A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformiſts, eſpecially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord, about the true Nature of Schiſm, and who is the Schiſmatick: written by him at age in his moſt owned books, and not in youth in his Irenicon: I ſtand to all my words againſt Schiſm which he hath cited, and ſo I doubt not but he ſtands to theſe following of his.
DIſcourſe of Idolatry of Rome, p. 7. [Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance, we are ſure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of deſtroys Salvation.
The Papiſts conſent, p. 43. [I agree ſo far with him, that every Chriſtian is bound to chooſe the Communion of the pureſt Church: but which that Church is, muſt be ſeen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Chriſt and his Apoſtles. That Church is to be judged pureſt that hath the beſt ground…, and conſequently it is of neceſſity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it.
Pag. 194. 195. [1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to diſtruction: For this was as much as the Apoſtles challenged to themſelves; and I hope none dare challenge more: But this is a principle of Natural reaſon, that no power in a ſociety ought to be extended … the … of it, or to contradict the end and deſigne of it. 2. The Apoſtles were the moſt competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church.]
Pag. 216. 217. [1. It is agreed on both ſides that the Scriptures do cont…ine in them the unqueſtionable will of that God whom we are bound to ſerve, and it being the end of devotion (as it ought to be of our lives) to ſerve him, what is there, the mind of any one who ſincerely deſires to do it, can be more inquiſitive after or ſatisfyed in, than the rules God himſelf hath given for his own ſervice. Becauſe it is ſo eaſly a matter for men to miſtake in the waies they chooſe to ſerve him in: I ſee the world divided more ſcarce about any thing than this: Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way, if it could be hoped for, than that God himſelf ſhould enterpoſe, and declare his own mind, according to what way they ought to ſerve him! And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Chriſtians in the Scriptures, and after all this muſt not all perſons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God, or do they think that ordinary people that underſtand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls? If they be and do in good earneſt deſire to know how to pleaſe God and ſerve him, what directions will they give him? They muſt do as they are bidden] true, ſay they, if we were to worſhip you for Gods, we would do as you bid us: for we think it fitting to ſerve God in his own way: But we would know whether that God whom we ſerve, hath given us any Rules for his worſhip or no. How ſhall we know whether we keep them or not, or will you take upon you the guilt of our ſins in diſobeying his will? This ſeems to be a very juſt and reaſonable requeſt, and I fear it will one day fall heavy on thoſe who conceale that which they confeſs to be the will of God, from the knowledge of the people.
Pag. 548. [I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity, viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and that the Church is to be judged pureſt, which ſhews the greateſt Evidence of that conſent, and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the ſtrongeſt motives for it, and to embrace the Communion of it.
Pag. 565. [14. To ſuppoſe the books ſo written to be imperfect, i. e. that any thing neceſſary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them, is either to charge the firſt Author of them with fraud, and not delivering his whole mind, or the writers with inſincerity in not ſetting it down, and the whole Chriſtian Church of the firſt ages with folly, in believing the fulneſs and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation.
Read the reſt of thoſe excellent Rules to the end.
In his excellent, Vindication of Arch Biſhop La…d, called A Rational account of the Proteſtants Religion, he hath the ſame termes of Communion and the ſame deſcription of Schiſm with mine, and I know not how better to expreſs my thoughts, nor plead my Vindication, viz.
Pag. 289. [In his defence of Arch Biſhop Land (not yet diſowned) ſince ſo great, and conſiderable parts of the Chriſtian Churches have in theſe laſt ages been divided in Communion from each other, the great conteſt and enquiry hath been which party ſtands guilty of the cauſe of the preſent diſtance and ſeparation. For both ſides retain ſtill ſo much of their common Chriſtianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth ſo ſtrictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Chriſtian Religion doth, and yet notwithſtanding this, we find theſe breaches ſo far from cloſing, that, ſuppoſing the ſame grounds to continue, a reconciliation ſeems to humane reaſon impoſſible, an Evidence of which is, that thoſe perſons who either out of a generous deſire of ſeeing the wounds of the Chriſtian world healed, or out of ſome private intereſt or deſigne, have made it their buſineſs to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties; have been equally rejected by thoſe parties they have profeſſed themſelves the members of.
