given them that Authority If therefore Government be a thing designed by God and the ratification of this separation by God be necessary for the end of this Government I do not know what can be required further to prove that God is obliged to ratifie it The former has already been proved and the later will appear by easie inferences from it especially considering the peculiar circumstances of our Adversaries case The practicableness of any Government will require 1. A power of determining indifferent circumstances and 2. A power of obliging Subjects to stand to the judgment of Governours concerning the expediency of such determinations at least to acquiesce and submit in practice though they may otherwise think them mistaken in their judgments and 3. A power of obliging Subjects to a passive obedience even in things unlawful so long as the title to this Government is lawful And this passive obedience implies that they must not assume a power which is not committed to them in any case at all no extremity whatsoever can warrant that that for the same reason they do not abet others who are guilty of it that because the independency of Societies cannot possibly be understood within a Jurisdiction already rightfully possessed without either assuming or abetting such an Vsurpation besides the resistance that must thereby be made against the lawful Authority of the Jurisdiction therefore no opposite Societies be erected or abetted within settled Jurisdictions These are things so necessary to Government in general as that the Authority exercised in these cases must be valid if there be any Authority at all acknowledged that may properly deserve that name And therefore in these cases there can be no necessity to descend to the merit of the cause Whatever the cause be so long as it is reducible to any of these Heads the presumption lyes clear in favour of the Governours § XXIX BY this it will appear that our Brethrens separation for any of these causes is altogether unjustifiable on their part whence it will follow that if they be separated by their Superiors for any cause of this kind they are separated as well for a just cause as by a just Authority so that nothing can be wanting for making their separation valid before God And though their separation be intirely their own act without any express censures of their Superiors yet it will as effectually cut them off from the Vnity of that Church from which they separate as if they were deprived by Authority For the great design of God in joyning the Grace of the Sacraments with the external participation of the Elements being by this contrivance of things to oblige them to adhere to their Superiors without whose consent they cannot enjoy the Sacraments the reason of the thing will require that they lose those Graces as well by their own separation of themselves from their Superiors as by being separated by them The Vnity of the Church is alike prejudiced both ways and if withal we consider this right of Governours as designed by God for a preservative of Vnity nay indeed as the very bond of Vnity of a Body Politick it will then appear that a separation from visible Governours must be a direct violation of this Vnity and the rather so because it is impossible that it should not be injurious to the rights of Governours which God himself has designed for the preservation of Vnity Nay it plainly overthrows their coercive power over Malefactors by which they are enabled to preserve this Vnity For if all they can do for this purpose be only to cut them off from their Communion and they may elude this by cutting themselves off first this is an art that may be made use of by any who are objects of their Discipline and must therefore render their whole power ineffectual As therefore this visible separation does evidently cut them off from any legal notorious pretence to Vnity so by its opposing the design and means appointed by God for the preservation of Vnity it must also cut off such Separatists from all hopes of relief in point of equity For all that can be said to justifie mens claim to the equity of Gods promises when they evidently fail of performing the ordinary conditions of those promises can only be their compliance with Gods design in making those promises which could not in their circumstances be complied with by the use of the ordinary means But this cannot be pleaded in our Adversaries behalf And therefore such a separation as this must really cut off the Members so separated from Catholick Vnity and consequently the reconciliation made without the consent of the Church which had been particularly injured by the separation must be invalid and cannot expect the Divine ratification § XXX AT least upon this account the Church which would venture to reconcile them would have reason to believe that they were really disunited from the Catholick Church antecedently to her own reconciliation Whence it will follow that she cannot truly declare them united And therefore unless her act of reconciliation can reunite them whom she finds disunited it can signifie nothing for the comfort of the Persons reconciled by her But besides the reasons now-mentioned there are others sufficient to convince such a reconciliation not only of irregularity but of invalidity also both in regard of the reconciliation it self and in regard of the correspondence she is obliged to maintein In regard of the reconciliation it self because indeed it nulls it self For if she have no power to cut off she can have none to reunite them who are cut off by others And upon the same reasons by which she deprives other Churches of having a power to cut off that Member which she is pleased to receive to her Communion and to own as still united notwithstanding what has been done for cutting him off from the Vnity of his own Church she must also deny that power in her self to separate any of her own Members from her own Vnity For if on the terms now-mentioned as necessary for the preservation of Government in general his own Church has not a power to deprive him of her own Vnity she can have it in no case at all nor can any other Church have it because it is the same power that is supposed common to all particular Churches This will at least shew that they who admit of any such power of Churches to punish the misdemeanours of particular Subjects with an effectual deprivation of her own Communion cannot in reason look upon the reception as valid at least so far as it is only declarative And that it cannot be valid by way of Authority to restore to Catholick Vnity those who had been validly separated from it will appear from the other consideration of the correspondence they are obliged to maintein with all other Churches For it having appeared that by the Divine contrivance of things every particular Church is obliged to ratifie the
uncanonical as to the Persons who performed them This plainly appeared in their dealings with the Greeks and with all such established Churches They did not think it necessary to reordein their Clergy when they came over to them They cannot therefore for the same reason deny but that our first Bishops who were consecrated in their own Church had all that power given them at their Consecration which was requisite for the Succession since continued from them As for the pretended uncanonicalness of what they have done for mainteining this Succession besides what might have been said to shew the unobligingness of Canons in their case besides what might have been said to shew that they were performed canonically even by the then established Canons of their own Church besides that that is a pretence wherein they are too much parties to be our competent Judges However if all they said to this purpose were as true as they pretend it to be yet they can shew no such Canonical defect as themselves can by their own Principles judg sufficient to invalidate the whole performance § XIII AND for my part I cannot but look upon it as an Argument that God never intended to oblige particular Churches to as great a dependence on other Churches as that is wherein he has obliged Subjects to depend on their own Churches because by his contrivance of things it does not follow that separating Churches must be left as destitute of the ordinary means of salvation upon their separation from other Churches as it has appeared from our Principles that particular Subjects are upon their separation from their own Churches It rather appears that abating what obligations they have brought upon themselves by their own