the croud and that he may be better heard and so it may be said of the Table how can the Lords supper be conveniently administred without a Table to put the Bread and the VVine upon but as for your Ceremonies there is no necessity at all of them but they are the only births of an Arbitrarious vain Imagination for the ordinances may be well enough administred without them Besides I answer that these things now named are used as circumstances convenient and in some sort naturally necessary to the Acts of worship yet I deny that ever when they are so used that they ought to be Religiously used a thing is then Religiously used not barely when I use it in worship for so I use my Cloak and band in worship which yet I used not Religiously but to use a thing in worship religiously is when I use it for religious ends as to the pleasing of God and the edifying of my self and others in religious matters now when we meet in a Church or stand in a Pulpit or cat the Lords Supper on the Table we do not think that there is any thing in those places that render us or our worship any whit the more pleasing to God for if we met on a Mountain or on a Sea shore and taught out of a boat or in case of necessity by reason of persecution did eat the Lords Supper upon the grasse provided we did all in Spirit and Truth our services were every whit as acceptable as in from or on the other places and it 's a meer Idle superstitious conceit to think otherwise but now as for these Ceremonies either you think to please God by them and edifye the Church or you do not if you do then you fall under the like reproof of God to David when did god bid you do such things or when did he tell you that then he was pleased with them if not they are altogether impertinent and uselesse for as I have shewed they arise not out of the Nature of things but meerly out of phantasy and therefore ought to be let alone for assuredly man doth not much lesse doth God care to be trifled with in matters of Worship as to the other things instanced in as dividing the Scriptures into Chapters and giving the Contents thereof to that I say though there is not a particular expresse command for it yet there is a general command to those that are Ministers of Christ to explain the whole Councel of God to his people and such addition now named with the giving of the Contents of each part any Minister of the Gospel hath a warrant to do by virtue of the said general command given to Ministers and upon this account those that did divide them did well and warrantably for it is one of the commanded works of Ministers to divide the Word aright As for the digesting the Chapters into verses the direct and immediate design thereof was onely to help the Memory nor do those that read Scriptures make any other use of them I never understood that any used those figures with any conceit as if they pleased God more with reading the Word with them than they should do if they read it without them or as if they thought they were any direct helps to their Faith or devotion and as for Singing Psalms there is a Word that gives Foundation to that Ordinance as there is none for humane Ceremonies and as for the Melody that there is made that likewise hath its Foundation in the word so then there is nothing done by digesting Davids words into Meeter but only a putting them into a posture fit for to be sung which the Nature of that duty makes necessary and therefore gives warrant thereto But as for the Ceremonies contended for They have no such original but as I have said only depend upon mens imagination for there is nothing in any Act of worship that needs or calls for them Having thus shewn you some of those grounds we have to suspect the lawfulnesse of the things imposed and likewise laid naked the weakness of some of your reasons from which you think them lawful before I conclude my answer to this first part of your charge against us a little to try the force of your consequence let us therefore for once suppose that the things imposed were such that might be lawfully used for Religious ends in the worship of God what then you say it then follows that they do not become unlawful because imposed I Answer first by concession it is true were they lawful to be done I cannot say that the command would alter the nature of these things to make them unlawful but yet I say this will not excuse the imposer nor him that obeys the imposition from sin not the imposer for he usurps a power over another Lords Servants in things that do not concern him and secondly if the imposer injoyns those little and suppose lawful things under severe penalties such as deprivation excommunication banishment c. in the one he sins as a usurper of Christs Authority in the other as cruel nor is he that obeys the imposisition Innocent but I do not lay his guilt upon doing the thing supposed lawful but inasmuch as by his obedience thereto he doth seem to own such an usurpation and to acknowledge the imposer his Master in such matters wherein Christ only is his Lord and upon this account I say he sins inasmuch as he transgresseth that Command of Christ Let no man be called Master or Father that is let none be owned as your Master or Father in these matters of Faith and VVorship for in such matters ye have but one Master even Christ Math. 23.8.10 Thus I have said what I conceive is a sufficient answer to your first charge when you say that our separation upon the account of unscriptural Ceremonies imposed is not sufficient to excuse us from Schisme Secondly he saith That the Church requiring from us any doubtful or suspected practices as Conditions of her Communion is not a just cause of Separation I have proved the falshood of this Proposition already from the testimonies of the Apostle Paul who is a far bettter Casuist than the Author who hath declared that Christians are under the Obligations of obeying the dictates of their Consciences or not acting contrary thereto though their Consciences be under a mistake And besides I have given you in the testimony of Mr. Hales and the reasons of Dr. Stillingfleet against this position of the Authour which I think will be long enough before he solidly answer But because the Authour of this Proposition doth essay to give a reason of what he here asserts I shall not be so uncivil as not to take notice thereof but will return him a fair answer That is no just cause saith he for we must at least have as much certainty of the unlawfulnesse of the Action enjoyned as we have of our Obligation to the
