so in your sence I am sure not all or but very few for Christianity objectively is the doctrine of Christ subjectively the same Doctrine as believed by us with a resolution to obey it but assuredly the Doctrine of Christ is first preached and heard and believed and a resolution taken up to obey it and all this is antecedent in the adult to baptisme or ought to be so As for Baptisme it is but a professing sign of my being a Christian or a seal of the promises that God hath made to me as such and is not a Ceremony that makes me a Christian or gives me my Christianity Abraham was a Believer and a Friend of God and justified by his faith antecedent to circumcision and so are the seed of Abraham they are believers friends of God justified by their Faith in Christ antecedent to Baptisme But it is added doth not Paul say we are all by one Spirit baptized into one body True he doth so But I deny your consequence thence deduced that therefore Christ died primarily for his Church and but secondarily for the individual members thereof or that we have primarily a relation to the Church and but secondarily to Christ i.e. by virtue of the former relation There is not one word or syllable in the text tending that way For First what is there in these words we are baptized into one body to signifie a priority of our relation to the Church any more than in those Rom. 6.3 where it is said we are baptized into Christ to signifie a priority of our relation to Christ and by him to his Church reconcile these if you can to the sence of your consequence and give us some evident reason why we must needs understand that thereby is meant we are baptized into the Church primarily and into Christ secondarily But I shall be bold to tell you such an interpretation is evidently absurd as is manifest in several instances in other kind of relations Whoever said that King Charles the 2d was only related to Charles the First as he is related to his brother James Duke of York and the rest of the Royal Family certainly as he is the Elder Brother his relation to his Father was first both in nature and time to any relation he stood in to his younger brethren Or whoever said that the individuals of a Kingdome cannot be considered in relation to their King and Soveraign antecedently to their being considered as fellow subjects when certainly the relation of fellow subjects doth arise upon the supposed relation of those individuall subjects to their soveraign for the formal reason why you and I are fellow subjects is because we are individually related to the same King and therefore relation to him is antecedent to our relation to one another as subjects The sence of this text now urged so far as I understand is only this that all that are baptized upon a just title are supposed to partake of the sanctifying operation of the Spirit of which the washing of the water of baptisme is a sign by which they are declared to be animated by one and the self-same Spirit as all the living members of Christ are and consequently that they are one with them and that therefore they ought all of them to be both internally and externally as usefull and helpfull to each other as possibly they can But how you can draw such a conclusion hence that therefore these individuals are no ways related to Christ but as they are thus united to one another I cannot understand for the reasons before given The other text is Eph. 5.22 where it is said that Christ hath sanctified or separated his Church by the washing of water and the word Very well what of this we grant you that every Church member if adult is converted by the word and afterward if it may be ought to be baptized upon this account it is said that the Church is separated by water and the word because all its individual members are or ought to be so converted and baptized Therefore saith he every individual Christian is saved as incorporated into the Church I deny the consequence for conversion by the word is antecedent to Baptisme or to a Visible Church State and of it self gives a title to Salvation though never any such visible Church state by baptisme follows But if Baptisme follows I say again Christians are not saved primarily as baptized and as externally Church members but primarily as true believers and internally united to Christ And certainly a believer as such speaks no necessary relation to any Church or visible society whatever and therefore it could not possibly be the Apostles intendment in that place or the other to signifie that Christians had no relation to Christ or saving interest in him but what they derived from a participation of Baptisme and a conjunction with a visible Church Having thus finished his proof that all Christians are members of the catholick visible Church he proceeds to the proof of the second part of the proposition which is that therefore every Christian is bound to joyn in external communion with the said Church This he thinks is clear upon two reasons First because without such a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be obtained which ends are the solemn worship of God the publick profession of our religion and the mutual edification one of another Secondly Because without such a conjunction in external communion with the Catholick visible Church we cannot be made partakers of the benefits and priviledges that Christ hath made over to the members of his Church such are the pardon of sin and the grace of the holy Spirit and so he concludes we have no promises of spiritual Graces but of those means so that in order to the partaking of them there is an