of a manifest dangerous most abominable Schism or rather Apostacy This general and Universal Church tho' but one body is yet made up of several particular Members or Churches and by a particular Christian Church we understand a Number of Men of the same Country professing Christianity formed into a Society under lawful Governours and governed by such Laws and Rules as are not different from but agreeable to the Laws and Rules of the Catholick Church And if any Man or number of Men who are Members of that Society shall without just cause separate themselves from the Communion thereof he or they so doing are certainly guilty of Schism Such a Church as this was the Church at Corinth the Church at Jerusalem the Church at Ephesus the Church of the Thessalonians the Church of Laodicea the Church of Smyrna the Church of Pergamus the Church of Thyatira the Church of Sardis the Church of Philadelphia and such a Church as this is the National Establisht Church of England which through a Collection of several Parochial Congregations is yet properly but one particular Church by reason of the same bond of Faith Worship and Government whereby they are all United and so make one true sound and pure part of the Catholick or Universal Church Except then there be a more just cause of Separation than you either have alledged or can alledge it must be a very great sin to erect new Churches and separate in the Acts of Prayer and Sacraments from the Body of a Church and Nation For so at Corinth St. Paul told them whilst one was for Paul and another for Apollos and there were divisions among them they were Carnal and walked as Men 1 Cor. 3.34 And at Rome he bids them mark them who cause Divisions and Offences and not adhere and associate with but avoid them Rom. 16.17 or to enforce this in the words of the Presbyterians whereby they of old pleaded for Unity and Uniformity We are loth to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into diverse formed Congregations of several Communions in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schism 1 Cor. 1.10 may not your secession from us and professing you cannot joyn with us as Members and setting up Congregations of another Communion be more properly called Schism And I must tell you further that it is never the less so in you upon the Account of the Act of Toleration which cannot nor does not pretend to exempt you from the Duty of Conformity but only from the Penalties of Nonconformity Your Separation is not one Jot the more reasonable or more just than it was before and those that were concerned in the drawing up of this Paper seem to be sensible of this in that they do not urge the Plea of Toleration but put their cause upon another Issue viz. the Merits of it But however Mr. Norris has cleared this case in his Charge of Schism continued notwithstanding the Toleration And now that I may be even with my Gentleman for his Idol-syllogism I shâ—â—â— Sum this whole Matter in a Syllogism all the parts whereof have been sufficiently proved to be as true as that was proved to be false and it runs thus Whoever separate from a Church with which they may lawfully communicate are guilty of Schism But you separate from a Church with which you may lawfully communicate Therefore you are guilty of Schism Or if you would rather that I should put the Argument into form in your own Words it stands thus Whoever are divided from the external Communion of the true Church are Schismatiks But you are divided from the external Communion of the true Church Therefore you are Schismaticks The Major or first of these Propositions is your own The Minor or second Proposition is true also because it is undeniable that the Church of England is a true Church and too sadly apparent that you separate from external Communion with her in the Exercise of Prayers and Sacraments the Ordinances of the true Church whence the Conclusion necessarily follows that you are Schismaticks And if so then I beseech you lay to Heart the words of Mr. Ball one of the most learned and judicious Non-conformists before the Wars as Dr. Stilling fleet stiles him in his Mischief of Separaton where he quotes him for them speaking of Separation he calls it a Renting the Church the Disgrace of Religion the Advancement of Pride Schism and Contention the Offence of the Weak the Grief of the Godly who be better setled the Hardning of the Wicked and Recovery or Rising again of Anti-Christianism nay even persecuting the Lord Jesus in his Host which they revile in his Ordinances which they dishonour and in his Servants whose Footsteps they slander whose Graces they Despise whose Office they Trample upon with Disdain ANSWER And I hope God will so direct us in Choosing our Minister that we shall make choice of such a one as will eandeavour to keep with in the Bounds and Limits of the Laws of God and Man and in particular the Act of Toleration and one I hope that will give no Disturbance in the Parish unless you will be disturbed as I fear you are and have been for the Preaching of the Gospel you know such Men there were in the Apostles days these Men say they do exceedingly trouble our City you know who they were that were accused those who were the Faithful Ambassadours of Jesus Christ REPLY I did not desire you to take care in the choice of a Minister there is no Room for that as long as I live and I am not legally dispossessed But if you must have another Preacher who in your Judgements is better qualified than I am I wish still that he may be a Man of Prudence and Temper one that will strictly confine himself within the Bounds and Limits of the Act of Toleration which restrains him wholly to the Meeting-House where he is licenced in the Exercise of his Talent of preaching gives him no Indulgence to perform any other Ministerial Office either there or in any other place nor to Rail and Revile or speak against the Church and Common Prayer either in his Sermons or elsewhere nor to go about to seduce People from the Established Service and their own Proper Minister There is no Toleration that I know of for these and the like Practises to either him or any other and therefore I think it is good and kind Advice both to you and him to keep within the Bounds of that Act for fear an Enquiry should be made whether all such who do not observe the Conditions of the Indulgence be not as liable to the Law as if they had none But let him be as cautious as he will not to transgress that particular Law he must not pretend that he observes all the Laws of God and
nature or made so by a standing and positive Law I deny his Minor also for allow that the Cross and Surplice and other Ceremonies have been used in Idolatrous Worship yet it does not follow that they were Idols unless they had some Prototype or represented some Divine Object and were set up for Adoration Things lawful in themselves may be used in Idolatrous Worship such as Time Place Habit and Posture but theâ— iâ— no more follows from thence that they were Idols than that the Vessels of Brass and Iron before mention'd were Idols or that the holy Water and Vestments are Idols which are used when they say Mass in the Church of Rome But supposing that both his Propositions are true yet his Consequence is very false That the Cross and Surplice must be Idols still or as I suppose he would now word it if he had it to revise again Idolatrous For when Idolatry is not in the Nature of the thing but in the Use take away the Use and the Idolatry ceaseth and consequently it may be lawfully used where there is no Idolatry in the Worship and no Idolatry in the use of it And if it be not to be used it is not because it is unlawful in it self to use it but because it is forbidden by God as was the Case among the Jews or because of some Circumstances that make it inconvenient and dangerous Thus it was lawful to eat that Meat which had been offer'd to Idols when it was afterwards exposed to sale in the Shambles or set upon the Table at an Entertainment because it was thereby restored to a common use It is then no more Idolatry to use a white Garment or a Ceremony or a Temple or observe a Day or to use a Prayer that has been used or observed in Idolatrous Worship or by an Idolatrous Church than it was to eat Meat that had been offer'd to Idols Purifie the Gold and separate the Dross from it and the Gold is not the worse for the Dross that was before mingled with it Scrape the Walls and cast out the infected Materials of it so that the House be freed from the Leprosie and it might have been as well inhabited as if it had never been infected And this is the Upshot of that Charge of Idolatry which he would fain fasten upon us He can produce nothing that is Idolatrous among us The Cross and Surplice he says have been used in Idolatrous Worship but if we allow him what he says it does him no Service forasmuch as the Abuse of things in themselves lawful even to Idolatrous Purposes is no Argument against the lawful use of them And this is Answer enough to what he says about the Original of the Surplice for let its Parentage be as base and scandalous as he would have it thought to be yet it does not make the Use of it Unlawful if the thing it self is not so ANSWER The Vnlawfulness of this Babylonish Garment will further appear if we look into the Original whence we had it Some Authors tell us we have it from Heathen Rome which in her Idolatrous Service did apishly imitate Aaron's Garments as it is instanced in the Reign of Numa eight hundred Years after the Law Others tell us we have it from the Druides the mad Heathen Priests among the Gauls and Brittons or from the Antichristian Rome or lastly from the Priestly Office of Aaron which Heathen and Popish Rome hath impiously follow'd denying thereby the Lord Jesus to be came in the Flesh who with his Graces was typified out by those goodly and beautiful Garments which being Shadows are done away and Christ the Body is come For us then to imitate them in their Relicks or to devise a Priestly Garment of our own head in God's Worship is to rob Christ of his Honour exceedingly and to make our selves deeply guilty of Will-worship For had not God clothed those Garments in the Law with a particular and punctual Command for Matter and Manner they had been ridiculous things They made the holy Garment saith Moses as the LORD commanded Exod. 39. which latter words as the Lord commanded are repeated nine several times in this Chapter intimating they did not swerve one jot from God's