A

SHORT VIEW, &c.

HE excellent Hooker, in the preface to his Ecclefiaftical Polity, gives us a curious and clear account of the zeal and artifice with which the first Puritans maintained and recommended their fchifm against the church of England. But every member of this church fhould fee, within as fhort a compass as may be, how the same caufe (allowing for the difference of times and fashions) is maintained now.

A worthy divine diftinguished himself fome forty years ago, in Three Letters to a Gentleman diffenting from the Church of England; which letters were much attended to at the time, and procured the author the notice and encouragement of Archbishop Secker. He afterwards reduced the fubftance of them into a fmall manual, addreffed to a Diffenting parishioner, with the pious defire of guiding him to the Church of England: and an excellent little piece it is. But as the zeal of our Diffenters permits nothing of this kind to pafs, without the appearance of an answer, it is probable they set one of their best hands upon the work of writing a fhort reply to it; that the Diffenting parishioner. might not be guided to the church of England. This reply, which was printed at Birmingham, I have, with fome difficulty, procured; and I shall produce, in their order, fuch arguments as I have found in it; from which it will be feen, how the Dif fenters of the prefent age defend their feparation.

1. They make very light of the fin of schism, as a thing which has nothing frightful to wife people; although it be dreffed up by us in a frightful form, to terrify the ignorant, and fuch as are children in understanding.

Such is fchifm, when it is committed against us; but when it comes home to themselves, they have entertained a very different opinion of it, and have carried the principle of unity as high as the moft zealous of the church of England. Liberty of confcience, when it operated against themfelves, was called, "curfed toleration, that hideous monster toleration," in a book fubfcribed by the minifters of the province of London, Dec. 14, 1647 We are then agreed, that schifm must be of pernicious confequence, and that it is a grievous affliction to the Christian society; though we are not rightly agreed as to the objects of fchifm. If confidered in itself, it is the oppofite to St. Paul's virtue of charity; as any intelligent perfon may fee, who reads the 15th chapter of the first epiftle to the Corinthians, as a continuation of the 12th chapter. And if charity is the greatest of all virtues, its contrary, which is fchifm, must be the greatest of all fins; therefore, we justly pray against it in the Litany. Whether the Diffenters ever follow our example, is more than I know; though it can scarcely be expected that they should pray against, while they continue in it, and think it hath nothing frightful to wife people. But if we may judge of it by its fruits, (and there is no better rule) what envy and hatred, what difputings and railings, what cruelty and perfecution, what rebellion and facrilege, hath it not produced in this kingdom? And they who acted these things were fo far from taking fhame to themselves, that hey laid all the guilt of them upon the church, which they perfecuted and plundered! We should be glad to forget thefe things, but that there are fome amongst us who delight in the memory of those unhappy times, and chew all the murder and the mifchief. of them over again, which is the cafe with the author of the Confeffional, and other writers of the fame fpirit. As to the corruption of doctrine, which follows upon fchifm, it was fo apparent to the actors in the schism of the last century, that it forced from them, that testimony above-mentioned, against the curfed nature of toleration. Threefcore different fects, fome holding monftrous and blafphemous opinions, rofe out of the Prefbyterians of that time. Now, to make light of all these things, as if fchifm, which is a root of bitterness, i. e. an active principle of mischief in the mind, were but a flight offence, a mere fcarecrow to wife people, is to deceive men, and bring their confciences and fouls into a fatal

* See a Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Non-conformist, Edit. 3. P. 76. VOL. II.

E

fnare. Nay, it is not only to deceive them, fimply, but with the very deception which brought death into the world. The tempter suggested to our first parents, that they should not surely die; and that their apprehensions of danger arose from the ignorance and childishness of their understandings.

2. They plead next, that their fchifm, with refpect to the church of England, is no more than a separation from an human establishment; for that the church of England has no foundation but upon the king and the parliament; whereas the church of Chrift is founded upon the doctrines taught by the Apostles.

If our church has no foundation but upon the king and parliament, then certainly it is not founded upon the authority of Christ, and confequently it is no church of Chrift. But will any man fay, that a national church, being a member of the catholic church of Chrift, ceases to be fuch, when adopted as a part of the conftitution, and established by the civil power? Suppose it were perfecuted by the civil power; and its minifters and worship were profcribed; would it therefore ceafe to be a church of Chrift? Certainly not for the church of the Hebrews in Egypt, was still the church of God, though the people were under a cruel edict not to ferve him; and God owned it as fuch, and delivered it at laft. Do the powers of this world unmake the church by their reception of it, when they do not by their perfecuting of it? Do its bishops and priests ceafe to be bishops and priests? Do its facraments ceafe to be facraments? Doth its difcipline cease to be Chriftian difcipline, and lofe its authority, because the ftate admits of it, and establishes it? I fay, fuppofe they were to declare against all these things, as the Heathens and Jews did in the first ages of the Gofpel, their declaration would fignify nothing: because the church, in its priesthood and facraments, derives its authority only from Jefus Chrift, which the perfecution of the civil powers cannot reach; much lefs can their allowance turn it into an human authority, and render it of none effect. But we fhall fee hereafter, how all this is overthrown, by another plea which the Diffenters (forgetting this) have made ufe of to defend their feparation from the church of England.

