Inquiry into the Nature of Evangelical Churches, Polemic · Section 2

Inquiry into the Nature of Evangelical Churches · Polemic · Section 2

p. 281SECT. II.

PArt 2. Sect. 21. pag. 176. Our Author proceeds to renew his Charge of Schisme or sinful Separation against those, who though they agree with us, saith he, in the substantials of Religion, yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful. But apprehending that the state of the Question here insinuated, will not be admitted, and that it would be difficult to find them out, who deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful; he addes that he doth not speak of any improper Acts of Communion, which Dr. O. calls Communion in Faith and Love; which they allow to the Church of England. But why the Acts hereof are called improper Acts of Communion, I know not. Add unto Faith and Love, the Administration of the same Sacraments, with Common Advice in things of Common concernment, and it is all the Communion that the true Churches of Christ have among themselves in the whole World. Yea this Church Communion is such, as that

(1.) Where it is not, there is no Evangelical Communion at all. whatever Acts of Worship or Church Order men may agree in the Practise of, if the Foundation of that Agreement be not laid in a joint Communion in Faith and Love, they are neither accepted with God, nor profitable unto the Souls of men. For

(2.) These are the things, namely, Faith and Love, which enliven all joint Duties of Church Order and Worship, are the Life and Soul of it; and how they should be only improperly that, which they alone make other things to be properly, I cannot understand.

p. 282(3.) Where there is no defect in these things, namely, in Faith and Love, the Charge of Schisme on dissenting in things of lesser Moment, is altogether unreasonable. It is to be desired, that an overweening of our Differences, make us not overlook the things wherein we are agreed. This is one of the greatest Evils that attend this Controversie. Men are forced by their Interest, to lay more weight on a few outward Rites and Ceremonies, which the World and the Church might well have spared, had they not come into the Minds of some Men, none know how, than upon the most important Graces and Duties of the Gospel. Hence Communion in Faith and Love, is scarce esteemed worth taking up in the streets, in comparison of Ʋniformity in Rites and Ceremonies. Let Men be as void of, and remote from true Gospel Faith and Love as is imaginable; yet if they comply quietly with, and have a little Zeal for those outward things, they are to be approved of, as very orderly Members of the Church. And whatever Evidences on the other hand, any can or do give of their Communion in Faith and Love, with all that are of that Communion, yet if they cannot in Conscience comply in the Observance of those outward things mentioned, they are to be judged Schismaticks, and Breakers of the Churches Unity; whereas no part of the Churches Unity doth or ever did consist in them.

In his Procedure hereon, our Author seemes to embrace occasions of contending, seeking for Advantages therein, in things not belonging unto the Merit of the Cause, which I thought was beneath him. From my Concession that some at least of our Parochial Churches are true Churches; he asks, in what sense? Are they Churches p. 283rightly constituted, with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members; I think it is somewhat too late now after all this dispute about the Reasons of refraining from their Communion, and his severe Charges of Schisme upon us for our so doing, to make this Enquiry; Wherefore he Answers himself, No, but his Meaning is, saith he, that they are not guilty of any such heynous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practise in Worship, as should utterly deprive them of the Being and nature of Churches, which I suppose are my Words. But then comes in the Advantage; doth, saith he, this Kindness belong only unto some of our Parochial Churches? I had thought that every Parochial Church was true or false according unto its frame and constitution, which among us, supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship established in the Church of England. I answer briefly; it is true, every Church is true or false according unto its Original frame and Constitution. This frame and Constitution of Churches, if it proceed from, and depend upon the Institution of Christ, it is true and approveable. If it depend only on a National Establishment of Doctrine and Worship, I know not well what to say unto it. But let any of these Parochial Churches be so constituted, as to answer the legal establishment in the Land, yet if the Generality of their Members are openly wicked in their Lives, and they have no lawful or sufficient Ministry, we cannot acknowledge them for true Churches. Some other things of the like nature do ensue, but I shall not insist on them.

He gathers up in the next place, the Titles of the Causes alledged, for our refraining Communion with those Parochial Assemblies, which he calls our Separation p. 284from them. And hereon he enquires whether these Reasons be a ground for a Separation from a Church, wherein it is confessed there are no Heynous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practise in Worship, that is, as he before cited my words, as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches. And it they be not, then, saith he, such a Separation may be a formal Schisme, because they set up other Churches of their own.

