby the Churches of the dissenters will

be out of the way his anger: for (as he adds) These whole Churches, according to Scripture, Antiquity and Reason, have a just right and power to reform them∣selves: If then the Churches of the dissenters be but true Churches, and whole Churches; If they have in them all the essentials of Churches; If they have pastors rightly qualified, duly chosen, the word of God purely preached, the Sacraments duly administred, and all other ordinances of Christ regularly used, they have then power to govern and reform themselves.

But by whole Churches, he means the Churches of such nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of government to themselves, and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian society under the same common Ties, and Rules of Government. To which I answer;

1. It's not material in this Case what Churches he means; for if they be true Churches of Christ, his ill meaning will not deprive them; if they be not so, his good meaning will not give them a power to reform them∣selves.

2. It may be quaeried how those Churches of the nations which separated from the Roman Empire, came by this great priviledge to reform and go∣vern themselves, more than others? for if it be an inherent power, and right, all Churches have it; if not, who could give it to some more than others?

3. We should be glad to see what right to govern and reform themselves was given by the Scripture to national Churches; (which yet the Doctor affirms) It had been very convenient to have proved their Being from Scripture, before he asserted their right and power: And it will make men admire, that the Scripture should give a right to such Churches as it ne∣ver knew.

4. And if the Churches of those nations, that were incorporated into na∣tional Churches upon the decay of the Roman Empire, did by consent embody for their own preservation, it can hardly be believed, that they de∣sign'd their own destruction; that is, that those particular Churches should grant a power to National Ecclesiastical Governours that would deprive them of that power that they had within themselves: For as it cannot be imagined that ever any number of families would embody to set a civil Governour over them, and entrust him with a power that would destroy propriety, or take away paternal authority, or the just power of Masters over Servants; so neither can we suppose in a dream, that parti∣cular Churches should agree to unite in such a national frame, as should destroy the power of the Pastors and Elders of the particular assemblies, so as they should be but the Curates, and their Churches but Chappels of

to the Cathedrals, and Bishops, which were prudential Creatures, e∣rected meerly by their own consent.

5. To say that the Church of Macedonia would have been National, if from being a Roman province, it had become a Christian Kingdom, is to say thus much and no more: That there would have been a national Church in Macedonia, but for a small inconvenience, that there was none.

6. And to say, that the several Churches of the Lydian, or proconsu∣lar Asia would have been a National Church, if they had been united in one Kingdom, and governed by the same authority under the same Rules: is to say, just as much, that is, nothing or nothing to the purpose: for the unit∣ing of several Churches under one Prince, who governs them by the same Authority and Rules, will not make one Church.

7. And what strange kind of Churches were they, who having assumed their just right of Government, did then own Christianity, and then incor∣porate into one Church? where had they their just right of Government, before their owning of Christianity?

8. And if these particular Churches of Nations, had power to incorpo∣rate into one National Church; then the particular Churches are of Christs institution, and these National Churches only prudential contrivances for common security: and then it will follow that the National could have no power but what was freely given them by the particular Churches, which cannot be imagined was ever given to their own Annihilation, or ren∣dring them meerly titular; and perhaps they may resume their right, when as weighty reasons do appear for the resumption, as ever there were for their resignation.

9. And if these particular Churches have so far devolved all the intrin∣sick power which Christ vested them with, upon the National frame, and constitution, that they cannot now govern themselves, reform them∣selves, or exert the power which they sometimes had and enjoyed; then have they unchurched themselves, and remain only so much matter with∣out form; and then it can be no schism to separate from them, since all corruptions among them must be immortal when they have foolishly quitted the power of reforming themselves, except the National Church pleases.

This word Church, has made a great noise in the world, and we hear every moment, what wonders, what miracles the Church can do: Now there's a natural curiosity in all men to see that person or thing that boasts of this wonder-working power, and accordingly, we would gladly be acquainted with this body called Church: To satisfie our Humour, the Doctor tells us, That the true Notion of a Church, is no more than a society

of men united together for their order, and government, according to the Rules of the Christian Religion: which description I perceive marvelously edifies all that hear it: For a Parliament is a society of men, and of men united, and united for their order and government, and truly I believe ac∣cording to the Rules of the Christian Religion. Quare now, whether the Parliament of England, be not the Church of England.

