if a Company withdraw themselves from it and shake off all Dependance on it and Communion with it all Communion if you speak this to us you must mean all outward Communion in those Ceremonious Acts of Worship and Matters of Discipline that lie in Controvesie betwixt us they cannot be of the same Body that they deserted And then it must needs follow That Your Church being Politically in Communion with the CATHOLICK and Ours out of Communion with you we are but as so many dead Branches that have lost their Union with the Body and all the Influxes of Life from the Head How gladly then would you see us in the Fire that you may warm your selves by us Sure 't is well for those of us you are so angry with that the Act De Haroticis comburendis is repeal'd But this Inference of yours you pretend to illustrate by several pat Instances The Empire of Persia you say was one Body under Darius but was not so when divided into several Kingdoms under the Successors of Alexander Very critically observ'd when thus divided they were not One particular Political Body as before yet were they true parts of One and the same Universal World still tho' divided into particular National Polities yet united still in all the common Interests of Human Nature and Society So a City is one Body but the Colonies that issue out from it and are form'd into other Cities under their own proper Laws and Jurisdiction cannot be Numerically and perhaps are not Specificially one Political Body yet they are one Kingdom and govern'd by the same common Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom And what the Kingdom is the worse for this Variety or Diversification of particlar Political Forms no Man can tell Nay suppose this Separation be made by a Revolt or Dislike of the Constitution of the Government of the City or of their Manners and Formalities and without the Publick Consent we hope this will not Out-law them nor Disfranchize them of any of their National Privileges and Rights as long as they behave themselves with due Loyalty to their Sovereign and peaceably to their Fellow-Subjects Now you say a Church hath this Communion with a City and with all Corporations Very true so the Church at Jerusalem was once the Vniversal Church and Gospel Metropolis But if all those particular Churches that have been separated from it into Political Bodies not only Numerically but Specifically distinct under their own Laws and Forms of Government Worship and Discipline and different from that of the first Mother-Church from which they issued be no more Churches because of these different outward Communions wherein they are not one with the first Church nor with one another then it must needs follow that You are no more a Church of Christ than We and so you have thus far set us on even Ground with your selves nor hath any one need to renounce the use of the Words or affront the common Sense of Mankind to draw this Conclusion from your Premises 2. You plead from a supposed Inconsistency it hath with Church Government and its Destructiveness of the Church it self and a vain excuse you say 't will be for Men to say that they are at an Agreement with the Church in Doctrin while by their Divisions they are tearing the Church in Pieces And this you are at the Pains to Illustrate by Comparisons Military Civil and Domestick as if it were an hard Matter to beat this Notion into Mens Heads But when all is done you won't imagine how little We think our selves concern'd in it for you have granted us and we cannot forget it that it must be a Causeless Separation or else it is not what you are declaiming on therefore till it appear that our Separation from the Church of England is Causeless we are not the Persons that are like to be hurt by your Arrows And as for our Officers by whose Conduct we are guided in the Matters of God and of our Souls they are neither Mutinous nor Seditious nor Self-Intruders as by your Comparisons you would Insinuate but generally as well qualify'd and altogether as lawfully call'd and commission'd and as fully invested with the ministerial Office according to the Rules of the Holy Scriptures as any of your Selves as we have already prov'd so that this Argument you may now lay aside among your broken Weapons till you find a proper Occasion for it 3. You argue from its Inconsistency with the Notion of Schism as it is express'd in the Holy Scripture i. e. If the Scripture Notion of Schism were the same with Yours And for this your only Instance is the Schism that was once in the Church of Corinth where every one said I am of Paul or I of Apollas or I of Cephas But this Faction among the Disciples at Corinth you told us in your second Section was but a Schism within the Church not from it and therefore will not give us the full Notion of Schism according to your own apprehension of it But we will let this pass for an Impertinence having already granted you more than this Instance can pretend to prove viz. that Oneness in Doctrin is not always enough to justify a Separation from outward Communion 'T is in your misapplying it to us that your great Mistake lies supposing that our Separation from you is as Causeless as were the Factious Divisions of those in the Church of Corinth which is the Thing that 's yet to be