The Rule before laid down that all things lawful are to be done for the Churches Peace, taking in the supposition on which it proceeds, is as sufficient to establish Church Tyranny, as any Principle made use of by the Church of Rome, notwithstanding its plausible Appearance. And that here insinuated of the Ʋnlawfulness of Separation from any Church in the World, (for that which hath pernicious Errors in Doctrine, and Idolatry in Worship, destroying its Being, is no Church at all) is as good Security unto Churches, in an Obstinate Refusal of Reformation, when the Souls of the People are ruined amongst them for the want of it, as they need desire. And I confess I suspect such Principles as are evidently suited unto the security of the Corrupt Interests of any sort of Men.

I say therefore, (1.) That though a Church, or that which pretends itself on any Grounds so to be, do not profess any heynous Errour in Doctrine, nor be guilty of Idolatrous Practise in Worship, destroying its Nature and Being, yet there may be sufficient Reasons to refrain from its Communion in Church Order and Worship, and to joyn in or with other Churches for Edification: That is, that where such a Church is not capable of Reformation, p. 285or is obstinate in a Resolution not to reform itself, under the utmost Necessity thereof; it is lawful for all or any of its Members, to reform themselves, according to the Mind of Christ, and commands of the Gospel.

(2.) That where Men are no otherwise Members of any Church, but by an inevitable Necessity, and outward Penal Laws, preventing their own choice, and any act of Obedience unto Christ in their joyning with such Churches, the Case is different from theirs, whose Relation unto any Church, is founded in their own voluntary choice, as submitting themselves unto the Laws, Institution, and Rule of Christ in that Church; which we shall make use of afterwards.

(3.) The Doctor might have done well to have stated the true nature of Schisme, and the formal Reason of it, before he had charged a formal Schisme, on a Supposition of some outward Acts only.

(4.) What is our Judgment concerning Parochial Assemblies; how far we separate from them, or refrain Communion with them, what are the Reasons whereon we do so, hath been now fully declared, and thereunto we must appeal on all occasions; for we cannot acquiesce in what is unduely imposed on us, either as unto Principles or Practise.

To shew, as he saith, the Insufficiency of our Cause of Separation, he will take this way, namely, to shew the great absurdities that follow on the allowance of them; and addes,

These five especially I shall insist upon;

1. That it weakens the Cause of Reformation.

p. 2862. That it hinders all Ʋnion between the Protestant Churches.

3. That it justifies the antient Schismes, which have been always condemned by the Christian Church.

4. That it makes Separation Endless.

5. That it is contrary to the Obligation that lies on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church.

Now as I shall consider what He offers on these several Heads, and his Application of it unto the case in hand, so I shall confirm the Reasons already given of our Separation (if it must be so called) from Parochial Assemblies, with these five Considerations.

1. That they strengthen the Cause of Reformation.

2. That they open a way to Ʋnion between all Protestant Churches.

3. That they give the just Grounds of condemning the antient Schismes that ever any Christian Church did justly condemn.

4. That they give due bounds unto S…paration.

5. That they absolutely comply with all the Commands of the Scripture for the Preservation of the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church.

I shall begin with the consideration of the Absurdities, charged by Him on our Principles and Practise.

The first of them is, That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation. This he proves by long Quotations out of some French Divines. We are not to expect that they should speak unto our Cause or make any Determination in it, seeing to the principal of them, it was unknown. p. 287But they say that which is contrary unto our Principles; so they may do, and yet this not weaken the Cause of the Reformation. For it is known that they say somewhat also, that is contrary to the Principles of our Episcopal Brethren, for which one of them is sufficiently reviled; but yet the Cause of Reformation is not weakened thereby.

The first Testimony produced is that of Calvin; A large Discourse he hath (Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1.) against Causeless Separations from a true Church; and by whom are they not condemned? No determination of the Case in hand, can be thence derived; nor are the Grounds of our refraining Communion with Parochial Assemblies, the same, with those which he condemns as insufficient for a total Separation; nor is the Separation he opposed in those days, which was absolute and total, with a condemnation of the Churches from which it was made, of the same nature with that wherewith we are charged, at least not with what we own and allow. He gives the Notes of a true Church to be, the pure Preaching of the Word, and the Administration of the Sacraments according unto Christs Institution. Where these are he allows a true Church to be, not only without Diocesan Episcopacy, but in a form, and under a Rule opposite unto it, and inconsistent with it. And if he did at all speak to our Case, as he doth not, nor unto any of the Grounds of it, why should we be pressed with his Authority on the one hand more then others from whom he differed also on the other. Besides there is a great deal more belongs unto the pure preaching of the Word, and the Administration of the Sacraments according unto Christs Institution, then some seem to apprehend. They may, they ought to be so explained, as that from the p. 288consideration of them, we may justifie our whole Cause. Both these may be wanting in a Church, which is not guilty of such heynous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatry in Worship, as should overthrow its Being. And their want, may be a just Cause of refraining Communion from a Church, which yet we are not obliged to condemn as none at all.