compacts God has made them equal when he has contrived no obligation in interest to make one yield rather than the other There is no way of judging who is in the right but by the intrinsick merit of the cause nor is there any presumption in favour of a particular Church to presume the cause right because it is hers So that there remains no way of deciding such differences but that which is necessary and very proper for those who are exactly equal And for my part I do really believe that the true original design of those compacts whereby particular Churches have voluntarily submitted to restrictions of their original power was only that every particular Church might have her censures confirmed in all other Churches in reference to those who were originally her own Subjects not to gain a power over any other Subjects but her own nor to submit to any other power any farther than was requisite to oblige her to observe the same equity to them which whatever it may do in that Community of Churches which may be enabled by such compacts to maintein a mutual correspondence yet cannot in any equity be so expounded as to make her absolutely subject to any particular Church of that Community § VI IN managing therefore this charge of SCHISM in the sense now explained I have indeed insisted on such Principles which may seem something strange and surprising to the Age we live in but certainly much more likely to give light to the Subject than any I know of promoted by any other The advantages of the particular way of management of this discourse and withal much more consonant to the sentiments of Catholick Antiquity To shew that they are more agreeable to the sense of Catholick Antiquity is to be the Subject of my Second Historical Part. That they are peculiarly fitted to give light to this Subject above any other Hypothesis hitherto promoted I have shewn in the last Chapter of this whither the Reader may have recourse who desires before his reading of the whole to have a short account of the peculiar advantages of these Principles Besides to facilitate his understanding of what is there said and withal to let him understand in short a Summary of the whole design and the accurateness of the way by which I have endeavoured to manage it I have prefixed a short account of it digested into the several Propositions whereof it consists and ranked in the natural order wherein they follow each other with references also to the Chapters where they are particularly proved And if any desire to know in short what Topicks are insisted on for their proofs those he may also find in the Contents of those Chapters immediately subjoined This way of ordering them will be of great use both for him who has not yet read the whole Discourse to know what he is to expect in it and for him who has to recollect what influence every particular discourse has upon the whole design Besides it will be a great ease to the Readers of different Principles Each of them does grant things which others deny But by these references every one may know where to find that particular Proposition discoursed which he particularly doubts of This may serve for those who are by all means willing to shorten their pains Otherwise I should rather intreat him who would be willing to bestow pains on a Subject of so great importance to him and so worthy of his pains rather to read the whole which will best qualifie him to judg of the particulars by reason of their connexion The reason will appear more solid and convincing when it is found to hold good in all the train of consequences than when it is applied only to one particular § VII AND the least that I hope the Reader will find from a candid perusal of what is here said is that the question is of much greater importance than it is commonly conceived to be The great Consequence of the present controversie And this is but very necessary for that multitude of well-meaning Persons among us who go indifferently to the Church or Conventicle according as they are affected to the Minister that officiates in either place I will not undertake to judg how far their good meaning may go to excuse them before God whilest they are inquisitive and desirous of conviction and cannot find it but it is certain it cannot alter the nature of the thing If the thing they do be a great sin it is never the less so because it is done with a good meaning though it may indeed be less imputed whilest they sincerely seek for information The Crucifixion of our Saviour was a great sin to the Jews though they did it ignorantly and St. Paul calls himself the chief of sinners for having persecuted the Church though he was conscious of having done it out of a Principle of zeal Now if there be such a sin as SCHISM possible to be committed I do not see how the breach on both sides can be excused from it Either we must be guilty of it for exercising our Authority over them if we have no just title to such Authority or they must be guilty of it for refusing their obedience if we have
or excusable to prosecute their differences so far as to divide the Church for them And if the Persons concerned would be pleased to consider further what all wise men that are any thing conversant in Controversies will acknowledg from their own Experience that it is in all Questions much more easie to Object than to establish any thing Positive that especially matters of Practice are only capable of high Probabilities or Morally Certain Presumptions which not amounting to a proof a priori may therefore be conceived very consistent with the unaccountableness of many Phaenomena so that if we were never to presume any thing true in order to Practice till we were able to give a Positive account of all Objections against it much the greater part of Mans Life must be spent in a Pyrrhonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that seeing this is so and that it must be therefore Prudent to proceed to Practice in many Cases wherein we cannot Answer contrary Objections therefore it must be the wisest course to rule our Selves by Positive consistent Notions fitted for the Difficulties on both sides rather than by particular Objections § X WHICH if our Dissenting Brethren would observe and would therefore consider the Interest of the Church in a due respect to be paid to Governours in order to the establishment of a Just and solid Peace as well as in preserving the Liberty of private Christians and preventing Tyrannical Impositions and would therefore be so wary in their Arguments for the latter as that they may not prejudice the former but would therefore first think of a Prudent Mean which might avoid both Extremes and reconcile both Objections and then be wary that the Arguments insisted on might prove no more than what they ought to do consequently to such an Hypothesis if I say they would seriously consider these things this would prove both a more Prudent Expedient for finding out the Truth than that which is usually observed by them and I verily believe would in the Event discover to them the Fallacies of many of their Arguments § XI IT would better help them to find the Truth for they would thus be forewarned how much their Arguments must prove and therefore which if they exceed they may justly be presumed Fallacious though their particular Fallacy be not as yet discovered which must needs be of excellent use in affairs of Practice Thus they who admit of the Churches being a Body Politick and subject to a Government properly so called and yet withal hold the unlawfulness of some Impositions on Subjects must Consequently be assured that all those Arguments in favour of the Liberty of the Subject which either encroach on the Rights of Government in general or render the Government of that particular Society unpracticable in such Circumstances with which all humane Government is to be considered or overthrow the Moral possibility of Catholick Peace on the one side and those which so favour the Governours of the Church as to make all their Impositions obliging even in those Instances wherein their Subjects have a Right to Liberty on the other they must I say proceeding on these Principles be assured that both these sorts of Arguments how plausible soever they may seem yet are really Fallacious § XII IT would also discover to them the fallaciousness of their own Arguments For let this Principle only be taken for granted that all Arguments pleading for the Liberty of Subjects from Ecclesiastical Impositions so that by an unavoidable Parity of Consequence they overthrow the Moral