Page. 290. [The diſtance then being ſo great as it is, it is a very neceſſary enquiry what the Cauſe of it is, and where the main fault lies: and it being acknowledged that there is a poſſibility that corruptions may get into a Chriſtian Church, and it being impoſſible to prove that Chriſtianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all thoſe corruptions its communion may be tainted with, it ſeems evident to reaſon that the cauſe of the breach muſt lie there, where the corruptions are owned, and impoſed as conditions of communion. For can any one imagine it ſhould be a fault in any to keep off from communion, where they are ſo far from being obliged to it, that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Chriſtianity? And where men are bound not to communicate, it is impoſſible to prove their not communicating to be Schiſm. For there can be no Schiſm; but where there is an obligation to communion; Schiſm being nothing elſe but a willful violation of the bonds Chriſtian communion. And therefore whenever you would prove the Proteſtants guilty of Schiſm, you muſt do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in thoſe things which they are Proteſtants for diſowning of, or that there is ſo abſolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the ſociety of your Church, that no conditions can be ſo hard, but we are bound rather to ſubmit to them, then not joyn in Communion with you.
This being a matter of ſo vaſt conſequence in order to the ſetling mens minds in the preſent diſputes of the Chriſtian world, before I come to particulars, I ſhall lay down thoſe general principles which may manifeſt how free Proteſtants are from all imputation of Schiſm. Schiſm then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the moſt natural way for underſtanding what Schiſm is, is to enquire what the foundations are of Chriſtian communion, and how far the bounds of it do extend. Now the Foundations of Chriſtian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Chriſtian Religion. For that Religion which Chriſt came to deliver to the world being ſuppoſed true, is the reaſon why any look on themſelves as obliged to profeſs it; which obligation extending to all perſons who have the ſame grounds to beleive the truth of it, thence ariſeth the ground of ſociety in this profeſſion, which is a common obligation on ſeveral perſons joyning together in ſome acts of common concernment to them. The truth then of Chriſtian Religion being acknowledged by ſeveral perſons, they find in this Religion ſome actions which are to be performed by ſeveral perſons in ſociety with each other. From whence ariſeth that more immediate obligation to Chriſtian ſociety in all thoſe who profeſs themſelves Chriſtians; and the whole number of theſe who own that truth of Chriſtian Religion, and are thereby obliged to joyn in ſociety with each other, is that which we call the Catholick Church. But although there be ſuch a relation to each other in all Chriſtians as to make them one common ſociety, yet for the performance of particular acts of communion, there muſt be leſſer ſocieties wherein perſons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them. But ſtill the obligation to communion in theſe leſſer is the ſame with that which conſtitutes the great body of Chriſtians, which is the owning Chriſtianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happineſs. And therefore thoſe leſſer ſocieties cannot in Juſtice make the neceſſary conditions of Communion narrower than thoſe which belong to the Catholick Curch, i. e. thoſe things which declare men Chriſtians ought to capacitate them for communion with Chriſtians.
But here we are to conſider that as to be a Chriſtian ſuppoſeth mens owning the Chriſtian Religion to be true, ſo the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in thoſe books we call the Scriptures, there muſt be an acknowledgment of them as the indiſpenſable rule of faith and manners, which is, that theſe books are the great Charter of the Chriſtian ſociety according to which it muſt be governed.
Theſe things being premiſed as the foundation in general of Chriſtian ſociety, we ſhall the better underſtand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend. For which it muſt be conſidered that the grounds of continuance in communion muſt be ſuitable and proportionable to the firſt reaſon of entring into it. No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a ſociety, to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that ſociety: But he is obliged to the contrary, from the general grounds of his firſt admiſſion into it. His primary obligation being to preſerve the honour and intereſt of it, and to joyn in acts of it ſo far as they tend to it. Now the main end of the Chriſtian ſociety, being the promotion of Gods honour, and Salvation of mens Souls, the primary obligation of men entring into it, is the advancement of theſe ends to joyn in all acts of it ſo far as they tend to theſe ends; but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to theſe ends, thoſe men of whom ſuch things are required, are bound not to communicate in thoſe leſſer ſocieties where ſuch things are impoſed, but to preſerve their communion with the Catholick ſocietie of Chriſtians.