prov'd But it seems to us by the Tenour of your Discourse from top to bottom that let a Church be what it will either as to its Constitution or its individual Members ever so Corrupt in Doctrin Superstitious in Worship or Filthy in Conversation and degenerated from Scripture Rules and Institution yet while they hold together in outward Communion as the Church of Rome hath done both before and since the Protestant Reformation there is nothing in it that deserves the Name of Schism or that will justifie a Seperation from it Pray tell us plainly whose Cause it is you are pleading under the Name of the Church of England Have you never consider'd the Differences that there were in the Apostle's Days between the Churches of the Christian Jewes and those of the Gentiles in respect of Rites and Ceremonies and outward Communion and don 't you know to what a height these Differences were kept up by the Churches that were still so fond of their old Way that there was no Uniting them in this Point That Paul for his Non-Conformity to 'em could not shew his Face among 'em at Jerusalem without danger of his Life Have you not read what a feud there was once between Him and Peter on this Account Gal. 2.11 12 13 14. And how much ado the Apostle Paul had to preserve the Churches of the Gentiles from being bigotted to their Superstitions Now pray tell us whether the Church at Jerusalem or that at Antioch were the
Company of Bigots at Jerusalem appear'd there as a Nazarite with all the Formalities the Law required in that Case Ch. 21.24 This he could do occasionally according to the Liberty he had in Christ which he was careful to preserve and not to be brought under the Power of these Things which is contrary to the Nature and free State of the Gospel And having this apostolical Precedent our Consciences are at ease in this Matter Yet IV. If there be any that have made these external Compliances renuente Conscientia or but with a doubting Conscience let them look to it and repent of their Sin for whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin But to pass this Censure on any without clear Evidence is far from that Charity which thinketh no Evil. Your first Section it but Preliminary to what you pretend to be more Argumentative Sect. 1. wherein you tell us that the Church of Christ being but One and that in the highest and strictest manner of Vnion that is possible for a Society of Men all the Question will be wherein this Vnion does consist or in what things it ought to be maintain'd To this you answer That all Christians ought to be united 1. In Faith 2. in Love 3. in outward Worship and Communion On the Two former you touch lightly because you perceive that the stress of the Question lies on the Third So that tho' We Dissenters be One with you in Faith and Love which whatever you think we have alwaies taken to be the main fundamental Principles of our Christianity and the strongest Nerves of our Christian Union and all that is as absolutely necessary requir'd of us 2 Tim. 1.13 Gal. 5.6 Philem. ver 5. Yet we must by the Rules of your Charity be all Damn'd if we dare to dissent from you in any of your outward Acts and Modes of Worship and Communion Here you run on a large and learned Harangue on the excellency and necessity of Church-Concord in the external Forms of Worship and Discipline as if a few variable unscriptural and confessedly indifferent Ceremonies were the only true Cement and Badge of Christian Union and without which 't is impossible as a visible Society to appear in the Eye of the World as One. And for this you think you very pertinently quote both Scriptures and the Fathers Now as to what you say as to the necessity of Union in Essentials we are ready to say with you and take Communion on in Externalls and Circumstantialls where it may be had without Sin to be on several Accounts as desirable as you can represent it to be But when you say that Faith and Love being invisible Principles are not capable of being a publick Badge of the Christian Profession And Argue from thence that 't is only Vniformity in the external Rites and Ceremonies of Worship that evidences the Oneness of Faith and Affection as if Faith and Love had no other way to express their Efficacy and Sincerity but this you do not only traduce those Divine Principles but shamefully expose the Church of which you are so very tender For should it be said that no one would ever believe the Members of the Church of England to be any of Christ's Disciples did they not see them so Zealous for the Ceremonies of their Church how little would this be for the Credit of their Christianity And indeed this is lamentably too true of very many not only of the common Members but of the Teachers and Leaders of the Church that have little else to distinguish them from Heathens or to perswade a belief of their Christianity but an empty Name and a blind Zeal for what they call the Church That the Church Universal is One and in some respects may be said to be one visible Society and Political Body we readily grant so that the Unity be made to consist only in what is Essential to it else we must inevitably cut the Catholick Church in Pieces according to the variety and differences of the external Rites and Communions of the many