High Priest and that the great body of the Nation should meet by his command at one place as the Jews at the Temple of Jerusalem for publick Worship then I confesse he will have some colour for asserting of National Christian Churches and of a National Membership therein but till then I shall take the boldness to deny that any Christian is capable of any such National Church Membership But if he doth here mean by Church a particular Worshiping Congregation such are the parochial Churches of England and such are the Congregations of Non-conformists then we shall consider what he further saith which is this That no Christians can have just cause of withdrawing Communion from the Church whereof they are Members if we should understand it indifferently of Non-conformists Churches as parochial the meaning would be that no Member that either is joyn'd to the one or the other have just cause to withdraw Communion from either of them but when c. If you say that the parochial Churches are the true regular Churches because established by the Law of the Land and all other are Schismaticall I answer this is sooner said than proved for did the regularity or Schismaticalnesse of a Church depend on such an externall fickle consideration as the Law of the Land then might one and the same Church be Regular or Schismatical as often as the wind of the Legislative power might chance to Change so that an Act of Parliament that makes the Episcopal Churches regular to day the very same Churches by a change of an Act might be made Schismatical to morrow and so if the Legislative Power pleased both Episcopal Independant Presbyterian Anabaptistical Churches may be regular and Schismatical in their turns Lastly when you say no Communion may justly be with drawn from but when it cannot be continued without the Commission of sin here again I desire to know whether by sin you mean such that may be evidenced to be such to the conviction of the imposers or only such that is evidenced to the conviction of the Consciences of those that withdraw you cannot in reareason require the first except you will run y our selves upon these straits either to turn Papists or undertake to convince the Papists that the reason why you came off from them and their Worship was because you could not Communicate with them therein without sin we know you tell them so and give yours reasons why you say so but notwithstanding all you say they are not convinced but yet persist to call you Schismaticks But what then are you moved with their censure no for if your reasons will not convince them yet they satisfie your own Consciences and therein you rest and so you may very reasonably do I desire now but the like equity for the Non-conformists and that is that if they have reasons sufficient to convince their own Consciences that the things imposed are sinful though their reasons convince not their imposers that you would give them that liberty of Acquiescing therein as you take in bearing up your selves against the Censures of the Papists But yet further What though the things Imposed be not clearly evidenced to their own Consciences but onely so far as to leave them under strong suspitions that they are sinfull it is sufficient to justifie their withdrawing for what if the things Imposed on the Non-conformists were such as they might as lawfully do or practise as the Christian Jews might have eaten of the once-forbidden meats yet so long as their doubts remain if they should so practise they would sin as the Jews would have done if they had eaten so long as their scruple remained And so that unquestionable Casuist the Apostle determines in the case Rom. 14 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in it self yet to him who thinks any thing unclean to him it is unclean So again He that doubteth and eateth is Damned And if it were not to light up Candles while the Sun shines I would tell you that a meer suspition of a sin is a sufficient ground for withdrawing Communion in the Judgments of other very great men So says that universally admired man Mr. Hales of Schisme pag. 8. says he In these Schismes which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion but onely to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. For not only in Reason but in Religion too that maxime admits of no release Cautissimi cujusque preceptum quod dubitas nefeceris To load saith he our publick Formes with private phantasies upon which we differ is the most Soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession Thanksgiving Reading the Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments or prescribed Gestures of Imagery of Musick or of many other Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended there Schisme began to break in he goes on If the spiritual Guides of the Church would be a little spareing of incumbering Churches with superfluities c. there would be far lesse Cause of Schisme or Superstition and all the inconveniences were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yeild a little to the imbecillity of their Inferiours a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do Mean while I pray mark this wheresoever false or suspected opinions are made a piece of Church Liturgie he that separates is not the Schismatick for it is alike unlawfull to make a profession of known or suspected falsehood as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions And of this mind is Dr. Stilling fleet a Person no whit inferior to the other whose words are these in his Iren. p. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schisme which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks than prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration if our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her Communion then wherever such things are required of any Church Non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is Lawfull there can be no Schisme in it If it be said here that the Popes power was a usurpation which is not in Lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed that the Popes usurpation mainly lies in imposing
things upon mens Consciences as necessary which are doubtfull or unlawfull And wherever the same thing is done there is an Usurpation of the same nature though not in so high a degree and it may be as Lawfull to withdraw Communion from one as well as the other If it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are Lawfull and what not To this it is Answered first No true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church Governours in all things It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the Liberty of their Judgments That which we plead for against the Papists is that all men have their eyes in their heads as well as the Pope that every one hath a Judicium privatae discretionis which is the rule of practice as to himself and though we freely allow a Ministerial power under Christ in the Governours of the Church yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and Conscience c. A man hath not the power over his own understanding much lesse can others have it Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum non est in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando volucrit Either therefore men are bound to obey Church Governours in all things Absolutely without Restriction or Limitation which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others Faith in them and the worst of implicit Faith in others it is hard to define what either of them is or else if they be bound to obey onely in Lawfull things I then enquire who must be Judge what things are Lawfull and what not if the Governours still then the power will be Absolute again for to be sure whatever they command they will say is lawfull either in its self or as they Command it If every private person must judge what is Lawfull and what not which is Commanded as when all is said every man will be his own Judge in this case in things concerning his own welfare then he is no further bound to obey than he Judges the thing to be Lawfull which is Commanded The plea of an erroneous Conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it for as he is bound to lay it down supposing it Erroneous