The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II, Chapter 46
Chap. XLVI. Point III. Of forcing Men to Schism, by renouncing Communion with true Churches and Members of Christ.
M.
III. THe Third unlawful part of Lay-Conformity is, that they must be forced from Local Communion with all the Nonconformists that Assemble any where save in the Parish-Churches or Chappels, and so under pretence of driving them from Schism, they are driven into notorious Schism.
L.
How prove you that it's their Duty to have any such Communion with Nonconformists Conventicles? If you are Scismaticks, it's a Sin to Communicate with you.
M.
1. I prove Communion with us a Duty; (Tho' it be not every Man's Duty to be Locally present with us, it is every Man's Duty not to avoid it as an unlawful thing, but to be willing of it as he hath occasion).
2. It is a Duty for all Christians to own Communion with all true Members of the Body of Christ. But Nonconformists and their Assemblies for Worship, are true Members of the Body of Christ. Ergo—
The major is most fully proved by Christ, Ioh. 17. 24. and Paul 1 Cor. 12. throughout, and Eph. 4. 1, 2, 3, to the 17. and Rom. 14. and 15. and many other Scriptures.
The minor I prove. All those are true Members of the Body of Christ, who have all the Essentials necessary to the Constitution of such Members. But so have the Nonconformists and their Church Assemblies (as afore described:) Ergo.
The major none but the ignorant of Logick will deny.
As to the minor, They that have true Christian Faith, Hope, and Love, have all that is Essential to personal Members: And the Churches that have Pastors and People communicating in that Faith, Hope and Love, in Doctrine, Worship, Sacraments and tolerable Discipline, are true Churches, parts of the Universal Church. But such are many Persons and Churches of Nonconformists. Ergo.
The major all sound and knowing Christians grant.
For the minor no proof is necessary but our Profession, till it be disproved. And let the Accusers of the Brethren, as they love themselves, take this warning before they undertake to disprove it: Do it by no Argument that will ten times more condemn your selves and your Church, than such Nonconformists.
2. The second Argument is this: It is a Sin of Schism to refuse Communion with those that Christ receiveth, so we own not any of their sin: Rom. 15. 6. &c. But Christ receiveth (into his Communion) the foresaid Nonconformists and their Worshipping Assemblies. Proved as before.
3. It is a Sin to deny the lawfulness of Communion with Christians and their Assemblies, for lesser faults than those Persons and Assemblies had, whose Communion Christ and his Apostles were for: But so must they that will deny the lawfulness of Communion with the said Nonconformists and their Assemblies.—
The major none will deny that take Christ and his Apostles for their Teachers.
The minor is easily proved: The Church of the Jews had Priests unlawfully introduced, and corrupt Teachers, and Worship, and yet Christ disowned not Communion with them in Synagogues, and Temple and Houses, save only that he Conformed not to their sinful Traditions and Corruptions. The Church of the Corinthians had men guilty of Schism, and Faction, and quarrelling with the Apostle, wronging each other, sinful Law Suits, Scandalous Persons, denying the Resurrection, grosly abusing the Sacrament and Communion, &c. The Churches of Galatia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, &c. had such faults as I need not tell you of. Yet no Man is bid or allowed to disown Communion with them. You can truly prove no such by those in question.
Arg. 3. Ad hominem: It is lawful to communicate with the Churches of England, that have more Faults than the Nonconformists: Ergo it is lawful to communicate with them that have fewer.
We challenge any to prove so many and such Faults by us as I have here before proved by your Church. And if for ours, Separation from us be a Duty from yours, it proves a Duty much more.
Arg. 4. It is a Schismatical Doctrine which would teach Men by parity of Reason to renounce communion with all Churches and Christians on Earth, or near all.
But such is that which would teach Men to renounce communion with all the Nonconformists and their Worshipping Assemblies.
The major is unquestionable.
The minor is proved, In that all or near all the Christians on Earth have as great Faults as the Nonconformists and their Assemblie…. O that God would so bless the World, as to make all the Churches of the Armenians, Abassians, Syrians, Georgians, Circassians, Greeks, Moscovites, Papists, Lutherans, and all other Protestants, &c. but as knowing, sincere, faithful, obedient, &c. as those in England that you revile, cast out and prosecute.
L.
But Communion in Schism is unlawful: But you are accused of Schism, and so are your Assemblies.
M.
And the Church of England is as loudly accused of Schism and Heresie by the Papists: and too much by the Greeks, if the Patriarch Ieremy spake their Sence. Art they therefore Schismaticks indeed? None forwarder to accuse than the Ignorant or Guilty! Judge by what I have said of our Judgment in my Search for the Schismatick. We abhor Schism, and have laboured to have healed the Wounds of the Church with all our power these 22 years and more; And who be they that have resisted it, and hate the only healing Balsam?
2. It is not true that we must have Communion with no Church that is guilty of Schism, tho' we must not be guilty of Schism it self. If the Schism be Apostasy that cuts them off from Christ and the Church universal, we must not have Christian communion with such, that are no Christians. But if they are only guilty of Schism from some particular Church, and of Schism in the Universal Church, and not from it, wounding and not dismembring, we must not renounce communion with such, save only as with any other scandalous Sins, so far as impenitence proveth ungodliness. The Church of Corinth was much guilty of Schism, and so was that of Galatia; and yet none were therefore to renounce their Communion. Was not Peter guilty of some Schism? Gal. 2. I doubt there are few Churches on Earth that are not herein guilty, either in East, South, West or North. And must we renounce communion with them all? That is, to commit tenfold greater Schism for fear of Schism.
3. Read impartially my Search for the Schismatick, and if the Prelates thus mentioned be not far more guilty of Schism, than we are, I despair of ever understanding what Schism is. This would be the strongest Argument for separation from them: and is so used by many Separatists.