absolute necessity laid upon us of joyning and communicating with the Church Thus far he I answer first whereas he says that he hath made it evident that every Christian upon the account of his very being so a member of the catholick visible Church that I have already denied and upon what grounds and reasons I have denied it is before shewn as for his consequence that therefore every Christian is bound upon the very account of his being so to joyn with the Church catholick visible in external communion That I have also denyed and the reasons why I have shewed as First there is no such external communion to be had with that vast body as the catholick Church is besides if there were it might be unlawfull because if communion could not be had but upon sinfull conditions or without a manifest hazard of my salvation or in case one were wrongfully excommunicated there is in these cases no obligation on a Christian as such to any such external communion but a Christian may be still a Christian without it But let us see how he proves his consequence His first reason is because without such
a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be had which are solemn worship and mutual Edification Ans What not without a conjunction with the catholick visible Church certainly meetings for solemn worship and mutuall Edification are not terms wherein Christians hold communion with the catholick visible Church for they are proper only to particular worshiping congregations I wonder in what Assemblies do the Christians in England and the Christians in Prestor Johns country meet for solemn worship and mutual Edification I know he thinks the matter if salved by telling us that Christians meeting in any congregation in England for worship and mutual Edification do thereby hold externall communion in those things with the whole Church throughout the world But I conceive this will not serve his turn without the could equally imagine how a man by holding communion with the City of London might be said thereby to hold a civil external communion with all mankind which I think is so wild a conceit as no man yet ever asserted for he must remember he is speaking of such an external communion that is proper to a politick visible Body to the constituting of which kind of communion it is not enough to have the same laws the same customes no nor the same kind of solemn meetings for worship to speak all visible Christians to be of the same external politick communion for suppose in France they had the same laws and customs the same kind of officers as Constables Justices Parliament and a King as we have in England and all under the Government of the very same invisible God it doth not follow so long as there is no dependance of these Kingdomes each on the other that therefore the people of England are of the same external politick communion with those in France Yea further though these two Kingdoms may mutually in times of peace advise with each other for their mutual profits and in case of differences betwixt them they may forbid trading or converse with each other which is a kind of civil excommunication yet for all this they may not be said to be of the same external civil politick communion and why because their respective Magistrates are independent and have no jurisdiction over each other Upon the very same ground I deny any such thing as an external Politick Communion betwixt the Members of the Catholick Church for though they have all the same Laws the same Sacraments the same kind of solemn meetings for Worship and all under the same kind of visible Governours and all this under the same invisible Head the Lord Jesus though so far as they can and the distances of places will admit they may advise with each other for their mutual good and in case that any prove Hereticks they may so far as may be disown or refuse Communion as in the instances before said yet all this no more proves them to be of the same external Politick communion than the like agreements might speak the Kingdom of France and that of England of the same politick civil communion and why but because Christ hath left no visible politick Head to have jurisdiction over the rest If you say this notion speaks a good word for the Headship of the Pope I Answer no such matter for there is no need of such a Head nor of any such external Politick Communion in the Church no more than in the World God hath well enough Governed the World without any such Universal civil Monarch and doth as well govern the Church without any such Universal visible Head And now let us see what of force then is in his second reason which is this such a conjunction in external Communion with he Catholick visible Church is necessary else we cannot possibly partake of the priviledges that Christ hath made over to this his Church as the Remission of Sins and the Graces of the Holy Spirit I Answer He says that Christ hath made over the priviledges of pardon of sin and the Graces of his Spirit to the Church primarily and that before any particular person can partake of pardon of Sin and the Graces of the Spirit he must joyn with the Church in external Communion But how absurd is all this by Church he here means the Catholick visible Church but I wonder how it can be truly said that pardon of sin or the Graces of the Spirit can be said to be made over to the visible Church as priviledges when as it is very certain that Christ never made over such priviledges to the Church as visible But I perceive he understands it ministerially that is to say that a man is pardoned or partake of the Graces