so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down These testimonies are so clear and backt with such unanswerable reason that I shall now not scruple to qualifie the proposition under consideration thus that where the commission of sin so saith he I add or the doing any thing that is suspected to be sinfull is required as the condition of Communion there a withdrawing is Lawfull and not at all Schismatical Having thus given an account of these different scenes in which both he and I do understand the several parts of this proposition I shall now come to examine what he hath said for the confirmation thereof There are saith he p. 19. but two cases wherein it can be Lawfull to withdraw Communion from a Church one is when the Church requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an acknowledgment and profession of that to be truth which we know to be an errour the other is when she requires of us the joyning with her in some Practice which we know to be against the Laws of God Though I will not be so confident to say with this Author that only in these two cases it may be Lawfull to withdraw Communion for there may be a third and a fourth which neither he nor I may at present think of Yet so far I agree with him that these two cases mentioned are just causes of withdrawing Communion But whereas he saith that the errour must be known to be such and the practice known to be against the Law of God to that I say that knowledge implyes certainty But I say if the errours and practices be but suspected so as the Conscience doth but doubt it is sufficient as I have proved from the Apostle and the testimonies and reasons of Mr. Hales and Dr. Stillingsleet This being premised I shall now proceed to a Consideration of those grounds which he supposeth Non-conformists plead as sufficient causes of their separation as they are Enumerated and Affirmed by him to be insufficient First he saith Vnscriptural impositions can be no sufficient cause to warrant a Separation from a Church Answer By unscriptural impositions he supposeth as he tells us is meant no more than what is neither commanded nor forbid in Scriptures neither by Particular or General Rules Thus when he hath by a false supposition fashioned and erected a man of Straw he then pushes him quite down with the horns of a Dilemma and Fancyes to himself a great victory for from that supposition he thus argues Those unscriptural impositions which are neither commanded nor forbid by any general or particular rules in Scripture are eitherin themselves Lawfull or unlawfull if unlawfull then they are against some Particular or Generall scriptural rule so cannot fall under the notion of unscriptural Impositions which are supposed to be against neither of these Rules if lawfull then it canot be imagined how their being commanded can make them unlawfull so that in this case there is no sin in yeilding obedience and consequently no just cause of withdrawing our Communion This is the strength of what he hath said to this first case My Answer is this I wonder which of his dissenters gave him ground to suppose that ever any of them took unscriptural Impositions for such things that were neither Commanded nor Forbid by any General or Special Rule in Scripture if thus you care not upon what Sandy premises you build your Conclusion who can help it But I pray be pleased to let me tell you what we our selves mean by unscriptural Impositions They are such things the religious use whereof is imposed upon Christians in the Worship and Service of God under the penalties of depriving Ministers of their office or the exercise thereof and of depriving both them and private Christians of the liberty of enjoying Gospell Ordinances or the Priviledges of a Visible Church state by the censure of excommunication which are things that are not either Commanded or directly Forbidden in Scripture in any expresse terms for we confesse that there is not the word Surplice or sign of the Cross c. so much as named in Scripture and upon this account we allow them the name of unscriptural But we say moreover that the religious use of these things in the Worship of God and much more the impositions of them as necessary Conditions of Communion are against General Rules and Instances in the like kind dis-allowed in Scripture from whence we by deduction gather the unlawfulnesse and sinfulnesse thereof and upon this latter consideration I call them antiscriptural as being
Authority that enjoynes them before we withdraw our obedience to it otherwise we do not proceed upon safe grounds but now we are absolutely certain that God hath commanded us to obey them that have the rule over us but we are not certain that the Actions we here speak of are any where forbid by him for if they were they would be no longer doubtful or suspected they would be certain sins so that if we will follow the surer side as all Christians in these cases are bound to do we must continue our obedience to the Church notwithstanding we suspect or doubt of the lawfulness of her commands Thus far he I answer this Argument notwithstanding the prittiness of its contrivance is certainly falatious for ex vero nihil sequi potest nisi verum for the rule there laid down of always obeying the Church Rulers where the Conscience is in doubt is in many instances a ready way to involve many a weak Conscience in damnable guilt For suppose there had been many a doubtful Conscience among the Israelites in Ahabs time as it seems there were who halted betwixt the VVorship of Jehovah and Baal suppose yet a little further that the Consciences thus doubting were rather inclined to believe Jehovah the true God and Baal but an Idol but yet were not absolutely certain what say you now what Councel would you have given such an one if he had askt your advice do but look how ill-favouredly such an answer as this would seem true might you say according to your rule I do believe that Jehovah is the only true God and Baal but a Devil and that your worshiping a Devil is a damnable sin but as for you you are not so certain hereof as I am yet your Conscience is inclined to believe as I do my advice therefore is this that since your Rulers have commanded you to worship that Devil I Counsel you so to do till your Conscience be better resolved and why because you are certain God hath commanded you to obey your rulers but you are not yet so certain that Baal is a Devil I dare say you abhor such a resolution of the case and yet I see not but you must be forced to give no better if you follow the rule laid down in this argument I might instance in other like cases as if a Jew in the dayes of Messiahs being in the Flesh had been inclined to believe in him as the Messiah but yet was not so absolutely certain thereof as he was of this command thou shalt obey the Rulers of thy people according to you he must go against the inclination of his doubting Conscience in disowning and rejecting Christ that he might yeild obedience to his Rulers who command him so to do in like manner if a poor man were inclined to believe the Masse Idolatry he must go on in that sin against his doubting Conscience till he comes to be as certain it is Idolatry as he is that God hath commanded us to obey our Rulers From what hath been said it is evident there is a fallacy in your Argument and now to shew you where it lies give me leave to tell you it lies in your arguing from