Pag. 291. Setting then aſide the Catholick ſociety of Chriſtians, we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any leſs, ſociety how extenſive ſoever it may pretend it's communion to be. 1. There is no ſociety of Chriſtians of any one communion, but may impoſe ſome things to be beleived or practiſed which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Chriſtian ſociety.
Pag. 292. 2. There being a poſſibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreaſonable conditions of communion, the obligation to communion cannot be abſolute and indiſpenſable; but only ſo far as nothing is required deſtructive to the ends of Chriſtian Society: Otherwiſe men would be bound to deſtroy that which they beleive, and to do the moſt unjuſt and unreaſonable things. But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when ſuch things are required, and who muſt be the Judge in that caſe, to which I anſwer.
3. Nothing can be more unreaſonable than that the ſociety impoſing ſuch conditions of communion ſhould be judge, whether thoſe conditions be juſt and equitable or no. If the queſtion were only in matters of peace, conveniency, and order, the judgment of the ſociety ought to over-rule the judgments of particular perſons; but in ſuch caſes where great bodies of Chriſtians judge ſuch things required to be unlawful conditions of communion, what Juſtice or reaſon is there that the party accuſed ſhould fit Judge in her own cauſe?
4. Where there is ſufficient evidence from Scripture, reaſon and tradition that ſuch things, which are impoſed, are unreaſonable conditions of Chriſtian Communion, the not communicating with that Society, which requires theſe things cannot incur the guilt of Schiſm, which neceſſarily follows from the precedent grounds, becauſe none can be obliged to Communion in ſuch caſes, and therefore the not communicating is no culpable ſeparation.
Pag. 324. His Lordſhip delivers his ſenſe clearly and fully in theſe Words; 'Tis too true indeed, that there is a miſerable rent in the Church, and I make no queſtion but the beſt men do moſt bemoan it; nor is he a Chriſtian, that would not have Unity, might he have it with Truth. But, I never ſaid or thought, that the Proteſtants made this rent. The Cauſe of the Schiſm is yours; for you thruſt us from you, becauſe we call'd for truth, and redreſs of abuſes. For a Schiſm muſt needs be theirs, whoſe the cauſe of it is. The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Chriſt ever againſt him that gives the offence, not againſt him that takes it ever.
Page 325. I do ſay it now; and moſt true it is, That it was ill done of thoſe, who e're they were, who firſt made the Separation. But then A. C. muſt not underſtand me of actual only, but of cauſal Separation. For (as I ſaid before) the Schiſm is theirs, whoſe the cauſe of it is: and he makes the Separation, that gives the firſt juſt cauſe of it; not he that makes an actual Separation upon a juſt Cauſe preceding. And this is ſo evident a Truth, that A. C. cannot deny it, for he ſays it is moſt true.
That the Reader may clearly underſtand the full State of this Controverſie concerning Schiſm; the upſhot of which, is, that it is agreed between both parties, that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schiſm, but only ſuch a Separation as hath no ſufficient cauſe or ground for it.
Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church, but in ſuch things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies; for Separation is a violation of ſome Union: Now when men ſeparate from the errors of all particular Churches, they do not ſeparate from the whoſe, becauſe thoſe things, which one ſeparates from thoſe particular Churches for, are not ſuch, as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church. This muſt be ſomewhat further explained. There are two things conſiderable in all particular Churches; thoſe things which belong to it as a Church, and thoſe things which belong to it as a particular Church. Thoſe things which belong to it as a Church, are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches, which taken together make up the Catholick Church: Thoſe things which belong to it as a particular Church, are ſuch as it may retain the eſſence of a Church without. Now, I ſay, whoſoever ſeparates from any particular Church (much more from all) for ſuch things without which that can be no Church, ſeparates from the Communion of the Catholick Church: but he that ſeparates only from particular Churches, as to ſuch things which concern not their being, is onelyonly ſeparated from the Communion of thoſe Churches, and not the Catholick. And therefore ſuppoſing that all perticular Churches have ſome errors and corruptions in them, though I ſhould ſeparate from them all, I do not ſeparate from the Communion of the whole Church, unleſs it be for ſomething, without which thoſe could be no Churches. An evidence of which, is, that by my declaring the grounds of my ſeparation to be ſuch Errours and corruptions, which are crept into the Communion of ſuch Churches, and impoſed on me in order to it, I withal declare my readineſs to joyn with them again, if thoſe errours and corruptions be left out. And where there is this readineſs of Communion, there is no abſolute ſeparation from