Calvin expresseth his Judgment, N. 12. I would not give Countenance unto Errors, no not to the least; so as to cherish them by flattery or Connivance. But though I say, that the Church is not to be forsaken for tristing Differences, wherein the Doctrine, (of the Gospel) is retained safe and sound, wherein the Integrity of Godliness doth abide, and the use of the Sacraments appointed of the Lord is preserved; and we say the same.

And this very Calvin who doth so severely condemn Separation from a true Church as by him stated, did himself quietly and peaceably withdraw and depart from the Church of Geneva, when they refused to admit that Discipline, which he esteemed to be according to the Mind of Christ. It is certain therefore that by the Separation which he condemns, he doth not intend the peaceable Relinquishment of the Communion of any Church, as unto a constant participation of all Ordinances in it, for want of due means of Edification, much less that which hath so many other Causes concurring therewith.

For the other Learned Men whom he quotes unto the same purpose, I see not any thing that gives the least countenance unto his Assertion that our Principles weaken p. 289the Cause of the Reformation. It is true they plead other Causes of Separation from the Church of Rome, than those insisted on by us, with respect unto the Church of England; and indeed they had been otherwise much to blame▪ having so many things as they had, to plead of greater importance. Did we say that the Reasons which we plead, are all that can be pleaded to justifie the Separation of the Reformed Churches from the Church of Rome, it would weaken the Cause of Reformation. For we should then deny that Idolatry and fundamental Errors in Faith, were any Cause or Ground of that Separation. However we know that the Imposition of them on the Faith and Practise of all Christians, is more pleaded in Justification of a Separation from them, then the things themselves. But allowing those greater Reasons to be pleaded against the Roman Communion as we do, it doth not in the least follow that our Reasons for refraining Communion with Parochial Assemblies, doth weaken the Cause of the Reformation.

However, let me not be misinterpreted as unto that expression of destroying our Faith, which the Communion required with the Church of England, as unto all the important Articles of it, doth not do, and I can subscribe unto the Words of Daille, as quoted by our Author out of his Apology: If, saith he, the Church of Rome hath not required any thing of us, which destroys our Faith, offends our Consciences, and overthrows the Service which we believe due to God; if the Differences have been small, and such as we might safely have yeilded unto; then he will grant their Separation was rash and unjust, and they guilty of the Schisme.

p. 290He closeth his Transcription of the Words of sundry Learned Men, who have justifyed the Separation of the reformed Churches from the Church of Rome, wherein we are not in the least concerned with an Enquiry, What Triumph would the Church of Rome make over us had we no other reasons to justifie our Separation from them, but only those which (as is pretended) we plead in our Cause. I say whereas we do plead, confirm and justifie all the Reasons and Causes pleaded for the Separation of the Reformed Churches from them, not opposing, not weakning any of them, by any Principle or Practise of ours, but farther press the force of the same reasonings and causes in all Instances whereunto they will extend, I see neither what cause the Papists have of Triumph, no… any thing that weakens the Cause of the Reformation. He adds further, how should we be hissed a…d laughed at all over the Christian World, if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church, but such things as these? I answer, that as the Case stands, if we did alledge no other Reasons but those which we insist on for our refraining Communion with our own Parochial Assemblies, we should deserve to be derided, for relinquishing the Plea of those other important Reasons which the Heresies and Idolatries and Tyranny of that Church do render just and equal. But if we had no other Causes of Separation from the Church of Rome, but what we have for our Separation from our Parochial Assemblies at home, as weak as our Allegations are pretended to be, we should not be afraid to defend them against all the Papists in the World; and let the World act like itself in hissing.

p. 291Whereas therefore the Cause of Reformation is not in any thing weakened by our Principles, No Argument, no Reason solidly pleaded to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome being deserted by us, neither Testimony, Proof, nor Evidence being produced to evince that it is weakned by us, I shall in the Second place, as was before proposed, prove that the whole Cause of the Protestants Separation from the Church of Rome, is strengthened and confirmed by us.