possibility of Catholick Peace conclude too much and therefore indeed conclude nothing at all and it will then concern them to beware that their own Arguments be not chargeable with this Fallaciousness § XIII BUT because Men are extreamly partial in Judging concerning a Cause which they have already espoused therefore it would be much more equal to represent their own Case in others Persons before they pass their Censure concerning it I take it therefore for granted that God hath established Catholick Vnity on such Terms as are not likely to fail frequently and perpetually among Pious well-disposed Persons nay not at all perpetually This I do not therefore take for granted because I think it difficult to be proved but because I conceive its proof easie and unnecessary This therefore being supposed it will follow that if by the general Principles of our Non-Conforming Brethren many and perpetual Divisions must in all Probability happen even among Pious well-disposed Persons the Preservation of Catholick Peace is on these Principles Morally impossible and therefore that the Principles themselves are certainly Fallacious § XIV AND that our Dissenting Brethren themselves may understand this I shall intreat them to consider Whether upon the same Principles by which they excuse their Separation from us and their Erecting opposite Communions which is the way to perpetuate their Separation they have not given other Pious Persons an Apology by themselves unanswerable to separate also from themselves whom yet they will undoubtedly blame for doing so Which will consequently oblige them when this is proved true to acknowledg the Fallaciousness of their own Arguments For what can be pretended in defence of their Separation from Vs that may not be pleaded by others against themselves for Justifying eternal Subdivisions of their own Congregations into inconsiderable Fractions § XV IS it the moment of the things But they are as little momentous as is possible even such as themselves confess to be only Circumstantials of Religion and in their own Nature perfectly Indifferent It were easie here to retort the Arguments themselves make use of to perswade our Governours to yield them For can they pretend that they are Indifferent to be yielded by Governours in condescention to their weaker Subjects And can they at the same time think them not Equally Indifferent for Subjects to be complyed with in Submission to their Governours Or can any Cause be thought too frivolous and inconsiderable for Justifying a Separation when such as these are thought sufficient for it § XVI OR is it the Imposition of such things that is thought so very grievous though the things themselves were as Calvin was pleased to call them tolerable Follies Indeed this might rationally be urged to perswade Governours to forbear the interposition of their Authority in such Cases where there were so little need to interess it But that it self were only rational when Governours were also perswaded of their needlesness But when it is further urged as it is by them to Justifie the Separation of Subjects in such Cases wherein Governours cannot be convinced of their needlesness how can they Answer such as on the same Terms should be desirous to separate from themselves For if this be so Governours must never expect to be obeyed but in such Cases wherein Subjects are equally convinced with themselves of the particular Necessity of their Impositions Which must make Government perfectly useless and must necessarily
Scripture generally speaks of and that this Election to Grace does not so much imply an infallible and perpetual influence of Grace on the Person so elected as his actual introduction to the Ordinary Means of Grace which others had been permitted to reject which amounts exactly to our present design of admission into the Church as I have now explained it which though it be a Notion I think exceedingly defensible yet I would not engage the stress of my present Cause in a Discourse so seemingly exotical to our design any further than needs I must And it will not engage us to Answer that current of Scripture which seems directly opposite to the meaning imposed on these places by our Adversaries And less is requisite to justify our Sense than theirs who therefore ought to have more and greater proof for what they add beyond our Assertions § XIX THIS therefore being supposed that the Promises are confined to the Covenant I infer further 5. That he who would pretend any Title to the Promises must in order thereunto prove his Interest in the Covenant For if the Promises be Gods part of the Evangelical Covenant none can challenge them but he who has a Legal Title to them And none can have a Legal Title to them who has not an Interest in the Covenant on which such a Legal Title at least must be founded because the Covenant is indeed it self the Legal conveyance And it is only such a Legal challenge that can give us comfort and confidence that they belong to us And as by our Interest in the Covenant we may argue Positively that we have an Interest in the Promises not actual and absolute but upon performance of Conditions which is more than can be pleaded by Persons not yet admitted into the Covenant so the Negative way of Arguing for which we are at present concerned is much more certain That he who cannot prove his Interest in the Covenant whatever his performance of Conditions may be cannot challenge a Legal Title to the Promises And as I have shewn that even the things promised cannot be hoped for by one in such a Condition upon any grounds so secure as a Prudent Person might safely venture on with any comfort or confidence so indeed a Promise as a Promise is it self a Legal way of conveyance and therefore as it is the nature of all like conveyances cannot I do not say easily but not at all be challenged on any but a Legal Title But I proceed CHAP. IV. The same thing further Prosecuted THE CONTENTS 2. The only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure our Selves of our interest in this Covenant is by our partaking in the External Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and mainteined This cleared in 2. Particulars 1. That the partaking of these External Solemnities of initiation into and maintenance of this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means of procuring and mainteining a Legal Interest in it § I.II. An Objection urged and Answered The Assertion proved from Gods actual Establishment § III. IV.V.VI.VII.VIII.IX.X.XI The same proved from the reason of the thing 1. God is concerned to take care that these External Solemnities be punctually observed as he is a Covenanter § XII XIII.XIV.XV.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.XX.XXI.XXII.XXIII.XXIV.XXV.XXVI § I 2. THEREFORE the only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure our Selves of our Interest in this Covenant with God is by our partaking in the external Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and mainteined So that where we are either not solemnly initiated into this Covenant by the rites and observances that are necessary for such a purpose that is according to the Christian Religion by Baptism or where we aâ—e excluded from the Solemnities of mainteining it that is according to the same Christian Religion by the Lords Supper after we have been once admitted to it there we cannot ordinarily assure our Selves that we have any real Interest in it This will appear from two things that this partaking in these external Solemnities of this Covenant is indeed the Ordinary Means for procuring or mainteining our Interest in the Covenant it self 〈◊〉 and that though this participation had not indeed that influence on the thing it self but that we might obtein or maintein our Interest in the Covenant without it yet that it is at least the only Ordinary Means of assuring us of such an Interest so that though it were not so certain that we might not have this Interest yet certainly we could not be assured of it without this external participation § II 1. THEN The partaking of these external Solemnities of initiation into and maintenance of this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means of procuring and mainteining an Interest in it I mean still such a Legal Interest as may immediately impower us to challenge the Promises on performance of the Duties of it This I conceive so clear from the nature and Obligation of Covenants in general as that I do not know whether our Brethren themselves can find in their hearts to