the Church as ſuch, but only ſuſpending Communion till ſuch abuſes be reformed: which is therefore more properly a ſeparation from the errors, than the Communion of ſuch a Church, wherefore if we ſuppoſe, that there is no one viſible Church, whoſe Communion is not tainted with ſome corruptions, though if theſe corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion, I cannot communicate with any of thoſe Churches, yet it followes not that I am ſeparated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church, but that I only ſuſpend Communion with thoſe particular Churches, 'till I may ſafely joyn with them. As, ſuppoſe all the particular men I can converſe with, were infected with Leproſie, my not aſſociating with them, doth not imply that I am ſeparated from the Communion of all Mankind, but that I am loath to be infected as they are, and therefore withdraw my ſelf, till I can meet with ſuch healthful perſons with whom I may ſafely aſſociate again. And if ſeveral other perſons be of the ſame mind with me, and we therefore joyn together, do we therefore divide our ſelves from the whole World by only taking care of our own ſafety? And eſpecially if any company of ſuch leprous perſons ſhould reſolve that none ſhould live among them, but ſuch as would eat of thoſe meats which brought that diſtemper upon them, our withdrawing our ſelves and aſſociating without them will ſtill appear more reaſonable and commendable. Therefore we ſay, we do not neceſſarily ſeparate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them, ſuppoſing thoſe errors and corruptions be not impoſed on us, as conditions of communion; and thence though we ſhould grant, no one viſible Church free from taint or corruption, yet it is not neceſſary we ſhould ſeparate from them all: for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions, if our joyning be not an approbation of them. Thus though the Greeks, Armenians, Albigenſes, Abyſſins may have ſome errors, or corruptions, yet if they be not fundamental, and be not joyned as neceſſary to be approved in order to their communion, notwithſtanding them, we may lawfully communicate with them, it doth not then at all follow, that if there may be no one viſible Church free from error and corruption, it would be neceſſary to ſeparate from the communion of the Catholick Church: Becauſe, 1. All thoſe particular Churches may not make thoſe errors conditions of communion. 2. Though they did, we ſeparate not from them as Catholick, but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches.
Pag. 336. To rectifie ſuch groſs miſtakes as theſe are for the future, you would do well to underſtand that Schiſm formally taken alwaies imports ſomething criminal in it, and there can be no juſt cauſe for a ſin; But beſides that there is that (which if you underſtand it) you would call the materiality of it, which is the ſeparation of one part of the Church from another. Now this according to the different grounds and reaſons of it, becomes lawful or unlawfull, that is, as the reaſons do make it neceſſary or unneceſſary, for ſeparation is not lawfull but when it is neceſſary; Now this being capable of ſuch a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumſtances, there can be no abſolute judgment paſſed upon it, till all thoſe reaſons and circumſtances be duely examined, and if there be no ſufficient grounds, for it then it is formally Schiſm i. e. a culpable ſeparation; If there be ſufficient cauſe then there may be a ſeparation, but it can be no Schiſm. And becauſe the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and neceſſary truths, therefore there can be no ſeparation abſolutely from the Catholick Church, but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schiſm; it being impoſſible any perſon ſhould have juſt cauſe to diſown the Churches communion for any thing whoſe beleif is neceſſary to Salvation. And whoſoever doth ſo, thereby makes himſelf no member of the Church, becauſe the Church ſubſiſts on the beleif of fundamental truths. But in all ſuch caſes wherein a diviſion may be made, and yet the ſeveral perſons divided retain the eſſentials of a Chriſtian Church, the ſeparation which may be among any ſuch muſt be determined according to the cauſes of it. For it being poſſible of one ſide that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is juſt and reaſonable: And it being poſſible on the other ſide, that, a Church, calling her ſelf Catholick, may ſo far degenerate in Faith and Practice, as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions, but to impoſe them as conditions of Communion with her, it is neceſſary, where there is a manifeſt ſeparation, to inquire into the reaſons and grounds of it; and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cauſe, which is pleaded for it.
Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free, like a Common field to all inhabitants. Now if any particular number of theſe Inhabitants ſhould agree together to encloſe part of it without conſent of the reſt, and not to admit any others to that right of Common, without conſenting to it, which of theſe two parties, thoſe who deny to yeild their conſent; or ſuch, who deny their rights, if they will not, are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place?