There were some general Principles on which the Protestants proceeded in their Separation from the Church of Rome, and which they constantly pleaded in Justification thereof.

The first was, that the Scripture, the Word of God is a perfect Rule of Faith and Religious Worship; so as that nothing ought to be admitted which is repugnant unto it in its general Rule or especial Prohibitions, nothing imposed that is not prescribed therein, but that every one is at liberty to refuse and reject any thing of that kind. This they all contended for, and confirmed their Assertion by the express Testimonies of the Writers of the Primitive Churches. To prove this to have been their Principle in their Separation from the Church of Rome were to light, as they say, a Candle in the Sun. It were easie to fill up a Volume with Testimonies of it. After a while this Principle began to be weakned, when the Interest of men made them except from this Rule, things of outward Order, with some Rites and Ceremonies, the ordaining whereof, they pleaded to be left unto Churches as they saw Good. Hereby this Principle, I say, was greatly p. 292weakened. For no certain bounds could ever be assigned unto those things that are exempted from the Regulation of the Scripture. And the same Plea might be mannaged for many of the Popish Orders and Ceremonies that were rejected, as forcibly as for them that were retained. And whereas all the Reformed Churches agreed to abide by this Principle in Matters of Faith, there fell out an admirable Harmony in their confessions thereof. But leaving the Necessity of attending unto this Rule, in the Matter of Order, Ceremonies, Rites and Modes of Worship, with the state of Churches, in their Rule and Polity, those Differences and Divisions ensued amongst them, which continue unto this day. But this Perswasion in some places made a farther Progress, namely, that it was lawful to impose on the Consciences and Practises of men, such things in Religious Worship, provided that they concerned outward Order, Rites, Rule and Ceremonies, as are no where prescribed in the Scripture, and that on severe Penalties Ecclesiastical and Civil. This almost utterly destroyed the great fundamental Principle of the Reformation, whereon the first Reformers justified their Separation from the Church of Rome. For whereas it is supposed the Right of them who are to be the imposers, to determine what doth belong unto the Heads mentioned, they might under that pretence impose what they pleased, and refuse those whom they imposed them on, the Protection of the aforesaid Principle, namely, that nothing ought to be so imposed that is not prescribed in the Scripture. This hath proved the Rise of all endless Differences and Schismes amongst us, nor will they be healed until all Christians are restored unto their Liberty, of being obliged in the things of God, only unto the Authority of the Scripture.

p. 293The Words of Mr. Chillingsworth unto this purpose are Emphatical, which I shall therefore transcribe, though that be a thing which I am very averse from.

Require (saith he) of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no man Master but him only; let those leave claiming of Infallibity who have no Right unto it, and let them that in their Words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their Actions; In a word, take away Tyranny which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors and Superstitions and Impieties in the several Parts of the World, which could not otherwise long withstand the Power of Truth, I say, take away Tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full Liberty of captivating their understandings to the Scripture only; that universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Ʋnity; Part 1. chap. 4. Sect. 16.

This fundamental Principle of the first Reformation we do not only firmly adhere unto, rejecting all those Opinions and Practises whereby its force is weakened and impaired, but also do willingly suffer the things that do befal us, in giving our Testimony thereunto. Neither will there ever be Peace among the Churches of Christ in this World, until it be admitted in its whole Latitude; especially in that Part thereof wherein it excludes all Impositions of things not prescribed in the Scripture. For there are but few Persons who are capable of the subtilty of those Reasonings, which are applied to weaken this Principle in its whole extent. All men can easily see this, that the sufficiency of the Scripture in general as unto all the ends of Religion, is the only Foundation they have to rest and build upon. They do see actually, p. 294that where Men go about to prescribe things to be observed in Divine Worship, not appointed in the Scripture, that no two Churches have agreed therein; but endless contentions have ensued; that, No man can give an Instance in particular of any thing that is necessary unto the Rule of the Church, or the Observance of the commands of Christ in the Worship of God, that is not contained in the Scripture; and hereon are ready to resolve to call no man Master, but Christ; and to admit of nothing in Religion, but what is warranted by his Word.