of the Spirit but by the Ministry of the Church well let this be granted what will thence follow I am sure that will not follow which you say doth follow that therefore we must first be made Members of the Church before we can be pardoned or sanctifyed by the Spirit for suppose the Church meets for solemn worship and the minister is Preaching and there comes in one or more Infidels for curiosity to see and hear I hope you will not say that these Infidels because they are in the same place with the Church that therefore they are joyned as Members with the Church suppose now these Infidels are by the Sermon convinced and perfectly converted to a true Faith in Jesus Christ I now demand These men that thus are converted do they believe without or with the Grace of the Spirit again so soon as they have believed are they pardoned or are they not I say they could not have believed without the Grace of the Spirit and that so soon as they truly believed they were pardoned and you dare not I think say the contrary Now I pray you is not this Grace of the Spirit and pardoning of sin Communicated before these men were joyned to the Church as visible Members How then can you say that men are obliged to joyn with the Church as Members else they have neither Grace nor pardon the very Truth is the primary reason of Christs institution of visible Church Membership was not for the giving of the first Grace of the Spirit or giving pardon but it was appointed as a means of conveying further degrees of Grace and clearer assurance of pardon visible Church Membership doth suppose the Grace of conversion in the adult and pardon but doth not give or Communicate it I had now done with his first Proposition but that for two inferences he draws from a consideration of the whole as first saith he therefore their position is untrue who maintain that our obligation to Church Communion ariseth from a voluntary admission of our selves into some particular congregation But I say notwithstanding all he hath said that position may be true for he hath been all this while speaking of the Universal visible Church But they that hold that position maintain it only with respect to a particular Church
and I hope there is no contradiction for one that believes and is Baptized to be nessarily a Member of the Universal Church and yet to be voluntarily a Member either of particular Worshiping Congregation either in England or Holland His second deduction is as wild for saith he hence we may see how extravagantly they discourse that talk of Chrstianity at large without relation to a Church or Communion with a Society This I say is strangely inferred as if we could not discourse of men as men without relation to Cities or Kingdoms and certainly we may with a very good reason sometimes discourse of Christians as Christians without relation to any Church whether particular or Universal and this without any extravagancy His second Proposition That every one is bound to joyn in Communion with the established national Church to which he belongs supposing there be nothing in the Terms of its Communion that renders it unlawful for him so to do This he saith is plain because external Communion cannot be had with the Catholick Church but by externally Communionicating with some part of it To this I have already answered that there is no such thing as an external Politick Communion to be had with the Catholick Church neither immediately which himself confesseth no nor mediately by Communicating with some part of it as I conceive I have made evident in my answer to the former Proposition But in case any such Communion could be had immediately or mediately yet I would have it remembred that this sort of Communion is not to be sought by every Christian upon the very account of his being so but upon the account of his being a visible professing Christian And how let us come to some Issue we will grant you that every Christian considered as visible ought to endeavour to joyn with some part of the Catholick visible Church for publick Worship and the edification of himself and others but why this particular Church must be national I do not understand I am sure there is no need it should be national for I do as truly declare my self to be a visible Member of the Catholick visible Church by joyning in external Communion with one single visisible Congregation as if I was united a Member to a National Church But in very Truth I do much doubt whether any such thing is to be had as an external Communion with a National Church any more than with the Catholick visible Church for you place the Acts of external Communion to consist in meeting together in solemn worship and in mutual Edification Now I would fain know where any Nation of Christians do meet together for solemn Worship true if you could find any Nation of Christians that did often meet at one place to Worship God and to rejoyce before the Lord together as the Tribes of Israel used to do when they came up to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Lord I should not stick to call such a National Church united external Communion but to speak of a joyning with a National Church of Christians in external Communion where Millions of the Members of the supposed National Church never perhaps came nigh one the other for scores of Miles especially so as to Hear or Pray or receive the Supper together or to Edifie each other is to talk without any solid ground If you say but if we joyn with any one Worshipping Congregation in external Communion we do thereby joyn with the whole Nation of Christians in external