To fay, that the church of Chrift is founded upon the doctrines taught by the Apostles, is a grofs mistake. Doctrines can no more confer authority of office to church minifters, than the statute book in England can make a justice of the peace; whofe power must come to him by perfonal deputation. A written law does nothing,

till there comes an executive power, lawfully ordained, to adminifter and bring it to effect. Let any Diffenter fhew us the text or doctrine that will make a prieft. We can foon fhew him one which tells us how priefts must be made." No man taketh "this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was "Aaron;" who was called by an outward confecration, from a perfon whom God had commissioned to confecrate: and the power thus given defcended by fucceffion to his pofterity. The power of abfolution was given by Chrift to the Chriftian miniftry, and without this power there can be no fuch thing as a church of Chrift. The priesthood had the power of abfolution under the law of Mofes; and even the priests of Heathenifm were never confidered as the reprefentatives of the people, but of the God to whom they belong; to pronounce bleffings, and forgive fins in his name. But the Presbyterians are so far from claiming this power to themfelves, (though supposed to be in all the priests of the world) that they mock at it in us, and call it popery and juggling; and a church fo rejecting a power effential to the nature of priesthood, is in a ftate of abjuration against its own existence.

3. They fay the church of England hath impofed fuch articles of faith, as the Gospel hath not imposed; for which impofition Christ hath given no authority.

This objection extends to every church upon earth, that requires any articles of faith, as terms of church communion; and it proves too much if it proves any thing. The Gofpel, it is true, imposes nothing but baptifin and its faith in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: all other articles are intended for the defence and fecurity of this one in its proper extent. And fuch articles will be more or lefs, according to times and occafions, as the adverfaries of the faith affault it on different fides, and with different principles of offence. The Gospel does not require that we should renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil; nor fet down the Apostles' creed, as a condition of communion: and, if we had a mind to be perverfe and captious, we might argue that a man may come to Christian baptifm with his mouth fhut, and not fay one word for himself, because the Gospel hath not fet down the form, nor fpecified the terms of the baptifmal covenant; though the intention or fense of it (what we are to renounce, and what we are to believe) is clear throughout the New Teftament. The church of England hath articles exprefsly against popery: but the Gospel hath impofed no fuch articles; it knew nothing of

popery; and the principle of the Diffenters would leave us defenceless against the Papifts, as well as all our other enemies, and is contrary to the fundamental principle of all fociety, and even of nature itself. We have no occafion here to enquire, what the articles of the church of England are; because the objection extends to all articles whatsoever, except fuch as are fet down in the Scripture, which fets down nothing but baptifm; and is fo brief in its accounts, that every true principle of the Chriftian faith might be evaded, if we were to lay hold of fome short expreffions, and make them exclufive, contrary to common rules of reafoning, the plainest facts, and the nature of the cafe, as fome have done; particularly the celebrated Mr. Locke, who contends, that the Chriftian Gofpel has but one article, namely, "that Jefus "Chrift is the Meffiah;" whereas the one great condition of falvation, in the Gospel, is baptifm in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft; therefore the great and fundamental article of the Gospel, is that of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is plain the church was under fome particular rules befide the expreffions of the New Teftament, from the words of St. Paul, where he mentions the apadores, traditions or ordinances, delivered to the church of Corinth, to be religiously kept or obferved, See 1 Cor. xi. 2.

4. From the preceding article, which afferts, that the church of England hath impofed articles which Chrift hath not imposed; it is argued, that in oppofing the church of England, they oppose "an invasion of the kingly authority of Jefus Christ.”

Jefus Chrift, doth not act in perfon, but hath commiffioned his church to act for him, and hath promised to be with it, and support its authority, to the end of the world. Therefore, to argue for Jesus Christ against his church, is to set up Jesus Christ against himfelf; and the like objection may be made against all the churches in the world: which, fo far as they act for their own just rights, under Jefus Chrift, may be faid to act against him. Every true church is bound to affert and defend the faith it hath received but its enemies will call this neceffary defence an impofition, and then contend, that they are free from all obligation. But with what grace doth this argument come from the party, who imposed their own folemn league and covenant on men's confciences in this kingdom, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, and profcribed them as malignants if they refufed to take it; for