Direction teaching all God's Servants thereby that they contain themselves within the Limits of God's Word and bring nothing into the Service of God of their own invention for the Apostle calls that Will-worship REPLY This Babylonish Garment he has mighty Spite to and to render it the more odious he would gladly derive its Pedigree but he is not Genealogist enough to do it Authors he would have me know he has read but who they are he is afraid to tell lest it might be made appear he has read none of them or has made as bold with them at he has done with the Bible and misinterpreted and misapplied them as he has done this sacred Book or that however they are such deep learned Men as himself who know nothing of the matter The Surplice is derived from some-body he knows not who either from Heathenish or Antichristian Rome from the mad Heathen Priests or from Aaron's Garments which were good and beautiful in themselves and yet had been ridiculous if God had not appointed them What if I should say some Authors tell us it was derived from Christ and his Apostles how would he disprove me or prove that it was not But what if without enquiring from whom it was first derived or by whom else it was or is used I should say as I do that it was a Garment used in the Primitive Church as an Emblem of and an Admonition to the Priests of that Purity and Innocence wherewith they ought to be clothed and that we use it in conformity to their Practice and for the same reasons and withal thinking it a decenter Garment to perform Ministerial Offices in than either Coat or Cloak what I say can he urge against this or what Reason can he give why the Governors of the Church may not prescribe what Habit for the Clergy whether in the time of Divine Service or out of it which they shall think most grave and most decent Or if he will tell me why a Dissenting Preacher goes in Black rather than in Yellow if there be any thing of Reason in what he says I will improve it into one for wearing the Surplice during divine Administrations But what if this be taken from the Garments of Aaron as he knows not whether it is or no Why Then those that use it do thereby deny Christ to be come in the Flesh but for what Reason does he say this Because Aarons Garments were Types and Shadows of Christ who being now come they are to be done away If he is such a Logician as really to think this to be good Arguing yet it will not at all conclude against the Use of the Surplice till he has shewed first what it was that
in an Vnity in matters of Faith so that they are truly Schismaticks that are divided from the External Communion of the true Church viz that do not own all the Ordinances of the true Church or if they own them do not live in the Exercise of them these are the Persons that are guilty of Schism Now how deeply guilty of Schism you are who charge us with it I shall leave all honest Men to judge Now if you cannot prove that we own any thing in point of Doctrine or Discipline in our Church that is not according to the word of God how can you have the face to accuse us of Schism If you have any thing to Accuse us of in point of Doctrine or Discipline let us have it and I doubt not but we shall be able to clear our selves of all your false Accusations REPLY Schism he knows not well what to make of he gives me the 〈◊〉 signification of the Word it is true but when he comes to apply it he says 't is a Division in the Church of Christ consisting in an Vanity in matters of Faith either as if the Vnity of the Church consisted only in an Vnity in matters of Faith or that Schism were a Separation from the true Church in matters of Faith But besides Vnity in matters of Faith there is an Unity and Communion of Saints in Worship and whether he knew it or no if he separates from the true Church in Matters of Faith he is an Heretick more properly than a Schismatick for a Man may be a Schismatick and yet be right as to the main Articles of Faith If he is divided from the external Communion of the true Church he is a Schismatick or to explain it in other words if he does not own all the Ordinances of the true Church or if he does own them does not however live in the exercise of them viz in the external Communion of the true Church this person is guilty of Schism Now I leave all men that have sence as well as honesty to Judge whether you or we are divided from the External Communion of the true Church and consequently which are Schismaticks We own all the Ordinances of the true Church and live in the Exercise of them We are in Communion with all the sound parts of Christ's Church all the world over They own our Church as their Sister and give her the right hand of Fellowship and highly condemn you for your separation The Church of Rome only accuses us of Schism and the Charge would be good against ours with respect to her if we had no better reasons for separating from her than the Dissenters in England give for their Separation from Vs Our Separation from the Church of Rome has been sufficiently cleared from the Charge of Schism and when you have brought as good Arguments in defence of your dividing from External Communion with us we shall then pronounce you not guilty of it neither But till then till you prove