Question it in instances wherein their Interest may not be Suspicious of tempting them to Partiality For even in ordinary Contracts we find that Promises however fully agreed on with all their restrictions and limitations that may prevent all future Cavils betwixt the contracting Parties have by the unanimous consent of all Prudent Legislators not been thought fit to be allowed as pleadable in a Legal way till they were mutually Sealed and solemnly confirmed before Witnesses and though some Courts of Conscience may oblige a Person to the performance of his private Promises yet not immediately and independently on the solemnity of doing it But the immediate method is first to oblige themselves in a solemn way to what they have agreed to privately and then to perform the Contents of that Obligation And particularly that I may give an instance parallel to our present Case wherein Inferiors are supposed to contract with their Superiors the Princes pardon though â—â—tested from his mouth by Persons never so Credible is not pleadable in Law till it has past the great Seal and other Solemnities requisite by Law And indeed this Solemnity of conveyance is generally insisted on with much greater rigor in graunts from supreme Governours than in Covenants betwixt private equal Persons And the reason is clear because what is transacted betwixt private Persons is only of private concernment and therefore can only be prejudicial in the particular Case if they should prove mistaken in it and of such particular prejudices to his own private Interest every one of ordinary Prudence is in reason to be permitted to judg as far as concerns his own particular Practice But the Acts of Superiors are likely to pass into Precedents and are therefore likely to prove of greater concernment in the consequence than the value of the interest of the particular Person who is immediately concerned And therefore as Governours are by their Office obliged to be more
for my purpose For my design is not to implead our Adversaries on the merit of the cause of their separation from us but to shew their obligation to yield on their part how confident soever they may be that they have the truth on their side and that their Superiors are mistaken For this purpose therefore it is necessary that the Vnity of the Church be supposed such as may be culpably broken by them who hold the right side of the Controversie if the truth it self be not of that moment as to justifie a separation and if it be not the denial of any the least truth that is required as a condition of peace but only a condescension in practice And if it appear that the Vnity of particular Churches for which alone I am immediately concerned in this whole Discourse is that of Bodies Politick that the things required from our Brethren in order to a solid peace are required by their Superiors that they are justly and properly their Subjects and owe to these Superiors a duty not of reverence only but also of Subjection that therefore the obligation of yielding is incumbent on them and that in all things short of sin that for mainteining this Vnity of Bodies Politick it is absolutely necessary that Subjects be obedient actively in all things lawful and passively even in things unlawful and that this passive obedience obliges Subjects to abstein from either erecting or abetting any opposite Societies I say if these things appear it will then follow that our Adversaries in mainteining opposite Assemblies to their lawful Ecclesiastical Governours on what pretence soever of mal-administration of the Government short of Heresie which can alone make Governours uncapable of the right of Government must become guilty of a culpable breach of the Churches Vnity which is that which is properly meant by the true Notion of Schism Now all these things prove true on the management of our present Hypothesis § III 1. THAT the Persons requiring these things at their hands are properly their Governours and consequently that the Society for whose Vnity they are concerned is properly a Body Politick will both of them follow from each other and will appear from the same proofs 1. Therefore they who have the power of rewards and punishments have the power of Government And especially if their power be not only a power of actual possession but also of right then they must also be acknowledged to have the right of Government which will oblige Subjects to submission even where they cannot be compelled to it on the same Principles of Conscience by which they are obliged without Humane compulsion to pay every one that which is rightfully their due For it is by these rewards and punishments that Government is administred that Subjects are induced or compelled to their duty and as it is impossible for Government to be administred without them so it is also as impossible to suppose that he who has the power of rewards and punishments can be restrained from the power of governing them whom they can punish and reward If these things be only actually in their power they can actually necessitate them to Subjection But if they also possess them rightfully that must oblige them to a Subjection even in conscience § IV 2. THEREFORE they who alone have the power of the benefits of any Society must also be supposed to have the power of its rewards and punishments For indeed all rewards are only a conferring of those benefits and all punishments are only deprivations of them Thus it is in civil things because the power of the Sword extends to all worldly enjoyments therefore he who has this has it in his power to confer these enjoyments or to deprive of them at his pleasure From whence it is that his Subjects find themselves obliged to pay their duty to him on account of their own interest as they value these fruitions of worldly good things or their deprivations And therefore if it be in the power of any Order of men to dispose of those benefits which are to be expected from Christian Societies as Societies to admit or exclude whom they please from them this must for the same reason put it as much in their power to oblige all to a compliance with them who value the priviledges of this Society as the power of the Sword enables them who have it to oblige all to a submission to them who value the priviledges of their secular Societies This will as properly put it in their power to reward or punish the obedience or disobedience of their Ecclesiastical Subjects as the power of the Sword does put it in the power of secular Governours to reward or punish the dutiful or undutiful behaviour of them who are their Subjects in temporals especially considering § V 3. THAT the benefits here spoken of are the benefits of the Christian Society as a Society Whoever has it in his power to gratifie another in any thing he stands in need of has it consequently in his power to oblige him who needs it to comply with him on any condition less afflictive than the loss of it to him who stands in need of it And by how much the thing is more valuable and more necessary by so much stricter will his obligation be to compliance But yet this will not give the Person in whose power the gratification is a proper Authority and Jurisdiction over him whom he has power to gratifie unless the gratification be of that kind that it is necessary to him as a Member of the Society and therefore which may be necessary for all other Members as well as himself Whoever has it thus in his power to oblige any Member as a Member must have a universal power over all the Members which he who has must by a necessary consequence have a power of obliging the whole Society And certainly this power of obliging the whole Society will amount to that which we call properly Authority if any thing deserve that name Especially § VI 4. IF the benefits in the power of such Persons be necessary to the Members on account of Conscience and if withal they think themselves obliged to believe in Conscience that they are not to expect these gratifications from any other If the benefits necessary to all Members of the Society be necessary on account of Conscience then all Members must think themselves obliged in Conscience to comply in order to the obteining them And if withal they think themselves obliged in Conscience to believe the appropriation of this power to them they must needs believe that they receive it from God who as he has alone the power of ratifying all these exercises of this power so he has consequently a power to invest whom he pleases with this power And as this power does necessarily infer a power of Government so it must necessarily be supposed that God foresaw that it would do so and therefore that he did