I humbly conceive the Doctor fell asleep in the next words; It's a great mistake (says he) to make a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship; and consequently that the true Notion of a Church, is an Assembly for Di∣vine Worship: For never certainly was any so bereaved of common sense, as to assert that this is the adaequate Notion of a Church. It had been civil to have quoted some one obscure Nonconformist, that in some Book which none ever read but the Doctor, has asserted such an Absurdity. We say that the Publick Worship of God is one of the Ends of uniting into a Church Society, but not the onely End; and to exclude Worship, (as the Doctor seems to do in his description) is as bad, if not worse, than to exclude Discipline and Government: But we agree that Worship is not the onely End, there must be Government, Discipline exercised in every Church; what will the Doctor gain by all this, but that our Parochial Churches are not true Churches? And when the Doctor says further, There must be some other Bond to unite Churches, (some other besides Wor∣ship) I cannot enough admire at the absurdity of the expression, seeing Worship is not the Bond, but the End of Union.

It has been familiar with this Reverend and Learned Person, having been employ'd in more important Controversies, either to mistake, or mis∣represent the Notions and Principles of the Dissenters: for so I find him, Answ. to several Treatises, p. 180, 181. laying this down as a fundamen∣tal Principle (of those who separate from the Church of England) as to Worship, (wherein the difference lies) that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he has expresly commanded: And at the bottom of the same Page, he repeats the same thing, with the same confidence; wherein the Doctor treads in the steps of Archbishop Whitgift, (and he must tread in his steps if ever he reach Lambeth) who in his answer to the Admo∣nition, does charge the Puritans to hold, That nothing was lawful in Wor∣ship, but what was expresly commanded in the Word of God; upon no better ground, than that the Admonition had said, nothing is lawful in Worship, but what God has commanded. To this Mr. Cartwright re∣plies, Is this to interpret mens words? Are these Phrases equipollent, [Com∣manded, and expresly commanded?] Many things are forbidden, many things commanded, which are neither expresly commanded, or forbidden. We say

not, no Ceremony, no Order, no Discipline is lawful in the Church, but what is expresly found in the Word of God; but that men may not act arbitrariously, that they are bound to conform themselves to the general Rules of the Scripture, which are given forth as a Rule by which to square all Religious matters. Thus far Mr. Cartwright. And so do we openly and freely own that direct, immediate consequence from Scripture, or whatever is included in the general Rules of Scripture shall conclude and determine us in these disputes.

Here again the Doctor thinks he has gravelled us with an unanswerable question.

If (saies he) it be mutual consent, and agreement which makes a Church, why then may not national Societies agreeing together in the same faith, and under the same government, and discipline be as truly, and properly a Church, as any particular Congregation? I will tell him why, if he please to hear me out with patience. 1. Because it is not mutual consent and agreement and alone in the general, but such agreement, and consent as the Gospel warrants, which we have for particular Churches, which were well known to the Scriptures, but not for National, to which constitution, the Scrip∣tures are perfect strangers. 2. Because the end of that consent and agree∣ment must be considered, and looked at; which is union for worship, though not for worship alone, to which end national union signifies no∣thing, seeing that a National Church (unless it be a Church no larger than the Kingdom of Ivetot) can never meet together for that end. 3. Because the particular Churches must consent to nothing that may destroy their own government, and power of reforming whatever corruptions by length of time steal and creep in among them: But if his meaning be, that they may be called a Church, it's little to us, what he shall please to call them, seeing we do not intend to draw the Saw of contention about the Nomenclature of that or any other Body.

From reasoning, the Doctor proceeds to wondring at those who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England; and he will inform their ig∣norance concerning it: We mean (saies he) That society of Christian people which in this Nation are united under the same profession of faith, the same laws of government, and Rules of divine worship. Whence it will follow that the Churches of dissenters are each of them the Church of England: For every one of them is, 1. A society of Christian people; though perhaps in his judgment but bad ones, yet as good as their Neighbours. 2. They are in this Nation; though full sore against some mens wills; who would

have them removed by Capital punishments or banishment. 3. They are united under the same profession of faith: that is, one half of them are not Socinians or Arminians and the other half Calvinists. 4. They are united under the same laws of Government. 5. And they have the same Rules of divine worship: And then it follows too by the Doctor's concession, they have a right of governing each Church its own self, and of reforming er∣rors in Doctrine, and corruptions in worship.