particulars to an Universal vel a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter That because I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my rulers in some things therfore I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in every thing yea in such things which I suspect to be sin Do but you make this Evident that in that very Command which I suspect to be sinfull that I may be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey and then I will give up the Cause But this you can never do for upon those very arguments upon which I suspect the sinfulnesse of the Command upon the same Arguments I suspect whether God hath given them Authority to Command or whether God would have me to obey for I can never be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in such instances where I suspect my Rulers Command me to sin So that whereas your Argument supposeth that a Doubting conscience may be more certain that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers than he is of the thing he doubts and so he is therefore to take the surer side and so to obey his Rulers against his Conscience I have made the contrary appear by shewing that a man can never be sure that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers in such cases where he suspects they Command him to sin So that in obeying them he doth not take the surer side Thus is the strength of this Argument and so the strength of his second Charged upon the Nonconformists broken wherein he hath been endeavouring to prove they have no just Cause of Separation though it be upon the account of avoiding what they suspect to be sinfull which is made the Condition of Communion Thirdly saith he Neither can it be true that Errours in a Church as to matter of Doctrines or Corruptions as to matter of Practice so long as these Errours and Corruptions are only suffered but not imposed can be a sufficient Cause of Separation The reason is because the things are not sin in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church in them I Answer First I would fain know what kind of Errours of Doctrines or Corruptions of Practice you do here mean for they are of divers sorts and kinds and accordingly what you here say may be either True or False If by Errours of Doctrine you mean such that are consistent with the holding of Christ the head or such that touch not upon the Fundamentals of the Christian Doctrine some such were those in the Apostles days that related to the Abstaining from meats and observation of days in such cases doubtlesse Christians ought without imposing to bear with one another and to continue Communion with each other notwithstanding such differences which was the Apostles counsel in that case in this sence what you say is true Or if by Corruptions in Practice you should mean such infirmities that all Members of Churches are subject to more or lesse for who can say that he is without sin in this sence you are right or if you mean by errours and Corruptions such that are of a more Grosse and Hainous nature which are not publickly known or of which the Members cannot have sufficient proof for the conviction of themselves that those that are accused are really guilty so also I grant what is here said for till it be evident by some overt Act that Judas hath a Devill and is a Traytor he ought to be look'd on as an Apostle and might be heard In like manner if the Governours of the Church were with many of the Members Arrians or Socinians in their judgments but not known evidently to be such it may be the Duty of sound Christians not to
Corrupt Discipline in your Church gives ground of separation from you His Fifth and Last Proposition That though we have a just Cause to refuse Communion with the Church whereof we are members in some instances yet we are not therefore to proceed to so total a separation from it as to Erect a New Church in Contra-distinction to it or to joyn with those that do The Reason he gives is because we are bound to obey as far as we can but at no hand to disturb the Peace To the Reason I Briefly answer that these Ministers and People obey as far as they can when they by obeying neither commit sin or what they suspect to be sin or when they neglect not some known duty Daniel might not obey when he was forbid praying for some days to the true God But for the Ministers of Christ not to go on in their Ministeriall work and for the People not to enjoy all ordinances is to neglect known duties in some things only and not in these they suspect and therefore such a separation is Lawfull notwithstanding his Reason and now I answer to the Proposition I may very well doubt whether this proposition be universally true when this very Author himself grants it is not For if a Church be so greatly and generally Corrupt in Doctrine and Practice as the Church of Rome so that the Salvation of those that Communicate with her be indanger'd it is then not only lawfull to separate but to Erect a new Church this he confesseth in a very few lines following Thus he hath provided wisely good shelter for himself his from the first charge of his proposition with respect to the Church of Rome whilest he hath left the poor Non-conformists to shift as they can with respect to their own Church but by his leave I shall make bold with his own evasion for a covert to them also from this storm for what though the Corruptions and Doctrines and Practices be not so great and so generall in an other Church as theirs in the Church of Rome yet if they be but so many and so great as to endanger their Salvation it is sufficient to warrant such a separation And now if you will give me leave I will tell you how these People concieve their Salvation is indangered through your corruptions If they should not separate as they do I say then These outed Ministers do not wonder if they conceive it is by reason of the corruptions that many hundreds of them have been cast out and silenced as much as in them lies and why because they will not swear and forswear assent and consent to all that they would have them by reason whereof they are reduced to these straits either to swear and do as you would have them and that against their Consciences or else to wrap their Tallants through slavish fear like slothful Servants in a Napkin and forsake the work of the Ministry which their Lord has intrusted them with if they do the former they like wicked Hypocrites will go against their own Consciences and so will indanger their Salvation or else like false and treacherous Stewards must desert their masters work and so incurre the doom of such Stewards so that let them look on the right hand or on the left they see nothing but damnation what then is left for them to do but to go on in their work as now they do for their own safety that is to Preach Teach Father and Rule his People which you are pleased to call the erecting of new Churches which as I said is no more than to do the duty of Christs Ministers and therefore cannot justly be charged on them as their sin You call these erected Churches new and what if they be new in respect to the time of their rise that is not their fault but if you consider them with respect to their rule either of their Worship or Government so they may be more Antient than your own for such Societies of Christians that meet with Christs Ministers to worship God according to the way of the Gospel