in the Vnity of the Catholick Church must not be any other Communion within the Jurisdiction in which he lives and from which he is supposed to be separated As for any other Churches they are also confined within their own Jurisdictions by the common right of Jurisdictions and so confined as that their intermedlings in other Jurisdictions are not only irregularities but meer Nullities and neither their obtruding Officers can oblige others to receive them nor their presuming to censure or absolve without the consent of the power of the Jurisdiction can oblige either Subjects or subordinate Officers to ratifie their censures And much less can any party of the same Church do it within their own Jurisdiction especially against the consent of the Supreme Governours of that Jurisdiction And the reason is plain â—â—â—â—cause in the most confined acceptation of a Church there caâ— be no more than one in a Jurisdiction and therefore the multiplying of opposite Assemblies in the same Jurisdiction cannot muâ—â—iply Churches but still that party and that alone must be the Church of the Jurisdiction which has the original right of Authority on their side It is certain by the fundamental constitutions of all Government that neither the acts of Subjects in opposition to their Governours nor of inferior subordinate Governours in opposition to the Supreme visible Governours nor of a smaller over-voted part in opposition to a prevailing number of suffrages are to be taken for the acts of the Society And on account of some or all these defects no act of any of the Conventicles in London can be taken for the act of the Church of London So that still he that only communicates with the Conventicles may notwithstanding that be excluded from the Communion of all particular Churches in the World even that of London it self And therefore this can never in this way of judging secure any Communicant of his being in the Communion of the Catholick Church § XVI BESIDES it has appeared that as they are no acts of Churches so neither are they valid as to the nature of the thing and therefore cannot validly admit a Member even of that particular Church And if they be not valid in reference to that particular Church I leave it to our Brethrens second thoughts to consider how they can be valid in regard of the Catholick Church It suffices at present that this Nullity of such Sacraments hinders them from making their Communicants Members of any particular Church which is sufficient on our present Principles to deprive them of the comfort of their being assured thereby that they are Members of the Catholick Church And yet if what I have said prove true I have directly proved that they who received invalid Sacraments cannot by virtue of such Sacraments expect the Spirit of Christ or to be validly united into his Mystical Body without which our Adversaries themselves will neither think it possible to be united to the Catholick Church nor could they think a Vnion with the Catholick Church desirable on such terms though it had been possible Besides whoever intermeddles to repeal censures within a particular Jurisdiction against the Superiors of that Jurisdiction cannot be presumed to be a competent Judg of such matters though his Judgment should be never so true and the Superiors never so much mistaken yet in all matters of practice not sinful the Superiors Judgment is that wherein the Subject is obliged to acquiesce as to practice And therefore though it were fit that a Person censured by the Governours of a Jurisdiction should be restored yet none but the Governours themselves who have censured him have power to restore him And therefore though such Persons so restoring him should have right on their side as to the reasonableness of the cause why he should be restored yet still these two cases are very different that it is fit he should be restored and that he actually is so And though the Superiors themselves who have power of restoring him do judg it fit that he should be restored yet even their judging it fit that he should be restored does not actually restore him And therefore if the Authority of these Persons fail who presume to restore a Person censured by the Governours of the Jurisdiction against the consent of those Governours that alone is sufficient to invalidate the act of his restitution And if he be not actually restored it plainly follows that a Person so restored is not yet an actual Member of that particular Church and therefore notwithstanding that restitution still continues out of the Communion of all particular Churches and consequently of the Catholick Church in general § XVII AND these same reasons which prove that the acts of usurping Subjects cannot make a Member of that particular Church to which they are related as Members will also prove that their being received into the Communion of other Churches by alike unauthorized Members can never make them Members of those Churches into which they are pretended to be received And therefore if valid Sacraments be only administred in the Episcopal Communion in opposition to all others at least in such places where there are such opposite Communions and it is impossible for any to be made visibly a Member of any Church without a visible participation of its Sacraments then no reception by Persons divided from Episcopal Authority in other places can make them Members of the Churches of those places where they are received If the Conventicles in London have no power to make a Member of the Church of London then though such a censured Person as I am speaking of who should despair of a visible Communion with the Catholick Church in London should remove to York yet he could not better his condition by that removal The Conventicles in York are for the same reason under the same incapacities of making him a Member of the Church of York as they in London were for making him a Member of the Church of London And let him remove never so often yet wher-ever the same reason holds there will still remain the same impossibility of a relief Let him hold correspondence with never so many Conventicles in never so many or distant places all they can do put together cannot make him a Member of one particular Church § XVIII TO which if we add that all those Churches if any there be not Episcopally governed not yet opposed to any Canonical-Episcopacy of the place they live in if notwithstanding they keep an amicable correspondence with the Episcopal Communions and withal keep true to the terms of correspondence they cannot receive to their Communion any who has refused to communicate with those Episcopal Communions with which they mantein correspondence whilest he lived among them and was subject to them As for a surreptitious Communion which may be obteined with forein Churches without knowledg of their condition at home it can be of no more validity before God than their surreptitious bargains
other it will not be difficult to determine which of the two must prove invalid The Church which endeavours to restore such a Person is supposed to be only equal with the Church which has rejected him and therefore can have no Authority to reverse her censures And therefore as God is not obliged to ratifie that act of hers in regard of her Authority so he is obliged to disanul it as he is the common Governour of all the Churches and as he is thereupon obliged to maintein Discipline and that correspondence between the Churches which is so necessary for the preservation of Discipline § XXV HENCE it follows 4. That all that can be done by other Churches receiving a Person separated from the Communion of his own Church can only be to judg of his case not so as to oblige the Church to which he belongs originally to stand to their judgment but only so far as concerns their own Jurisdiction They can judg whether they be in conscience or for the maintenance of their common correspondence obliged to ratifie their censures within their own respective Jurisdictions that is they can judg concerning the validity of the censures whether they be grounded on a cause properly belonging to the Authority by which they were censured and whether they have reason therefore to presume them valid before God that is indeed whether they do really cut him off from Catholick Vnity And in case they find the sentence pronounced against him in his own Church invalid in it self they may then receive him to their own