Notwithstanding this famous definition, what man is the wiser, or knows more than he did before what the Church of England is? For, 1. We understand not by this Description, who is the visible head of this Church; whether a civil or ecclesiastical person, and by consequence are at a loss whether the Church may be called a civil or ecclesiastical constitution. 2. We are not informed how this National Church became so united; whether they were driven together by violence, or drew together by their consent; whether it was not some storm or tempest that might jostle them all on a heap, or whether the consent of the particular Congregations was asked, and obtained in order to this coalition: We have seen some Churches in this nation, that have had their Pastors torn from them, and the Sheep scattered; strangers obtruded upon others, whose persons they knew not, whose ministerial gifts they had no trial of, and all his right to them was, that he was nominated by a certain Gentleman called the Patron, and the institution of the Diocesan, and if with their consent it was such a one as was obtained by duress; and do well call this uniting; what was it then which united them? why some of the Ministers of the Parochial Churches met together, and chose one or two out of their number, and sent them up to a convocation, and these meeting with some others, they call Archbishops, and Bishops, Deans, &c. agreed upon a national Church-frame, without the least consent of many of the particular Church∣es. And this is the too much boasted Union.

(2) Another thing he would have us consider, is, He does not intend to speak of the Terms upon which persons are to be admitted to the exercise of the function of the Ministry, but of the Terms of Lay-communion. And it was advisedly done; for if it be so difficult to render Lay-communion practicable, what will it be to justifie all those terms upon which Mini∣sters are admitted to the function of the Ministry, or the exercise of it? But why does he mention the exercise of the function, and not the function it self? Do they use to ordain Ministers to a Ministerial work, and then prohibit them to exercise the work of their ministry till further order? Must men pay for an Order to Act, and then be put to purchase another

order that they may act according to their order? surely one of these fees might have been saved, and it might have been sufficient either to buy a License to preach without ordination, or an ordination to preach with∣out a License: The Country Chancellors are more merciful, who do not usually, that I hear of, sell a man a License to marry, and then Compel him to take another License to lie with his Bride,

It is confessed that the Terms upon which Ministers are admitted to their function, and the exercise of it, are more severe than those upon which the Laity (as they love to call them) are admitted to communion in the word and Sacraments; and there might be reason for it, seeing the Laity held no good fat Parsonages, that might tempt any to eject them: But yet the Terms are not such easie things of digestion, but they lie upon the stomachs of thousands to this day, and some of them are as hard to swal∣low as the biggest gobblets that are imposed upon the Clergy; and they are apt to think that the same terms that are imposed upon their Pastors, are im∣posed upon themselves by consequence, seeing they approve interpretatively their Ministers subscriptions, their declarations, their oaths, by owning them for their Pastors, whom they know upon such terms to have been assign∣ned to them; nor do they love to have him for their Pastor whom they know to be of a different Religion from theirs: But here are some parti∣culars, wherein the Reader will desire the Doctor's ingenuity, and that plainness which became a sermon.

1. He asserts that there has been a great deal of art used to confound these two; this I say is not honest dealing; for they that Judge parochial Lay-communion lawful, and have the greatest latitude that way, have from Press and Pulpit sufficiently proclaimed their minds; and they that judge otherwise have by their own practice and example sufficiently declared their judgment, unless the Doctor be angry that they do not fill up their publick worship with declamations against Ceremonies; and they that have made the nearest approaches to Parochial Communion, have found such bad treatment, that they are tempted to judge, the Clergy are more a∣fraid of their coming wholly in, than keeping out of the Church, and they are to be allowed the fittest judges in this case, because they know best what stock the Church-commons will bear: In the mean time they may take warning how they approach too near that flame which has already singed some or their wings, and may possibly consume their whole bodies, but consciencious men are above those considerations.