that ours is not the National Establisht Church with which you lie under an Obligation to Communicate that this established Church is not a sound part of the Church of Christ and that she imposes sinful Terms of Communion till I say you have done all this I shall continue my Accusation of Schism as long as you continue in your Separation and put as good a Face upon it as the Godly Learned of old did who say That every unjust and rash Separation from a true Church i. e. when there is no just or at least no sufficient cause of the Separation is a Schism and that there is a Negative and a Positive Schism The former is when Men do peaceably and quietly draw from Communion with a Church not making head against that Church from which they are departed The other is when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct opposite Body setting up Church against Church which Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency and farther 〈◊〉 there are four Causes that makes a Separation from a Church 〈◊〉 First when they that separate are grievously and intollerably persecuted Secondly when the Church they separate from is Heretical Thirdly when it is idolatrous Fourthly when 't is the Seat of Anti-Christ And where none of these four are found there the Separation is insufficient and Schism Now we are fully assured that none of these Four Causes can be justly charged upon our Congregations therefore you must not be displeased with us but with your selves if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism This was the Presbyterian Doctrine in those Blessed Days of 49 to those who stood in divided Congregations from them And if it was good Doctrine then I am sure it is much more so now as coming from Vs to You. In what sence you call your separate Meetings a Church I know not but if you think that they deserve that Name more than the Quakers or Anabaptists or Independants who all assume that Title to themselves then I must tell you that I take your Church to be a Schismatical Church for let your Faith be as right as that of the 3 Creeds and your Discipline if you have any as free from fault as you would have the world think you to be yet if you are divided from the external Communion of the true Church in the exercise of the Ordinances of the true Church i. e. if you do not joyn with the true Church in Prayers hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments your own Paper makes you Schismaticks and I must freely own I do not see how any Man can be acquitted therefrom who being a Member of a particular established Church does upon any pretended Offence taken against such Rites Modes and Ceremonies which are thought convenient by that Church separate himself from the publick Worship when the Substantials and Essentials thereof are so unexceptionable as ours are But forasmuch as your Notions and Discourses about the true Church and about Schism seem to be so confused and extravagant Before I dismiss this point I desire you will give me Liberty to instruct you in the meaning of a Christian Church which I am apt to believe you do not rightly understand Now among the several Acceptations of the word Church one whereof belongs to the place consecrated and set apart for the publick Assemblies of Christians the Church in the Language of the New Testament of Intelligent Writers and indeed of all Men that understand themselves when they talk about it especially with Reference to Communion doth generally signifie the Christian Church either as it is Catholick or as it is Particular The Christian Church considered as Catholick or Universal signifies the whole Body of Christians dispersed upon the Face of the whole Earth and so it comprehends all Persons and all particular Churches professing Christianity And whosoever shall make a Defection or Separation from this Church will be found guilty
Man if he sets up Altar against Altar Church against Church and Heads a Separation from the external Communion of the true Church of Christ and be he who he will and let his Pretence be what it will if he sets himself here in Opposition to me and that true Church of which I am a lawful Minister I must say of him that he does exceedingly trouble our City and that too by Teaching Customs which are not lawful for us to Receive neither to observe being Members of the Church of England for if any Man seem to be contentious we have no such Custom nor the Churches of God from whence we may by the way observe that the Apostle disputing concerning an Ecclesiastick Ceremony with the Corinthian Church appeals to the Custom of the Churches of God as sufficient to confute even the most contentious without any express Determination of the word of God in matters of that Nature I know very well who they were that said these men do exceedingly trouble our City and of whom they spake it and upon what Principle they spake it and I know that your Application of it to me is not Parallel in any of these but I am sure that the Expression as applied by me is as to the matter of Fact true and I know further that they were the Children of Edom that cryed out upon Jerusalem Down with it Down with it even to the Ground It is I do own a daring and provoking piece of Impudence to have a Company of