Communion yet so as that they do not pretend any Authority to reverse the sentence pronounced against him in his own Church but only to declare the original invalidity and that only with relation to their own obligation to confirm it within their own Jurisdictions nor pretend to restore him to the Catholick Vnity which he had lost by the censures which had been passed upon him in his own Church but only receive him as an acknowledgment of his uninterrupted right to Catholick Communion and of their own obligation as parts of the Catholick Church to admit him to their own Communion This certainly they may do by their own Authority without any the least encroachment on the Authority which had originally passed the censure not as superior to that Authority but only as not subject to it § XXVI AND this seems actually to have been the case of the Western Church in the cause of Athanasius Whilest he was charged only with Canonical matters they were willing to hear what might be said against him and in the mean time to suspend him from their own Communion But when they found partly by the notorious conviction of the disingenuity of the accusations of this kind as in the charges of the suborned whore and the cutting off the hand of Arsenius and prophaning the sacred offices at Mareotis and partly by their delays and evasions of this kind of tryal that this was not the thing indeed insisted on how much soever it was pretended but that it was rather an artifice made use of for the subversion of the common faith professed by him they must then look on such censures as passed upon him rather for his Faith than for the Ecclesiastical crimes which were pretended Wherein if they judged right the censures must have been essentially invalid on two accounts both as to the cause for which they were inflicted and as to the Persons by whom As to the cause for which they were inflicted For they could not believe that God would deprive him of Catholick Vnity only for mainteining the Catholick Faith which was one of the principal foundations of that Vnity And as to the Persons by whom they were inflicted who being Hereticks were uncapable of being Bishops and consequently of any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction besides that they were not obliged to maintein any correspondence with Hereticks and therefore could not be confined to Canons in dealing with them the Canons being only terms of correspondence Though in the case wherein our Adversaries are concerned there is much more reason for the confinement of this power of other Churches For the power is much more absolute which particular Churches may challenge over their particular Subjects than that which Provincial or National Synods can pretend to over particular Churches And therefore the obligation to confirm their censures must be proportionably greater on account of the common correspondence § XXVII NOW if this be so then it will plainly follow that the Governours of particular Churches do as often deprive of Catholick Vnity as they deprive any really of the Communion of their own Churches and that all that other Churches can do cannot really unite any to the Catholick Church who has been separated from any particular Church by a just Authority without the consent of that Authority by which he was separated and that if their receiving such a Person to their Communion do him any good it must be only in such cases wherein he was really never deprived of a right to Communion even with that Church whose actual Communion has been denied him The only thing remaining further for settling the Discipline of the Church on a solid foundation can only be to see in what cases the censures may be presumed valid and wherein it may therefore be known that the restitution is invalid and unsafe to be trusted and whether any relief may be expected thence by Persons in our Brethrens circumstances If either by any censure of their Superiors or by their own resistance and separation from them they be really separated from their own Churches to which they were originally related they must consequently be separated from the Vnity of the Catholick Church nor can they be restored to it but by being reunited to their own particular Churches and that by a reconciliation as visible as their separation And for clearing this that their separation must needs be a real separation even in the esteem of God himself I desire it may be considered § XXVIII 5. THAT whatever is necessary for the design of Gods establishment that he must by his design be obliged to ratifie whether he has expresly said he will do so or no. Nay indeed there can be no necessity that he should expresly warn them of it who are already sufficiently convinced that this is agreeable to his design For it is certain that God cannot design an end without the means nor be ignorant of what is requisite to his design as a means nor fail where the means belong to his part of the Covenant to see them performed as I have already shewn that it is his part to perform the benefits of the Sacraments None but he can immediately give the Spirit and apply the forgiveness of sins which are there promised But yet he is obliged to do so when the Persons Authorized by him do it in his name and with reference only to that end for which he has
Covenant to condemn whom the Church condemns though the Person so condemned cannot plead any Legal Interest in the Divine Covenant for his Salvation So that by these Principles God is under no Legal Obligation to punish him Yet his loss of a Legal Title to the promises may be indeed a great discomfort to him in this Life Which as I have already shewn to be sufficient for mainteining the Government of the Church which is only a Government for this Life so it may justly be inflicted even on particular innocent Persons for so great an advantage of the Society by the same Principles of Justice by which all great Societies are governed who never think it unequal to suffer some few innocents in rarer cases to suffer some inconveniences for the benefit of the whole And it makes amends to them for all that even by our Principles God is still at liberty to be as bountiful as he pleases to them in the other Life He may there give them those Blessings to which they had indeed no Legal Title much more of which they could not in this Life assure themselves by any Legal Claim in case they really had a Legal Title However this may suffice to shew how this contrivance of things will secure the Church as great a â—oercive power over her own Subjects as she can be supposed capable of even in times of the severest persecutions Which will by the Principles now laid down shew how very likely it is that this is the true Notion of Ecclesiastical Vnity and therefore withal how very probable it is that in violating this Vnity they must prove guilty of that which will properly deserve the name of SCHISM § XXXII I NOW proceed 2. To shew how that by the same Principles the best account may be given of the real danger and mischievousness of the sin of SCHISM The ordinary ways of stating it have either extremely obscured the thing or the danger of it To resolve the blame of a Separation as our Brethren do into the merit of the particular things for which the Separation is made and to make no further mischief in abetting the wrong side of the controversie or advantage in following the right than that of believing a false or disbelieving a true Proposition which yet is disputed among good wise men whether it be true or false must leave the generality of illiterate Persons in an indifferency with what Communion they joyn which is in truth the case we generally find them in or involve them in inextricable perplexities in chusing the right one For how can they think purely intellectual mistakes very piacular in the eyes of God especially where they are so very reconcilable with a good meaning and an innocent practice Or if they were so in questions of a clear resolution and to learned and judicious Persons who might be supposed to have such abilities and opportunities for resolving them as that they could hardly be mistaken in them without being extremely wanting to themselves yet how can they think it credible that God should be so extremely severe to exact a belief of the true side in matters so extremely disputable to exact it even from unskilful Laicks and that even where their guides whom they must needs trust who find themselves so unqualified to guide themselves in such disputes are themselves so extremely divided Where opinions