2. The Doctor tells us, that in the Judgment of the most impartial a∣mong the dissenters, little is to be said on the behalf of the people from whom none of those things are required. None of these things? what, not to de∣dicate

their Children to God by the sign of the cross? not to kneel at the Sacrament? I am sure the Canons of 1603. have declared (Can. 30.) that in memory of the Cross, and other Reasons, the Church of England hath thought meet to retain the sign of the Cross in baptism, taking it for a symbol, whereby the Infant is devoted or dedicated to the service of him who dyed the death of the Cross: This is the true import of that Canon, which I cannot now give the Reader the English of Verbatim, having only by me a Latine Copy of those Canons. And those of the most impartial among the dissenters, and such as have come nearest to conformity in their Lay-Capacity, will tell you that there are some things which even they in their private station cannot comply withall.

3. The Doctor does not understand, how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a sin in hearing them. Either then the things are unintel∣ligible, or the Dr. is not that man of understanding we have always taken him for: what the Divisions of Reuben were, he does not well understand, p. 2. Why many Cities united under one civil government, and the same Rules of Religion, should not be called one national Church, he cannot under∣stand, p. 19. And if occasional Communion be lawful, that constant Com∣munion should not be a duty, is hard to understand, p. 56. And now here how they can preach lawfully to a people, who commit a fault in hearing them, he does not understand. But what great difficulty lies in this? Some do sin though they hear, and yet not sin because they hear; or there may be a sin in the hearer, and yet no sin in hearing; but whatever the tempers or distempers, the ends and designs of the hearers are, that which justifies the Ministers preaching is his own call to the Ministry, not the qualification of the hearers: A man may come from the next parish to hear the Doctor, when by the Rules of the Church he should have been in his own parish Church, and yet the Doctor will not think that this super∣sedes the exercise of his Ministry. Some may come out of custom because they have used to trundle thither down the hill; others out of curiosity to hear a person of whom fame has spoken so much; others out of a carping humour to pick quarrels, as no doubt Priests, and Jesuites have done, and yet the Doctor satisfies himself, that it is his duty to do his Masters work, and however they hear sinfully, schismatically, captiously, yet he is ac∣quitted in his ministerial service.

(3) The Doctor tells us, he does not confound bare suspending Commu∣nion in some particular Rites, with either total, or at least ordinary forbear∣ance of Communion in what they judge lawful, and proceeding to the forming of separate Congregations. What great matter is it to us, or to the contro∣versie,

what the Doctor shall please to confound, or to distinguish? The law of the nation, which is the assigned Rule and Reason of Conformity, requires total Conformity to all Rites. The Law considers not whether mens scruples be modest, or immodest, nor what they judge lawful or un∣lawful; Conformity is exacted to the whole Liturgy, Ceremonies, and the Laity must not pick and chuse what they can use, and refuse the rest; they must like Travellours on the King's high way, keep to the road, and not break out here and there to escape the foul way: If the Doctor were the Church of England, or the Parliament, it were considerable, but as the case stands, we are under a peremptory law: Now then, if there be some things which we do scruple, and not only scruple, but upon the most impartial scrutiny we can make, do judge sinful, and these be made the condition of enjoying one Sacrament, or other Ordinance of Christ, and that by a law of his as peremptory as any of these of men, and impos∣ed upon a far more severe penalty than man can inflict, we are bound to live in the constant use of all his institutions; we must unite our selves to those churches where we may enjoy them upon better terms.

Thus much in consideration of his considerations: But yet we are to seek for the answer to the Question: How far we are obliged to comply with an establisht Rule? Separation of whole Churches is shut out of the Question; Ministerial Conformity is shut out of the Question; Suspending Communi∣on in some particular Rites is shut out of the Question; But where is the answer to the Question? That is adjourned or prorogued, or utterly lost, and therefore if any honest Gentleman or Citizen has taken up the answer to this question, lost between St. Pauls and the Guild-Hall Chappel, let him restore it to the owner, and he will be well rewarded for his pains. And now let the Reader judge, whether the dissenters are not likely to be well instructed by a Catechism, made up of Questions without Answers?