particular Churches of which the whole is constituted And when we have done so where shall we find that Oracle that shall infallibly determine and assure us which of all these Parts is that which we ought to own and to Communicate with as the Church of Christ in which alone Salvation is to be had Must you be the Oracle May not others claim it as well as you Or will you send us to Rome to be determin'd Yet this is that you so charitably direct us to and are so strenuously contending for If then the Rending of the Church be Schism let all the unprejudiced part of the World judge who are the Schismaticks You or We. We are ready to Communicate with you in all that is Essential to the Church of Christ and profess our selves to be so far One with you but because we dissent from you in some Circumstantials of your own devising which God hath no where requir'd of us and which are justly Offensive to the Consciences of very many of the Faithful yet which you make the indispensable Conditions of Communion with you therefore we must be cut off and cast out as no parts of the Catholick Church of Christ Is not this to cut the Church in Pieces and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Schismatical Church The Catholick Church of Christ indeed is One therefore he that is duly admitted as a Member in any one true part or particular Congregation of this Church has a right of Communicating in all and he that is justly Excommunicated out of one is cut off from all because all are but the integrating Parts of one and the same Body But then they can be one only in those things which are essentially common to all and not in those peculiar Forms or accidental Differences which are one way or other become proper to 'em as particular Parts Will you cut off the Foot as no part of the Body because it differs in Form from the Hand Are you offended with your Nose because it is not in Figure like your Ear When you have dismember'd all the Dissimilar Parts what a comely useful uniform Trunk will you have left Yet this is what you are Pleading for Where then is your Charity Or your Policy You say You see not what just Cause there can be that they should be divided in Worship who are united in Faith And we say so too But why then have you thus divided us from you Whose Fault is it that we do not Worship God together but yours that will not suffer it but on such Terms as we cannot without Sin submit to and which you have devis'd and impos'd with a design to keep so many of us out of your Communion That the Church is a Regular Society we grant A Body fitly joyn'd together consisting of many Members of which all have not the same Office as you quote it from the Apostle Neither
though never so peaceably and temperately to make use of the Plenty that God had given them would not your Charity think this to be a little hard And truly while we think our Souls so much better and nearer to us than our Bodies we cannot take it very kindly to be so dealt with by You. Lastly To take your fair leave of this Argument you tell us that you are far from derogating from the Authority of Secular Princes But we must tell you that you are not so far as would better become you from reflecting on the Wisdom and Justice of those that are in Supream Authority over you and by whose distinguishing Favour it is that you enjoy your Ecclesiastical Preferments and We our Christian Liberty of Conscience and Immunity from the rigour of Penal Laws VI. You have now brought us to what you Call our Sixth Argument and that you may shew how bountiful you can be and how willing to make the most of what we have to say for our selves you have subtilly divided this One for us into Three The Bulk of the Argument we perceive lies thus That the way of the Separation is preferable to that of the Church i. e. Of the Church of England Erg. We Answer that to chuse that which is the more excellent and having now Liberty given us so to do we hope is no Schism at least in our Case And to suffult our Major you have found out for us Three other Subservient Arguments which yet you say are cut off by the Sinfulness of our Separation So that it seems your Goodness never intended they should do us any real Service And thus you could have found it in your Heart to have dismised them without farther Consideration But because you apprehend there is some stress laid upon 'em and to make your Triumph the greater You thought fit to bring them under a distinct Examination wherein we shall follow you with a very obsequious diligence 1. It hath been said that in the way of Separation we enjoy purer Ordinances Ordinances that are freer from Ceremony and the addition of things not commanded that set us at a greater distance from Popery c. But to rid your self of this way of Arguing you endeavour to smother it under a Heap of Absurdities which they fall into who would exclude from Religion all things not commanded and who make the greatest distance from the Church of Rome from which you seem Jealous of being drawn too far the Standard of the best Reformation And then you make us a long Quotation of the gross Absurdities of those Men whom you call the more Rigid Separatists out of Baylie's Disswasive and Paget's Arrow against Separation wherein we are not concerned unless