Churches without imposed Forms of Prayer or without the use of any superstitiously imposed vestments or when they meet to Administer Sacraments without any impertinent superstitious use of the sign of the Crosse or to Eat the Supper in a Feastival posture as Christ and his Apostles did or such Churches that are governed by Christs Officers and such Presbyters unquestionably are not by lay Chancellors unheard of in the first Churches where nothing is imposed on the Members but what Christ by command hath made necessary and nothing censured as scandalous and threatned with Excommunion but that that is an evident transgressors of Gods laws as Drunkenness Whoredome Swearing are in a manner connived at or if at any time censured in some poor People the censure is upon very slight grounds taken off upon a very slight and formal Repentance or the payment of a few groats But where the transgression of a Ceremonious law or a Tradition of the Elders is dealt with as a sin unpardonable fines imprisonments silencing banishments Excommunications are punishments all thought little enough for so great a scandal Let now any man well consider both these sorts of Churches both as to their way of Worship Administration of Sacraments or way of Government and then tell me whether of them are more conformable to the Antient Apostolical pattern and so which of them deserve the name of old and which of new Churches But notwithstanding all this peradventure you will say that we have broke the Unity of the National Church which we ought to have preserved I Answer we have but broke it by accident and you perceive but by accident for no man can be said to sin or to be a Peace-breaker when he is but doing his duty and I conceive it hath been proved that we do no more Elijah was charged with being the troubler of Israel and the Apostles with turning the world upside down and yet they were faultless But you rather are breakers of it per so for do but you impose no more up-us than Christ our Lord hath done either by Himself or his Apostles as necessary conditions of Communion and be but you willing to receive these as Ministers and Members which Christ receives and owns and I dare say we shall soon enjoy a blessed Peace and that upon Righteous Foundations which Christ would certainly bless and cause to last but if you will drive us to such straits as that either we must wound our Consciences by a sinful compliance with you at least with such a compliance that we suspect sinful or else live in the neglect of our known duties and without the enjoyment of some Ordinances I beseech you blame us not for what we do for you your selves have made it necessary this I think is a sufficient answer to your fifth and last proposition which being all you have said that directly concerns us I shall take the boldness to conclude with your own words I am verily perswaded that I have said nothing in this my reply but what is very agreeable to Scripture and reason and the sence of the best and Antientest i. e. Apostolical Christians and Churches FINIS
be taken notice that this Power of ending Controversies which we ascribe to the Church doth not imply any Authority over our Judgements or that in virtue thereof she can oblige us to give an inward assent to her determinations any further than she gives us evidence for the Truth of them which is that extravagant Power the Church of Rome doth challenge to her self So far we are agreed he adds but our practices that she can oblige us to submit so far to her definitions as not to act any thing contrary to them this is absolutely necessary to prevent the over running of Heresies and the embroyling the Church in infinite quarrels and Controversies to the destruction of the publick Peace I answer first by concession I grant according to this here is good Provision made for the Purity and Peace of the Church so long as the Governours determine on the right side But in case they determine on the wrong it is then so bad an expedient to prevent Heresies that I do not know a more effectuall tool for the overspreading the Church with them than this is for in case they determine for Socinians Arrians Popery you say that the Members are obliged as to their practice though not as to their Judgements to Acquiesce in the said determinations I confesse herein you have shewed a great care of preserving a Peace but what a Peace is it not a Peace of the Church of Christ but the Peace of a confederacy or conspiracy against the true Church of Christ But if this were true then in the times of the predominancy of Arianisme when some hundreds of Arian Bishops met in Councel and determined wickedly against the Deity of Christ in that point to himself and never to have declared against that abomination for fear of disturbing the Peace of the Church and as for Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Prague and afterwards Luther they were all Peace breakers in declaring against the abominable opinions and Antichristian Faith of the Church of Rome they ought all of them to have kept their Judgements to themselves and so to have acquiesced in the determinations of that wicked Church Or when Jeroboam Apostatized and set up two Calves at Dan and Bethel and commanded the people there to Worship they ought onely to have kept their judgements to themselves but other wise to have conformed in outward practice to the instituted Worship which to say is contrary to the Judgement of God in that case who commended his 7000 in Israel that bowed not the knee to Baal the commendation was that they neither conformed in Judgement nor practice If it be said that the Authour only meant that such determinations only obliged the practice Negatively that is to say that the Members are thereby bound not to practise any thing contrary to them Very good let that be his meaning now I would fain know what are those acts wherein Members may be said to practise contrary to such determinations what if they withdraw and refuse Communion with such a Church that holds to such determinations is this to be reputed a practising any thing to the contrary if it be then so did those 7000 Israelites and yet are commended for so doing if so to withdraw may not be thought to be an acting contrary inasmuch as the Peace may be kept notwithstanding such a withdrawing then do you ill according to your own principles to compell under penalties all dissenters to conform to you since the Peace may be preserved notwithstanding their Non-conformity and withdrawing But yet again may a publick declaration by word of Mouth or writing be judged an acting contrary to such determinations I doubt not but you think it so to be Then I demand when the People of Israel met together at the tryal by Sacrifice whether God or Baal was the true God says Elisha to them why halt you betwixt Jehova and Baal if God be God follow him if Baal follow him Here the people were left to their choice to conclude upon the Worshipping of which God they were convinced to be the true God by that tryal In conclusion the People being throughly convinced by a miracle that Jehova and not Baal was the true God They publickly by word of mouth declared Jehovah he is God Jehovah he is God I ask was this declaration an acting contrary to the established Worship of the Land if it was then according to you it was unlawful and contrary to the Peace of that corrupt Church for they ought to