are so very different and contradictory the most illiterate Person that is who has but common sence must needs think some of them mistaken And can he at the same time find in his heart to believe that God will treat himself with any severity for not discovering those truths concerning which he finds Persons incomparably more qualified than himself to be mistaken This I am verily persuaded not only to be suitable to the condition of the generality of this sort of Persons but also to be their actual discourse whenever they allow themselves the liberty of any serious thoughts concerning this matter it is so very agreeable to their practice We see them go indifferently to Churches or Conventicles according as they are affected to the Ministers not on any constant Principles concerning the Communions § XXXIII I KNOW they do endeavour to charge heavier accusations on the practice of SCHISM than barely the wrong belief or disbelief of a disputable proposition But when they come to be examined closely either they will prove so small or be again resolved into such nice and intricate disputes in order to the charging any with their actual guilt as that no particular consciences can be moved with any great horror of them either to believe them criminal in any high degree or that themselves in any particular case are guilty of them They pretend that charity requires forbearance and a keeping in mutual Communion as far as is possible and therefore that SCHISM is a violation of this grace which is indeed the sum of practical Christianity But when again both these particulars are examined by their Principles no Person need to be very apprehensive of this danger For what great crime can it be to separate from the Communion of men for the cause of God What great horror can they have at it supposing they should prove mistaken in the event Nay is not their Charity to God pretended as the reason why they conceive themselves obliged to separate from their Brethren This is a thing they have not yet endeavoured to explain by any Principles how their love to God to use the Apostles expression obliges them to love their Brethren also and to communicate with them whose Communion is with the Father and the Son Nay according to them it is very hard to reconcile their love to God with their love to Ecclesiastical Communion Even a probable persuasion of their consciences is according to their Principles sufficient to excuse their separations And besides that this does again resolve the debate into disputable Prepositions it must needs be an extremely barren cause indeed that can be destitute of so much as probable Arguments for its support § XXXIV BUT wherein can this great uncharitableness consist Not in any great mischief done to themselves by their separation They do not much value the loss of the Sacramental Elements though they should be forced to lose them The same reasons which made them believe that their separation from men was for Gods sake will also incline them to believe that if they had a greater opinion of the advantage of the Sacraments than it appears they have yet the spiritual advantages of the Sacraments should be supplied by him for whose cause they had made the separation and in that case the want of the external Elements could be no great loss indeed Nor are they by their Principles obliged even in that case to lose the Elements themselves For they can easily joyn in a Confederacy among themselves and when they have done so this very necessity is either thought a sufficient Call
it self or at least a sufficient Justification of it from its other illegalities and invalidities So that they are thus conceived to enjoy all the means ordinary as well as extraordinary to enjoy the conveniences as well as the necessaries the comfort as well as the hopes of Salvation as freely out of the Church's Communion as in it and suppose all these as efficacious to them whilest they act according to their probable consciences though they should prove erroneous as if they were never so certain And upon these supposals to what prejudice can they conceive themselves obnoxious by their separations § XXXV IS it therefore so prejudicial to the Communion from which they withdraw But as for any duty owing to them which they might rob them of by this withdrawing of their own Persons from them they acknowledg none And this being supposed no Charity obliges them to beware of prejudicing others by promoting their own conveniences when one of them is unavoidable and for any further prosecutions of those whom they have thus deserted they are very separable from the cause of separation in general § XXXVI AND as there can upon these terms appear no great reason to oblige an ignorant Laick to any great caution in enquiring or resolving on the right Communion from any considerable inconvenience that might attend the consequence of his being mistaken and indeed the whole obligation to diligence in enquiring after the truth of any Propositions is only rationally derivable from their influence upon our practice so though the crime had been more piacular yet upon these Principles there is so little evidence in proving any particular Person 's guilt as that upon that very account there can appear no great obligation to cautiousness For supposing that the violation of the Church's Communion had been indeed in a high degree uncharitable and supposing that uncharitableness in as high a degree criminal Yet how can it appear that any ignorant Laick is guilty of that uncharitableness in his separation § XXXVII FOR 1. He may be conscious to himself of hearty wishes of their conversion from whom he separates and of all welfare when they are converted Nay indeed it is hard to suppose otherwise For this is a charity which all Communions how Schismatical soever have for those from whom they are divided to wish them of their own party and wish them well when they are so and it is the interest of their Faction how little regard soever they had to God or the welfare of their Brethren as Christians And this is indeed the utmost Charity which most of them conceive to be actually due to those who are not in external Communion with themselves And as every ignorant Laick may be conscious to himself of this charitable affection if it deserve so good a name how Schismatical soever he may be really so it will not be easie on their Principles for such a Person to know when his act of separation is uncharitable at least not without resolving all again into disputable Propositions § XXXVIII FOR 2. His being the first Author of his own departure is so far from being an Argument as that it is not by their Doctrine so much as a pregnant presumption that it is on his part uncharitable and therefore Schismatical no not though he go so far as not only to refuse active obedience to his ordinary Superiors but also to resist them and either to set up or abet other Communions in opposition to them For it is not the actual separation but the cause of it that will make it uncharitable and Schismatical and that may on our Brethrens Principles be as easily supposed to have been given by his Superiors as by himself though he have been the first actual divider For I have elsewhere shewn that our Brethren consider Superiors here as plainly acting on equal terms in these matters with their Subjects And upon these terms there cannot so much as a presumption lye on their side that his separation may therefore be presumed likely to be uncharitable on his side because himself was the first Author of it § XXXIX FOR 1. Upon their Principles he will have reason to believe his Superiors as fallible as himself considering that even in matters of disputable evidence and depending on some things not so obnoxious to his cognizance they yet encourage such an ignorant Laick to dissent from them on his own Judgment § XL AND 2. They do not only encourage him to believe otherwise than they which might indeed be more tolerable and rational if he did not so only in such cases wherein he had a full prospect of what learned men could inform him but also to differ in his practice too even where his compliance in practice need not signifie any Hypocritical dissimulation of his Judgment that is not only to forbear the practice of what he should judg to be unlawful which is no more than honest dealing but also to forbear the practice of what he judges unfit and oppressive in compliance to the will of his otherwise lawful Superiors Whereas such compliance as this is very lawful to pleasure another in that which he