Communion If you say so I think you say more than you can prove for I do not understand that because I Worship God with a Congregation in London that therefore I Worship God with a Congregation at York True by my Worshipping at London I do declare my self to be of the same Faith with those that Worship at York and I am therefore bound to account of them as my brethren and so to love and Pray for them as such by which means an internal Communion is maintained as among Members that are supposed and hoped to be united to Christ but yet I am to seek how this external Communion can be had when perhaps we shall never see each other as long as we live If you say that all the Christians in a Nation may hold an external Communion in being all under one Discipline the management whereof being deposited in the hands of one visible Head as was the High Priest to the Church of the Jews This indeed were something if it could be proved that Jesus Christ did ever appoint such an Officer for the Government of all his Disciples in each Nation but if it be made to appear that all Ministers or Pastors of particular Worshiping Congregations have equal Power to Govern their respective Churches and that they have no Power of jurisdiction one over another and that there is no instituted Officers appointed by Christ Superior to them with any Power of jurisdiction over them Then I say there can be no such external Communion of all Christians in a Nation under the jurisdiction of any such High Priest and that therefore there is no such thing as a National Church of Christians wherewith an external communion can be held You know well who they are that are for an equality of Pastoral Power Many more things may be said of this matter but I shall at present wave them and proceed to consider what he further saith He hath already said that every Christian ought to joyn in external Communion with a National Church that thereby he might hold Communion with the Catholick But presently he starts an Objection But it may be said that there may be several distinct Churches in the place where we live there may be the fixed regular Assemblies of the National Church and there may be separate Congregations both which are or pretend to be parts of the Catholick Church so that it may be all one as to our Communicating with that which of these we joyn with supposing we joyn but with one of them and consequently there is no necessity from that principle that we should hold Communion with the Assemblies of the National Church So far he Answ Very good now let us see how he answers it which part of the Argument in the Objection doth he deny doth he deny such separate Congregations to be parts of the Catholick Church or doth he deny that in joyning with any part of the Catholick Church we thereby joyn with the whole he denies neither Then I say he grants the whole for these two being granted the conclusion follows that they who joyn with those separate Congregations do thereby preserve the Catholick Union and therefore there is no need of joyning with a National Church to attain the end proposed What saith he now He seems not to deny this but tells us that notwithstanding if we separate or refuse Communion with them that we do not preserve the Vnity of the Body so far as in
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
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
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
Communion with a Church of which we are members where we may continue without sin I Answer Whatever may be thought of this position I am perswaded that the reason annext is too weak to bear the weight of it for the reason supposeth that which is not to be supposed that is to say that to withdraw from a Church for the benefit of a more profitable Ministry is a Crime You call it a crime because you suppose it is a transgression of the Law of visible Communion with some particular Church but I say that the Laws of Visible Communion with this or that Particular Church are but positive and therefore subordinate to laws more naturall and necessary such is that wherein we are commanded to take care of our souls and salvation So that if Christians do shift particular Churches for the obtaining of very apparent advantages to their Salvation above what they could have had where they were I see therein no crime at all committed except such an one wherewith the Pharisees charged our Saviour as the Breaking of the Sabbath that he might heal the sick Certainly the cure and Salvation of sick Souls as of sick Bodies is of greater account with God than keeping to Parish Churches or the observation of a day Sure I am that very many Souls that have for many years lain Blind and Dead in trespasses under their Parish Ministers I speak not partially as to those only that are now in place but formerly when the Non-conformists held their places but upon changing of their Minister received their conviction and reall Conversion I dare say it would be a very hard Task to convince such of the sin of separation in so doing I have much wondered that men should think it but reasonable that every man should be permitted to chuse his own Physitian and who will blame one that is sickly if he waveing the advice of his Neighbour though a Physitian shall apply himself to the most skillfull and successfull that he can hear of for his health yet that it should be accounted so criminal to use the same care for a mans salvation And what though the Physitian I speak of be not of the Colledg nor can be suffered to be thereof because perhaps he will not swear