it be as you well advise to caution us against the like wild Extravagancies This we take kindly enough from you and that we may not lye long in your Debt in this kind we think it as seasonable to desire you to consider by what Means and Degrees the Church of Rome arriv'd to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Superstition and Idolatry Whether some such few uncommanded Ceremonies which you so zealously retain and unwarrantably impose were not the first Nest-Eggs to which all the rest were laid Whether they are not now as productive of more as ever they were when an occasion shall offer and whether there are not enough now in England that do expect it and have prepared their Nests for it Whether your few Ceremonies have not the same relation and subservient tendency to the grosser Superstition and Idolatries of Rome as the High Places of the Jews which some of their Reforming Kings through the instigation of their Priests were so loth to let go were of the grosser Idolatries of the Heathen And whether you are not as much concerned to beware of leading your selves and others into the Gulph of the foulest Superstition by an abuse of your Power as we have to beware that others run not out into Extreams by our doing but our Duty You seem to grant us with the generality of your Conformists That there is nothing to be admitted as an Essential part of God's Worship that is not the subject of a Divine Precept But would you not then by an innuendo have us to believe that some Integral Parts may be admitted without any such Precept Which you had need to prove before we can be very forward to believe But then you say indefinitely That External Rites and Circumstances of Worship whether English or Romish Jewish Greek or Barbarian are of another Nature and indeed we think so too but being not forbidden of God expresly or by consequence are not Sinful And herein we should agree too could it but be once agreed what is by consequence forbidden For our parts we are apt to think that the consequence of those first words of the Second Commandment and all those Scriptures of the Old Testament that condemn the using of any thing in God's Worship which He hath not commanded or required That that of Matth. 15.9 and that of the Apostle Colos 2.20 21 22. will go far to condemn all those Rites and Ceremonies us'd in Divine Worship which are of Men's Invention and not necessary ex natura rei whatever their pretended usefulness on the account of their significancy be Besides for the aggravation of our Guilt and our fuller Conviction you would have us to consider how few of these are required of us as Private Men. To which we reply that this brings to our Minds how Lot on a better Principle and to better Purpose once pleaded for Zoar Is it not a little one But whether there be few or many we know no Power you have to require nor any warrant we have to admit of any for he that may require one may on your Principles require ad libitum as many as he will But that it should be impossible to preserve Peace and Order in the Church without a Conformity to these things is owing only to the disorder of your own Spleens and your pertinacious Zeal for them Would you but give every one his Liberty in these things which your selves call indifferent according to the Apostle's Rule Rom. 14. alibi we know not who would disturb the Churches Peace about them You say That in the Primitive Church as many Ceremonies were used as now are required by the Church of England and what if we grant that there were as many and more will you argue from the Primitive Churches using to your Churches requiring and imposing Or do you know which way to prove that their Effects of Charity or Kiss of Peace or the Woman's Vail were of the Apostles Appointment or Institution 'T is true the Apostle argues the Decency of the Woman's being cover'd and of the Man's being uncover'd in the Place and Time of God's solemn Worship 1 Cor. 11. But as for the Matter or Mode of the Covering he hath left this to every
Yoke and prostitute our Consciences to your Authority and adventure our All to Eternity on the safe Conduct of your Direction and Benediction let us be ever so ignorant of the Articles or Nature of the Faith we profess or ever so Scandalous in our Lives yet if we Live and Die in your Communion you will on our Death-Beds bring us the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which you will pretend to Consecrate to us and so Absolve us and tell us we are safe for the other World May we not tell a Popish Priest now Mutato nomine de te Fabula Narratur And now Sir having taken this brief View of your first Section wherein had we followed you Line by Line in every thing that might have offer'd us a just Remark it would have carried us too far beyond the due Bounds of a Letter Wherefore for brevity sake we will now summ up the Argument of it in this categorical Form The Universal Church of Christ is One Body But the Church of England and those of the Dissenters are Two Erg. Dissenters are not of the Church of Christ Or which may be concluded altogether as Logically Erg. Either the Church of England or the Dissenters are not the Church of Christ Both of these are alike true In what University learn'd you this Logick Or by what