otherwise himself believes imprudent and is daily practised by themselves without any fear of Hypocrisie in their Oeconomical or Political relations and indeed every where where they acknowledg such a right of Government as may be worthy of that name For this is the plain meaning of our distinction between obligation in Practice and in Judgment and even in this sence they oppose it Besides their refusing even passive obedience to the Church even in this case does plainly signifie how little they ascribe to Ecclesiastical Authority § XLI AND 3. Where-ever any compliance is necessary for accommodating these differences they do as much require it from the Church as themselves and do as confidently charge her with Schism as long as she does not yield her impositions to them as we charge them with it for not complying with those impositions And upon these terms what presumption can be for Authority if Authority be as much obliged to yield as her Subjects and if Persons be in no greater probability of avoiding this uncharitableness by yielding than by opposing it So that the ultimate recourse here must be had to the merit of the cause and of how little horror that can be to such a Person I have already shewn Thus insufficient our Adversaries Notions are for explaining any thing in the guilt of SCHISM that might prove terrible to popular capacities § XLII BUT upon our Principles such a Notion of SCHISM is given as the most incultivated Laick may understand to be extremely mischievous by the same rules of prudence whereby he manages his worldly affairs Not to mention the dreadful punishments it deserves from Gods hand and the great obligation incumbent on him from his own attributes and the reasons of his Government to inflict those so deserved severities on Persons truly criminal not
for this Application § VIII That this separation from their own particular Churches must necessarily infer a separation from the Catholick Church also The Objection proposed § IX Answ. If it were otherwise it would destroy all Discipline and therefore all the dividing parties who are for Discipline are obliged as well as we to answer this Objection and to be favourable to what we shall say in Answer to it § X XI A more particular Answer proving the thing principally designed 1. This pretence of Union with the Catholick Church can be no encouragement for any to neglect any means of continuing his Union with his own particular Church unless he may be assured that whilest he wants it he may notwithstanding continue united to the Catholick Church § XII 2. That Union with the Catholick Church of which we may be assured must be such as may appear to us by the use of those external ordinary means which God has appointed for mainteining that Union § XIII 3. In this way of judging he that would assure himself of his being united to the Catholick Church must do it by proving himself united to some particular visible Church by an external Communication in their Sacraments § XIV 4. The external Communion of another Church which while a separated Person does maintein he may have hopes of keeping still his Interest in the Unity of the Catholick Church must not be any other Communion within the Jurisdiction in which he lives and from which he is supposed to be separated This proved in regard of Usurping Members of the same Church § XV.XVI. and of unauthorized Members of other Churches within the same Jurisdiction § XVII XVIII 5. Such Separatists cannot maintein their title to Catholick Unity by being received into any other Churches though otherwise absolute and unaccountable to the Church from whence they are separated § XIX XX XXI This proved 1. The nature of the inconvenience incurred by deprivation of Communion in a particular Church is such as that it is impossible that the censure can be valid in that particular Church unless it be valid in others § XXII 2. Hence it follows that if such a Person be received to the Sacraments in another Church without as good an Authority for uniting him to the unity of the Catholick Church as that was by which he was deprived only on supposition of the continuance of his invisible unity with the Catholick Church notwithstanding his visible separation from a part of it such Sacraments must as to him be perfect Nullities § XXIII 3. No particular Church can by its Authority alone restore any to Catholick Unity who has been separated from it by another Church without the consent of the Church by which he was at first separated § XXIV 4. Hence it follows That all that can be done by other Churches receiving a Person separated from the Communion of his own Church can only be to judg of his case not so as to oblige the Church to which he belongs originally to stand to their judgment but only so far as concerns their own Jurisdiction § XXV XXVI XXVII 5. Whatever is necessary for the design of Gods establishment that he must by his design be obliged to ratifie whether he has expresly said he will do so or no. This applied § XXVIII The validity of the separation proved when it is the act of the Separatists themselves without any censures of Ecclesiastical Authority § XXIX XXX § I THE last thing which remains to be proved in my designed method is That the nature of this obligation to submit to unsinful conditions of their Episcopal Communion is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM who rather than they will submit to such conditions either separate themselves or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by their respective Diocesan Ordinaries And all that will be necessary to be said concerning this will be only to remember and apply what has been already proved throughout the body of the whole discourse It is therefore certain 1. That Schism as such is a dissolution of the Body and therefore Schism in the Ecclesiastical sence is a dissolution of the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ a dividing of its Vnity wherein soever that may be conceived to consist If the Vnity of the Church consisted only in a Vnity of correspondence without any obligation to yield incumbent on one party rather than on any other then the crime of Schism would only be culpably chargeable on him who was chargeable with the breach that is who either began the separation on unsufficient reasons or who suffered himself to be excluded on terms of less importance to him than the correspondence So that in this way of tryal the whole Judgment concerning this matter depends upon the merit of the Cause Where there is no duty owing on either side there the whole reason of obligation to yield on one side must only be the reason of the thing its little momentousness in comparison with the momentousness of mainteining correspondence And as in this case the interest of the party is the only solid reason why he may be conceived to be obliged to yield so the most proper and competent Judg of this interest is supposed to be the party himself who is concerned in it As therefore the common interest of the several divided parties does in this way of judging no farther oblige any one to yield to the others terms than as it may appear that the common interest is more its own particular interest than the things to be yielded in regard of it so that even the acknowledgment that any thing is indeed for the common interest cannot oblige any to yield it barely as it is the common interest but as it is his own private interest and more so than the thing to be yielded for it so also in this Vnity of correspondence which is very well consistent with an equality between the several parties who are to maintein this correspondence every one is sui juris and therefore very justly to be determined by his own judgment concerning his own interest and cannot be obliged to renounce his own judgment in compliance with others concerning his own matters how much soever he may value their judgment otherwise above his own This therefore would be the only Notion of Schism if all the Members of the Church were equal or if all the difference between them were only such as would make a reverence due to some Persons for their eminent personal accomplishments so that still it fell short of a Subjection due to them in regard of any Office or Authority And I have accordingly observed that in this dispute concerning Schism Introd our Adversaries Notions are exactly fitted to this Hypothesis even of those of them who otherwise own a properly-coercive Authority of the Church over her particular Members § II BUT I confess this Notion of Schism is not sufficient