to the truth of all the Aphorisms of Hypocrates or the truth of all and every part of the Colledges dispensations who think you will stand upon such a Nicety if he yet believes him exceeding skillfull and successefull in the cure of such distempers under which he groaneth and certainly when you have writ your self a weary to prove the contrary yet men herein will follow the Conduct of their Reason and the instinct of Self-Preservation which is not only seen verified among the Non-conformists but among your selves What else is the reason that some of your own Churches are thronged with auditors when in others the People sit thinly scattered like the gleanings ofter Harvest and I think it almost as easie to stop the Sun in its course or the Sea in its flowing as to prevent these concourses of the People to such Ministers that are eminently most able and successefull Thus much I have said concerning the Reasonableness of forsaking Communion with one Church for the obtaining a more profitable ministry in another The next thing to be examined is that which you have said concerning the unlawfullness of for saking one Church to enjoy a more pure Discipline in an other To this I say it must be confessed that a regular execution of Church Discipline as it was ordained by Christ for great ends So when so executed it is found of very great use and benefit to the Church for thereby is there a means provided to inform the ignorantly sinning members to correct the Wilfull to reclaim Apostates to establish and confirm the sound that their Souls may be saved in the day of the Lord Christ And certainly a neglect of this Discipline must be a very dangerous consequence to a Church and to the Salvation of its members And therefore if Christians withdraw from such a Church where this Discipline is next to wholly neglected to joyn with another where it is exercised to the great advantage of its members I see no sin therein as this author imagineth For shall I say the Law of Self-preservation is superior to the Law of Visible Union to a Particular Church and therefore must firstly be obeyed May Parents Lawfully Change a School for their Children where the Schollars by connivance are suffered to Curse and Swear c. and yet are kept in the School especially if great Mens Children perhaps some poor mans childe for some one of these sins may now and then be cast out but readmited upon very slender satisfaction I say may Parents in this case tendering the Souls of their Children remove them to another and yet be blameless I wonder then why it should be so Criminal for a Christian to remove from such a Church where such sins are in like manner tollerated for the benefit of a better Disciplined Church True if Learning was as necessary as Christianity and if no other School could be had it were better their Children to be kept in such a School than to be suffered to run about the streets to their more certain ruine For the Rule of Practice to every Christian in this case is of two evils to choose the least But as things stand with us in England there are more pure Disciplined Churches to be had and therefore no Christian can be thought to be in such straits If ye say these more pure Disciplined Churches are irregular as not having the Establishment of an humane Law I answer it is not necessary For the Constitution of Churches and their Establishment is founded on a Law of Christ and not on Humane Laws Christs Ministers have a right to Preach the Gospell and Gather Churches and Govern them by his Rules without the leave of any Magistrates The powers of the Earth may be Nursing Fathers to the Church but as such they neither give them their Being or Constitution When Christ sent the first Preachers of the Gospell to Discipline Nations and gather to him Churches he did not direct them first to ask the Governours of those Nations leave so to do for his own Commission was warrant sufficient without their Licence but when God is pleased to stir up the hearts of Princes to give leave and encourage the work it is a great Blessing which Christs Ministers are to pray for and to be greatly thankfull when they have it Yet again I answer that those Churches are most Regular that are Taught and Governed with the greatest conformity to the Rule of Christ and if those of the Non-conformists prove such I know not why any should be blamed for joyning with them upon the account of their irregularity Thus have I answered this Fourth position of yours and have shewed how far an unprofitable Ministry and
SEPARATION YET NO Schisme OR NON-CONFORMISTS NO SCHISMATICKS BEING A full and Sober VINDICATION of the NON-CONFORMISTS from the Charge and Imputation of SCHISME IN Answer to a Sermon lately Preached before the Lord Mayor By J. S. Isaiah 66.5 Hear the Word of the Lord ye that tremble at his Word your Brethren that hated you that cast you out for my Names sake said Let the Lord be glorified but he shall appear to your joy and they shall be ashamed London Printed in the year 1675. To the Reader Reader IF thou wouldst have a reason of publishing these sheets the Author will tell thee That it is now about four years since the People he pleads for among whom he believes there are thousands in the Land that are Worshippers of God in Spirit and Truth according to the Gospel have through the good Providence of their great Shepherd the Lord Jesus Christ and through the granted license of an indulgent Prince enjoyed a sweet and blessed Calm But observing lately the Clouds again to gather and to have begun to discharge themselves upon many of this People about