Pretence can you hope to hide the shame of so staring a Fallacy That we have not wrong'd you in the Syllogism Sect. 2. we have drawn upon your first Section appears by your own Inferences in your Second where you conclude That a Breach of Vnion in any of these Things viz. Not only in Faith and Love but in External Communion and particularly with the Church of England in its present State and in all its Rites and Ceremonies which is the main thing in dispute betwixt us where-ever the Fault is as you express it with very good caution must needs be Sinful i. e. so Sinful as according to your Hypothesis cuts a Person off from all saving Communion with the Church of Christ Now this Inference so generally yet cautiously stated you begin very Orthodoxly to defend in your next Paragraphs where you say I. That if there be but one Faith deliver'd to the Saints for which they must earnestly contend they grievously offend who add new Articles to it or take away from it such as are already reveal'd or otherwise deprave it by a mixthre of Falshood And so far as they do so we ought to depart from them and not betray or deny the Truth in complyance with them Sir We sincerely thank you for this and wish that we may always sind you sixt on this good Principle This is all that We and our Teachers have been so long wrestling and waiting on the Church of England for Grant us but this and then there will need but one thing more besides the Grace of God to reconcile and unite us If we unite with you in all that the Word of God requires us to unite in the Fault will not be Ours if we depart and separate from you in those Articles which are not of the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints or in those Acts of Worship and outward Communion which we have no Warrant in the Scriptures for but general Cautions against then our Separation will not by this Principle of Yours be damn'd by you as Schismatical but must be acknowledged as we verily believe it to be a part of our bounden Duty And when you speak with so much keenness against our Division and Separation from you do Us and the Cause but so much right as to prefix the Word Causeless and you will find us ready to say as to the Theory of your Doctrin much the same as you do All that you quote out of the Scriptures or out of your Saints or any other more modern Authors of your own or of our Persuasion against Schism is nothing at all to us unless you first prove our Separation to be Causeless and consequently Schismatical Now in order to this you undertake 1. To shew us what the Nature of Schism is 2. What Grounds you have to apprehend that we are deeply concern'd in it 3. You examine the Arguments that have been offer'd on our part to excuse us from the guilt of it 4. You represent to us the sad Consequence of it According to this Method we shall now endeavour to follow you I. You say That Schism in the Notion of it that we are now upon is a causeless Breach of outward Ecclesiastical Communion By this Limitation of your Desinition whereby you warily explain your self you give us to understand that what your Discourse is so hotly affected with is not the Whole but only a Branch of Schism and indeed one of the least and remotest Branches of it yet which if Causeless we will grant it to your Desinition to be Schismatical And we again thank your Ingenuity in inserting the Word Causeless by which Specifick Difference of your Genius you leave us to conclude that there is a Breach of outward Ecclesiastical Communion which is not Causeless but Necessary and if we can prove this to be our Case then are you bound by your own Definition to Absolve us of that Guilt with which we stand charg'd by you This Schism you say is sometimes within a Church sometimes from a Church sometimes sets up opposite Churches and Officers All which if the Separation be Causeless must needs carry the Schism to higher degrees of Guilt And much more when it constitutes Pastors without any lawful Authority or Ordination So that in all this we are like to agree in Notion till it comes to be try'd whether the Separation with which we are charg'd be Causeless or no and whether our Pastors be constituted without any lawful Authority or Ordination But before we come to the Examination of this part of the Question wherein the main stress of all lies we are diverted by what you say you need not enter upon viz. The Debate Whether Episcopal Ordination and Baptism conferr'd in Schism be valid And yet you so far enter upon it whether you had need to do it or no as to resolve it in the Negative Now we hope that you would have us to understand Schism here in the same Notion of it as you give it us in your Desinition viz. A causeless Breach of outward Ecclesiastical Communion tho' in all other respects wherein the Essentials of the Christian Faith and Profession do consist there be no Schism but a good Agreement both with the Holy Scriptures and with the Catholick Church and that all Ordinances administer'd by such as are under the guilt of this piece of Schism are null you conclude from the Notion you have conceiv'd of Catholick Vnity which new-found Notion of yours you strongly fancy is grounded on the Scriptures you have before quoted i. e. as you understand and apply them to the