have stood mute and kept their Judgements to themselves for fear of disturbing the Peace of Baals Worshipers Perhaps you will say this was an extraordinary case for a miracle was here wrought by a great Prophet which gave a virtual warrant to the People for such a declaration though contrary to the Peace of the Church I answer the immediate reason of this acclamation was the conviction of their judgements that Jehovah was the onely true God the remote cause was the miracle wrought by the Prophet which was the cause of the conviction so that the immediate warrant for that acclamation was their conviction the remote warrant for it was the miracle now I ask you if there be the same degree or a sufficient degree of conviction in any other people that this or that decision of Governours of Churches be clearly against the mind of God though the reason of the conviction be not a miracle wrought in their presence but a consideration of what is evidently declared in the Bible that in its time had the confirmation of many miracles wrought by a greater than Elisha even by the Son of God whether this conviction so wrought gives not as good and ample Authority to either Ministers or People to declare by Word of Mouth or Writing against such decisions of Church Governours which have determined evidently against plain Revelations as this People of Israel had for this their publick declaration which if granted then I say there is no such obligation that lies upon Church Members to acquiesce in the unrighteous decisions of Church Governours so as not to act or practise contrary there to which you have affirmed and I have denyed and let the Reader judge which hath the better reason of his side for what either of us say and thus have I answered to the third Proposition His Fourth Proposition That we can have no just cause of withdrawing our Communion from the Church whereof we are Members but when we cannot Communicate with it without the Commission of sin In this Proposition he speaks of Christians as supposed to be in actual Fellowship with some visible Church by Church he understands either some particular Worshiping Congregation or a National Church as for this latter notion of a Church when he hath shewed us that it was or is the will of Christ that all the Christians in every Nation should after the manner of the Jews be united under the same visible Head of
withdraw Communion from them But if it shall so fall out that the Governours of a Church and a great body of the People be so erroneous and this sufficiently known and though reproved yet they abidè obstinate maintainers thereof I say in this Case it is sufficient ground for sound Members to withdraw and save themselves from so dangerous a Society and why because I may not lawfully joyn with such a Church where possibly I may every time I joyn the Lord Christ and the Holy Ghost Blaspheme whose Deity is denied by these Sects nor may I joyn lest I indanger my Faith for evill words do not only Corrupt good manners but have a direct tendency to corrupt a sound Faith and certainly the safety of a Soul is of greater worth than the preservation of a Corrupt Peace or Unity of a Corrupt Church And what I have said upon a supposition of such grosse errours in the Rulers and many of the people of a Church the same may be said of either Idolaters or grosly profane practices for if Ministers or many of the Members should degenerate to a Popish Idolatry or should prove Common Drunkards or Whore-mongers or Opposers c. and being admonished thereof should deride the admonition as Precise and fanatical or if the Members only were Commonly so and the Rulers wittingly Connive thereat and seek not their Cure by Reproofs and Censures as Christ hath commanded in such cases I say again it is a sufficient ground for the sound Members to withdraw especially if a more pure Church may be had yea though neither these errours or practices are imposed and that first lest under the pretence of Peace they should be guilty of the greatest uncharitablenesse and that is the hardning and incouraging them in their abominable Impieties Again because the sound ought by the law of God and Nature to provide for their own safety Certainly if there be a Contagion in evill words to corrupt good manners there is much more in wicked Practices and therefore they cannot but be in apparent danger by Communicating with such and certainly in so doing there is nothing done contrary to the Fundamental reason of Christs Instituting discipline in his Church which as I conceive was for the Cure of the unsound and for the preservation of the sound from the infection of the unsound Now if no care be taken for the cure of the same but that infectious Crew is kept in the Church to the palpable endangering of the sound it is apparent that the Foundations of discipline are rooted up and in effect there is no discipline at all and that therefore every good Christian may seek his safety as he can since he cannot obtain it in a Church by the means of the Gospel Discipline which through the Corruption of the Rulers and the swaying part of the Corrupt Members is made void But no more of this till by and by when I shall have a fresh occasion to speak further to this point At present let us again return to inquire into a full sence of his Proposition if by any means we can find it out You say in generall terms without any Limitation that errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice when found in a Church but not imposed is no just ground of separation I Answer Methinks by this generall way of Expressing your self that you are not afraid of your Readers understanding this Proposition without any Limitation I pray tell me what if Socinian or Popish Errours and Corrupt practices were got into the Rulers of a Church and a great body of the People and that they should only tollerate them but not impose them on any what hinders if what you here say be true but that every sound Christian may yea and ought to Communicate with such a Church especially if Providence had cast him into such a place where no other could be had so that one of a Protestant Faith might lawfully joyn with a Popish Church not only in hearing their Friars Preach but likewise in receiving the Mass of them provided they would 〈…〉 him to profess their Errors or to Practise the Superâ—… 〈◊〉 Idolatry in the Mass but permit him to receive it in both 〈◊〉 in his own sence though he knows the Priest delivers 〈…〉 the rest of the Communicants receive it in the Popish sence I would not be so unmerciful to charge you as holding this but this I say that so much seems to follow Clearly from this your Position if taken without any Limitation and I can discern none in this Paragraph If you say that there is enough said by you pag. 22. concerning the Popish Church to clear you in this particular I Answer It is true you say there that the great and general Corruption of the Church of Rome both in Doctrine and Practice doth endanger the Salvation of such as Communicate with her and that therefore a totall separation from her and an erection of new Churches may be Lawfull I say notwithstanding all this yet I doubt whether you there mean that her Errors and Corruptions in themselves or of their own nature do so far endanger mens Salvation that though they were not imposed yet we were bound to a totall separation or do you mean they therefore