Page 358. Although nothing ſeparates a Church properly from the Catholick, but what is contrary to the being of it; yet a Church may ſeparate her ſelf from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make ſuch things the neceſſary conditions of her Communion, which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church.
Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or uſing theſe things; that Church, which ſhall not only publickly uſe, but enjoyn ſuch things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church, doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herſelf, and ſo divides her ſelf from the true Catholick Church. For whatever confines muſt likewiſe divide the Church, for by that confinement a ſeparation is made between the part confined and the other, which ſeparation muſt be made by the Party ſo limiting Communion. As it was in the Caſe of the Donatiſts, who were therefore charged with Schiſme, becauſe they confined the Catholick Church, within their own bounds: And if any other Church doth the ſame which they did, it muſt be liable to the ſame charge that they were. The ſum of this diſcourſe is, that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Eſſentials, that for a particular Church to diſagree from all other particular Churches in ſome extrinſical and accidental things is not to ſeparate from the Catholick Church, ſo as to ceaſe to be a Church: But ſtill what ever Church makes ſuch extrinſical things the neceſſary conditions of Communion, ſo as to caſt men out of the Church, who yeild not to them, is Schiſmatical in ſo doing; For it thereby divides it ſelf from the Catholick Church: And the ſaparation from it is ſo far from being Schiſm, that being caſt our … that Church on thoſe terms only, returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church. On which grounds it will appear that yours … the Schiſmatical Church and not ours: For although before this impoſing humor came into particular Churches, Schiſm was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church, yet that cannot in reaſon be underſtood of any particular, but the true Catholick Church. For not only perſons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church: And in ſuch Caſes not thoſe, who depart from the Communion of ſuch Churches, but thoſe Churches, which departed from the Catholick are guilty of Schiſm. Theſe things I thought neceſſary to be further explained, not only to ſhew how falſe that imputation is, of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church; but with what great reaſon we charge your Church with departing from the communion of it; and therefore not thoſe whom you thruſt out of Communion, but your Church ſo thruſting them out, is apparently guilty of the preſent Schiſm.
Page 366. The truth is ſuch pretences as theſe are, are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed; for if ſomething not good in it ſelf ſhould happen in any one Age to overſpread the viſible Communion of all particular Churches, this only makes a Reformation more neceſſary, ſo far is it from making it more diſputable. For thereby thoſe corruptions grow more dangerous, and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own ſecurity in a time of general infection. And if any other Churches neglect themſelves, what reaſon is it that the reſt ſhould? For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty, is no more an Argument, that no particular Church ſhould reform it ſelf, than that if all other men in a Town neglect preſerving themſelves from the Plague, then I am bound to neglect it too.
Page 540. Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace, and in caſe of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them.
Page 541. Saint Auguſtine ſaith not only in that place, but in very many others, that Saint Peter did ſuſtain the Perſon of the Church, when Chriſt ſaid to him, I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven.
That he did univerſam ſignificare Eccleſiam, ſignifie the whole Church; and that thoſe things which are ſpoken of Peter, non habent illuſtrem intellectum niſi eum referuntur ad Eccleſiam, cujus ille agnoſcitur in figurâ geſtaſſe perſonam, have no clear ſenſe, but …hen they are referred to the Church, whoſe perſon he did ….
Pag. 542 He means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church, and that Saint Peter was only a publick perſon to receive them in the name of the Church.
It primarily and formally reſides in the whole body of the Church.
Pag. 544. His Lordſhip ſaith your opinion is yet more unreaſonable; becauſe no body collective, whenſoever it aſſembled it ſelf, did ever give more powerto the repreſenting body of it, than a binding power upon it ſelf and all particulars; nor ever did it give this power otherwiſe than with this reſervation in nature, that it would call again and reform, and if need were, abrogate any law, or ordinance upon juſt cauſe made evident, that the repreſenting body had failed in truſt or truth. And this power no body collective, Eccleſiaſtical or Civil can put out of it ſelf, or give away to a Parliament or Council, or call it what you will, that repreſents it.
His Lordſhip ſaith that the power which a Council hath to order ſettle and define differences ariſing concerning faith, it hath not by an immediate inſtitution from Chriſt, but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apoſtles example.