Vzziah's unto whom it appertaineth not to burn Incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn Incense compared with the Holy Apostles of our Blessed Saviour who gave such undeniable Proof of the Divinity of their Commission And a good Man cannot but be troubled at the Injustice and Confusion of breaking in upon sacred Rights and invading Holy Offices But however I do assure you that having as I hope now discharged my Duty to the full in this particular I shall give no farther Disturbance to my self than to lament our Divisions and beseech God to compose them and to take what care I can to secure the Rigths and Priviledges which do yet belong to the Church and Minister of this Parish from being either withheld or encroached upon And this as it is all the Disturbance or indeed Incivility that I have offered you notwithstanding sufficient Provocation during the time that I have been in this place so need you not be apprehensive of any other from me for the future Only forgive me that Wrong and give me leave to maintain my Fidelity to the Church to be firm to my Subscriptions and my Vows of Ordination constantly to use and as well as I am able to defend that Liturgy which I have solemnly testified my Approbation of in the Presence of God and in the face of his congregation Pardon me in these things and excuse me that I am resolutely bent not to speak beneath the Dignity of my Function and the Station I am in and you may depend according to the Opportunities you give me of performing them upon all the good Offices which can reasonably be expected from either a good Neighbour a charitable Christian or an honest Minister ANSWER Sir You charge us with causing Divisions among us by bringing in another Preacher as if the Preaching the Gospel by the Authoriz'd Ambassadors of God were the only Cause whom alas you do not consider it 's the unlawful Impositions Superstitions Traditions that is the principal Cause of those Divisions that we are among us for all those are removed we cannot be united REPLY And notwithstanding this impertinent Cant I say still that the bringing in another Preacher does and will maintain the Divisions among us and further that such Preachers are the main if not the only true Causes of them thro' the just Judgment of God upon a sinful People who have not lived answerably to their holy Profession and that Excellent Church which God in wonderful Mercy and by miraculous Providences hath established and preserved among us And I shall alwaies be of that Opinion till it is proved that those Men are Ambassadors authorized by God to preach the Gospel in this Nation and that there are any unlawful Impositions Superstitions and Traditions in our Church which are a just cause for the People to forsake their own Pastors and give themselves up to the guidance of those Intruders And this is a sufficient Reply to his complemental Conclusion with the false Accusation of Vnlawful Impositions Superstitions and Traditions clamorous Phrases which every ignorant Wretch can make use of when he has a mind to reproach our Church Methinks it would have been but fair dealing to have made good this Charge by shewing what Vnlawful things we impose wherein we are superstitious and by what Traditions we make the Word of God of none effect But he knows that to cry out against any Man of a different Opinion is enough to raise the whole Discontented Party against him If he thinks he has given sufficient Proof of Vnlawful Impositions in our Church I think I have proved he has not and in reference to whatsoever is imposed upon us meerly by the Churches Authority I shall only further say That none of the things imposed are Unlawful in themselves that to abridge Authority is the exercise of their Power in things of a middle nature that are of themselves indifferent and neither simply good or evil is to cancel and make Authority useless because their Power lies mainly in things of that nature since things that are simply and absolutely good are commanded by God himself and things that are in themselves evil forbidden by him that if where some are impower'd to give Orders others are not under an Obligation to observe them Authority is nugatory and ridiculous and that before these latter days there were never any Christians in the World that held themselves bound not to do a lawful thing meerly because it was commanded and imposed upon them which makes Obedience and Observance of those things a Duty in us which before they were clothed with a particular and punctual Command were no ways obligatory What this Man means by Traditions I can hardly guess As for Traditions about Matters of Doctrine we hold none but those which are deliver'd to us in the Writings of the Penmen of Holy Writ and for the proof of the Authority of those Sacred Books we look upon the written Tradition of the Church to be a good Argument If by Traditions he means the Customs and Ceremonies of the Church then they have already been consider'd as far as he gave me occasion to do it And I shall only add that I do believe what the Church of England declares in the 34th Article of her Religion That whosoever thro' his private Judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions i. e. Customs and