so endanger our Salvation because imposed as to warrant such a separation If your Proposition there may be understood in the sormer sence then what you say here taken universally must needs be false for if the very being of some sorts of Errors and Corruptions in a Church though not imposed are so dangerous as to warrant a separation how can it then be universally true as you seem here to assert that Errours in Doctrine and Corruptions in Practice so long as they are only suffered but not imposed cannot be a sufficient Cause of separation but if you are there to be understood in the latter sence that is to say that the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome only as imposed are so dangerous to mens salvation as to warrant a separation then that which I even now suggested is true that Christians may Lawfully here be Baptized go to Mass with the Church of Rome Provided they were not forced to make a Profession of believing their Errors or had leave to receive those Sacraments with all the Superstitions thereto belonging in their own sence though it was well known that they administred them in an other I will not at present as aforesaid charge this opinion upon the Author though it seems to be a consequence rightly inferred from this and other principles of his in this discourse because he saith pag. 31. A man may believe a proposition and not believe all that follows from it So that at no hand are we to charge such Consequences upon him unless he doth explicitly own them but whether you will explicitly own them or no I am not certain Yet this I know that I have heard a Minister of the Church
of England not scruple to professe that he would for Peace sake use all the Popish Ceremonies of Cream and Spittle in Baptisme as well as the sign of the Cross provided his Rulers did impose them but so as that he was left to his liberty is not to use them to the Popish Superstitious ends But why such an one may not upon the same pretence of peace practice most if not all of the Ceremonies and Gestures pertaining to the Mass granting him the liberty of a mentall abstraction of them from their Superstitious and Idolatrous ones I cannot yet understand and what wonder is it if there be of such perswasions among you when it is evident that there are not a few of your Church whose Ambition it seems to be to run as nigh to the Romish Rights as they may be suffered not only in adoring by bowing of the knee in the act of receiving of the Supper but in erecting the Communion Table in the form of an Altar and not only in bowing towards it but being ready to kiss the very steps that lead up to it But if this were your mind I can prove the contrary But I know he will say all this is nothing to our present case for there are no such errours or idolatrous Practices in the Church of England and therefore cannot be pleaded as a cause of our separation I Answer It is very difficult to know what the Church of England is and how they shall we be able to understand what are the Truths or Errours she maintaineth or what are her Practices If you should take it to consist of all the Christians in England whether Ministers or People so the Church of England would Comprehend all Non-conformists Churches as well as others If you take it for such Christians only who are of the Faith in Doctrinals with those that hold with the 39. Articles here the Non-conformists come in for a share also who are of your Faith therein excepting those which respect Discipline Ceremonies But if you will take in and own such Christians in England to be only of your Church that agree with you in Ceremonies and a certain form of Service and Discipline which Christ never Commanded and without which many of Christs Churches have and do subsist and flourish to say no more I wonder then by what Gospell Rule you presume to constitute a Church only of such as exclusive of all others however sound in Faith and unblameable in life Or shall we take your Church only to consist of its officers how shall we then Judge of your Faith and Doctrinals when so many of your Ministers are so contrary one to another Some are for the doctrine of Predestination and others against it some are for Justification by Imputed righteousness others not some for a difference betwixt Grace and Morality others oppose it Some for the divine right of Episcopacy others that the Magistrate may appoint what form of government he pleases in a word some write or approve of such a book that others of you think as I have heard fit to be burnt Which of these shall we understand to be your Church If those only that meet by authority in your Consistory to advise of what is fit for the rest to believe and Practise What then becomes of the Church when that Consistory is dissolved and sent home But what if a Consistory concludes of the 39. Articles and the Preachers when all is done preach the quite contrary in several weighty points As it is conceived many of yours do and these are not only tollerated but encouraged by preferments consequently owned by your selves but you have a salve for all this for you tell us let some and why not many or most preach Doctrines contrary thereto yet your Church is very sound in Doctrine so long as the XXXIX Articles remain to be her Doctrine But I wonder how these Articles may be called your Doctrines if but for fear your Ministers or People shall believe them according to the true intent and meaning of the Compilers But in the mean time what a sad Condition must the poor People be in when such corrupt Teachers shall be imposed on them if they are bound for fear of Schisme to sit under their corrupt Doctrines to the endangering of their Faith and consequently of their Salvation yea though they be errours contrary to the Doctrine of your own Church If you say the people have liberty in this case of complaining I Answer but to what purpose when such errours are publickly profest in Printed Books and no course taken for the correcting or ejecting of the Authors which shall hold their places with encouragements If you say they may then withdraw and joyn with other Pastors provided they be of the same Church of England I Answer then what is become of your propositions that errors only tollerated are no just ground for separation If you say they may be just ground of separation from a particular Congregation but not from a National Church I Answer but what if the whole National Church should beguilty of the same or like errours what is it a just ground Then to withdraw if you say no I demand for what reason I can not think of any except these two that to separate from a Particular so we joyn with another of the same National Church doth not run us upon the same danger as if we separated from the whole for the latter leaves us destitute of all publick advantages to our selves which the other doth not Beside the publick honouring of God in his Worship which is every Christians Duty would be neglected My further reply is this that if the honouring of God in publick and my Souls safety are the only reasons that are to sway in this matter then in the pertaking with Churches though Non-conformists where both these may be obtained the separation will be lawful and consequently it will be lawful to separate from a Church upon the only cause of its having corrupt Doctrines in it tollerated though not imposed If you say there is a law of the Land that makes it unlawful to joyn with a Church separate from the National I answer then the question will be only this whether the Law of a Land or the security of my Faith and consequently my Salvation ought more to be regarded which I think is very easy to determine From what hath been said it is evident that some sort of errors in a Church though but tollerated may be a just ground of withdrawing though I do not charge the Church of England with any such errors nor had I ground provided her Ministers did honestly believe those Articles that they have professed to believe which as is conceived several of them do not So that what as to this point I have said is pleadable only by such private Christians whose lot it is to fall under the Teaching of such Conformists who are such Non-conformists to