England and withal lately meeting with a Sermon wherein this People are not sparingly charged with Schism and the penalties where with the laws threaten them are pleaded for as very innocent harmless things that Sober men as he says may be ashamed to call persecutions I could not but thence conclude that the Authors drift was to stir up and encourage the chief Magistrates of the City for to them the Sermon was preached to a rigorous Execution of those gentle punishments which are but such little things as banishing or imprisoning or spoyling them of their Goods and so undoing them and their Families which are very trifles in his account Now what can probably be the consequents hereof except the Magistrates as David prove wiser than their Teachers but that this people must needs be smitten impoverished scattered and as to their outward concernments ruined But if this shall come to passe and who knows what their God may permit for a time for their tryal what will they have left to support and comfort them under such pressures except the innocency of their Consciences and the Righteousness of the cause for which they suffer And this I say whether their cause be good or bad doth not as to the determination depend upon the meer dictates of any Mortals and I am very verily perswaded it is not prsedtsdih be bad by all this Author hath said although he ha oved to cour and reasoned against it as if in his conceit he had spoke nothing but demonstrations which I should now have immediately begun to reply to but that I thought it most expedient first to give the Reader a view of the case and cause of the Non-conformists for which they are charged of Schism and are thought to have deserved all those severities which the law threatens The Non-Conformists case is this There are some hundreds of true Ministers of Jesus Christ commissioned by him to Preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments for so all true Ministers are those according to their commission do Preach and there are many thousands likewise of visible professors of Christianity do willingly hear and joyn with these Ministers in the Worship of God and in a participation of Sacraments as the Gospel requires These meet in dictinct Congregations separate from the legally established Congregations in the Land with whom they Will not because they Cannot hold Communion Because they thus separate and refuse Communion they are charged with Schisme The reason why they thus separate and refuse Communion is because they cannot have it with them I say they Cannot have it because they cannot or ought not to sin or to speak modestly because they cannot do such things which they extreamly suspect to be sinful and if they do but strongly suspect them it is enough for no man can be bound to act against a doubting Conscience and herein I have the suffrage of the Apostle which every good Christian ought much to preferre before any other who may presume to Philosophize to the contrary who says Rom. 14. he that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith for whatsoeover is not of Faith is sin If it be demanded what those things are which this people suspect as sinful It may be answered they are too well known as that any among us should stand in need of an information but briefly those that are Ministers either they suspect the sinfulness of admitting a re-ordination or of abjuring or of assenting and consenting to the use of all and every part of the Liturgy and therein of every Ceremony Now this I say though the Friends of these impositions shall with the highest confidence affirm the lawfulness of them all yea and endeavour with a thousand arguments to prove them such yet if those Ministers herein concerned upon a serious weighing of these arguments find them too light and after much prayer to God for a resolution yet find themselves to doubt in this case they ought not upon the Apostles rule now named to yeild to any such impositions against their doubting Consciences If it be here replyed why do they not then degrade themselves or quietly suffer themselves to be degraded of their Ministry and in the condition of private Christians Communicate with this Church for so they may do and free themselves from these impositions It will be answered that this is an imposition they suspect as sinful as the rest for so long as they are perswaded that their mission is originally from Christ they cannot believe that it is either in their own Power or in the Power of any other Inferiour to Christ to give them a discharge from executing this their Office except it be for Heresie or obstinate scandal against some known laws of Christ and then indeed Christ hath left an order not only for excluding them from their Office but also from the Church but neither of these latter are in the least pretended and therefore it is they cannot without suspicion of sin either degrad themselves or quietly suffer themselves to be degraded And still I adde if any reasons be urged for the lawfulness of this degradation but such that are short of their conviction so that still they doubt it will continue yet their duty to serve the Church as Ministers and not to list themselves among private Christians as is advised If it be asked but may not supream Magistrates if they cannot divest Ministers of their Office may not they within their Dominion suspend some of them from the exercise thereof when they conceive it is for the Peace of the rest It will be answered that that Lord of Lords who giveth the Office and the Commission and hath by divers Providences designed the men thereto hath certainly with the Office designed them to the exercise thereof for else verily the Office is in vain and hath