the Doctrines of the Church of England as that they dare deride some sober Christians under the notion of being acquainted with the Person of Christ or that dare Teach there is no difference betwixt Grace and Morality or that there is no special Grace exerted in the conversion of a sinner or that the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the Conversion of men than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christianity in Scriptures and inabled such to confirm the Truth of it with Miracles so that men are left in the working out of their Salvation to their Bibles and the use of their natural Faculties exclusive of any other operation of the Spirit either to their illumination or sanctification I say if the People withdraw from such Teachers or Congregations where such Doctrines are owned for securing their Faith or Salvation there so doing is justifiable because the law-of self preservation is to be regarded before any positive law of visible Church Union and I hope there is no true Son of the Church that hath any zeal for the purity of their Church Doctrine will be my adversary herein and thus much shall suffice to be said concerning your Doctrines and of the lawfulness of separating from some of the particular Congregations in case the Teachers do grossely pervert Some of the weighty Doctrines of your own Church We shall in the next place consider what you have here offered as to corrupt practices which you say is no just ground if only tollerated but not imposed of withdrawing especially if they be no worse than are found in the Church of England I Answer first if all the corrupt practices in your Church were only tollerated but not imposed you would have much more reason of your side against us than you have because several things which you enjoyn to be practised we in our Consciences believe to be unlawful and we cannot must not have Communion with you except we comply therein so that should it be yielded that unimposed corruption in a Church is no just ground of separation yet is it of no force against us because some of these we conceive to be corruptions are imposed But to come close to the case as it stands related to this Proposition suppose no imposition of any of those things that are in controversie between us which is the supposition in the Proposition what will follow but first that all the Ministers of Christ in England would be capable of places for they are Impositions that are the principal reasons why they are kept out Secondly it would follow that those that are for the use of the Liturgy and Ceremonies and a promiscuous Communion withall that had but the name of Christians in the Sacraments might therein act according as they saw fit and as for other Ministers they might freely exercise their Ministry without Liturgy or Ceremonies and might exercise Discipline toward their rerespective Members according to Christ's direction in the case The question now arising can be only this whether it would be lawful for a Member of that Congregation where the Liturgy and Ceremonies are in use and Discipline neglected that conceived these things to be corruptions to separate and joyn with another free from these conceived corruptions I say he might first because were ther is no imposition ther can be no law of Superiors binding him to a Communion with such a conceived corrupt Church so that your great reason ordinarily produced in this case would be of no force here Secondly because that it is much safer for his soul to be joyned to a pure Church than a corrupt and self preservation is founded on a law Superior to that of visible Church-Union to this or that particular Church David might eat of the Shew-Bread to save his life which had not been lawful if positive laws were not to give place to natural Thus have I examined the third position both generally and as it particularly respecteth our present differences and shewn both its unsoundness in the former and impertinency as to the latter I have onely one word to say to the Reason given upon which the supposed Truth thereof is founded and so shall dismisse it The reason why he says that Errors in a Church as to matter of Doctrine and corruptions as to matter of practice if but suffered and not imposed is on just ground for separation because these things are not sins in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church therein I Answer if he mean that other mens Errors or Corruptions are not properly or formally mine by being in their Company and joyned with them in things lawful I grant it But yet it follows not that therefore I may joyn with them if I can otherways help it a man may buy and sell and eat and drink with Fornicators or other unclean and Debauched Creatures if he cannot trade and get provision for his body but in their Company But certainly if a Trade might be as well managed with sober men and that Meat may be had in better Company it would be sinful then to Trade and Eat with such and why because the law of self preservation warranteth me in the former but not in the latter I may not neglect the preservation of my life by eating nor geting a lively hood by trading which is ordinarily necessary to the preservation of my life present being A meer occasion of hardning others in sin or scandalizing weak Brethren but when no such necessity doth lye on me then the preventing of a scandal or giving occasion to the hardning others in the their sin and the safety of my self from their contagion are reasons of force to bind me from such Societies In like manner if the Word of God could be no where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be Lawfull yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without sin But if other Churches may be had which are regular according to Gods law and only irregular according to mans then it is a Duty to withdraw to prevent scandals and hardning a Church in its Corruptions together with the preservation of themselves from the danger of being infected with those Corruption which are reasons of another nature than that only one which you give for though as I said by joying with such I make not their sins formally mine yet I sin therein upon other accounts now named which may justifie my withdrawing I come now to his fourth which is this That the enjoying of a more profitable Ministry or living under a more pure Discipline in an other Church is no just Cause of forsaking the Communion of that whereof we are members Because we are not to commit the least Crime for the attaining of the greatest good in the World now it is a Crime to for sake