Member of such a Church for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society then it must be false to say that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition and his sence of it which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ of which he saith every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a member and that he is bound to joyn with it in external Communion By Church as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition he understands a Society of particular Persons gathered out of mankind and formed into a Body Politick of which Christ is the Head This I confesse is somewhat but not sufficient to give us his determinate sence thereof for as he hath here described it for ought we know he may mean only an internal invisible Church which is an internal invisible body Politick of which the invisible Christ is Head and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith are invisible Members This certainly is an invisible Church for not only the Head is invisible as to us but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers for no man can see the Truth of anothers Faith clearly and certainly But methinks he should not take Church in this sence because first he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible And secondly because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous as is implyed by his supposition if it can be had now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot But if he by Church means the Catholick visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine thoroughout the world united to Christ their Head which is most likely to be his meaning then the sence of the Proposition is this 3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven being joyned to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politick whether he will call this Body Politick visible or invisible I know not but sure I am the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible But this he saith that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to joyn with this Church in external Communion if it may be had To this I say it is well he puts in if it may be had for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause and that is because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politick as he calls it First Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politick body where no Head is owned but what is invisible for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politick is the Head and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible it cannot be truely said that we may have or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politick I wonder who ever talkt at that rate as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind as making up a body Politick under the invisible God the Creator and supream Governour Secondly I say no such external Communion can be had because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth that no such Communion can possibly be obtained so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot saith he Communicate with the Catholick Church but by Communicating with some part of it But I say by Communicating with some part of it we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politick Communion with all mankind and what is it that you can say for the one but I can say much alike for the other Do you say but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ so say I are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governour Do you say all Christians Communicate in some external priviledges so say I do all mankind they are enlightned by the same Sun breath in the same air feed on the Fruits of the same Earth Do you say but they have not the same Laws as Christians have which are necessary to unite them in one body Politick I answer but if all mankind had the very same Laws yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different Kings hands that had jurisdiction over each other this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politick Communion no more do the same Laws amongst Christians since the publication and execution thereof is in the hands of different visible Church Governours that have no jurisdiction over each other speak any external Politick Communion among all Christians Thus have I shewn of what words and phrases of an uncertain and undetermin'd sence the parts of the Proposition consist and how hard it is to give any tollerable sound sence of the whole we shall now further enquire of the interpretation given whether it can afford any further light to understand it better For the clearing of this he saith you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us was not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politick of which himself is the Head and particular Christians the Members and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition it is this that you would prove that every Christian upon the very account of his being so must needs be a Member of the Church because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false there would be weight in what is said But let it be tryed You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church and but secondarily individual Christians as incorporated in this Church I pray tell me do you take Church here as you do in the Proposition certainly you ought
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