Secondly. The second Principle of the Reformation, whereon the Reformers justified their Separation from the Church of Rome, was this, That Christian People were not tyed up unto blind Obedience unto Church Guides, but were not only at Liberty, but also obliged to judge for themselves, as unto all things that they were to believe and practise in Religion and the Worship of God. They knew that the whole Fabrick of the Papacy did stand on this Basis or Dunghil, that the Mistery of Iniquity was cemented by this Device, namely, that the People were ignorant, and to be kept in Ignorance, being obliged in all things unto an implicite Obedience unto their pretended Guides. And that they might not be capable of, nor fit for any other condition, they took from them the only means of their Instruction unto their Duty, and the Knowledge of it, that is, the Use of the Holy Scripture. But the first Reformers did not only vindicate their Right unto the Use of the Scripture itself, but insisted on it as a Principle of the Reformation, (and without which they could never have carried on their Work) that they were in all concernments of Religion to judge for themselves. p. 295And Multitudes of them quickly manifested how meet and worthy they were to have this Right restored unto them, in laying down their Lives for the Truth, suffering as Martyrs under the Power of their Bishops.

This Principle of the Reformation in like manner, is in no small degree weakened by many, and so the Cause of it. Dr. Still. himself, pag. 127, 128. denies unto the People all Liberty or Ability to choose their own Pastors, to judge what is meet for their own Edification, what is Heresie or a pernitio… Error, and what is not, or any thing of the like nature. This is almost the same with that of the Pharisees concerning them who admired and followed the Doctrine of our Saviour, foreign. Joh. 7.49. This Rabble which knows not the Law. Yet was it this People whom the Apostles directed to choose out from among themselves Persons meet for an Ecclesiastical Office; Act. 6. The same People who joyned with the Apostles and Elders in the consideration of the grand Case concerning the continuation of the legal Ceremonies, and were associated with them in the Determination of it; Act. 15. The same to whom all the Apostolical Epistles, excepting some to particular Persons, were written, and unto whom such Directions were given, and Duties enjoyned in them, as suppose not only a Liberty and Ability to judge for themselves in all Matters of Faith and Obedience, but also an especial Interest in the Order and Discipline of the Church; Those who were to say unto Archippus; (their Bishop) take heed unto the Ministry thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it; Col. 4. unto whom of all sorts, it is commanded that they should examine and try p. 296Antichrists, Spirits, and false Teachers, that is, all sorts of Hereticks, Heresies and Errors, 1 Joh. chap. 2.3. &c. That People, who even in following Ages, adhered unto the Faith and the Orthodox Profession of it, when almost all their Bishops were become Arian Hereticks; and kept their private Conventicles in opposition unto them, at Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and other places, and who were so many of them burned here in England by their own Bishops on the Judgement they made of Errors and Heresies. And if the present People with whom the Dr. is acquainted be altogether unmeet for the Discharge of any of these Duties, it is the fault of some body else, beside their own.

This Principle of the Reformation, in Vindication of the Rights, Liberties, and Priviledges of the Christian People, to judge and choose for themselves in Matters of Religion, to joyn freely in those Church Duties which are required of them, without which the work of it had never been carried on, we do abide by and maintain. Yea we meet with no Opposition more fierce, than upon the Account of our Asserting the Liberties and Right of the People in reference unto Church Order and Worship. But I shall not be afraid to say, that as the Reformation was begun and carried on, on this Principle, so when this People shall through an Apprehension of their Ignorance, Weakness, and Unmeetness, to discern and judge in Matters of Religion for themselves and their own Duty, be kept and debarred from it; or when through their own Sloth, Negligence and Vitiousness, they shall be really uncapable to mannage their own Interest in Church Affairs, as being fit only to be governed, if not as brute Creatures, yet as Mute p. 297Persons, and that these things are improved by the Ambition of the Clergy, engrossing all things in the Church unto themselves, as they did in former Ages, if the Old Popedome do not return, a new one will be erected, as bad as the other.

Thirdly another Principle of the Reformation is, that there was not any Catholick, Visible, Organical, Governing Church, traduced by Succession into that of Rome, … all Church Power and Order was to be derived. I will not say that this Principle was absolutely received by all the first Reformers here in England; yet it was by the Generality of them in the other Parts of the World. For as they constantly denied that there was any Catholick Church, but that invisible of Elect Believers, allowing the External Denomination of the Church unto the diffused Community of the baptized World; so believing and professing that the Pope is Antichrist, that Rome is Mystical Babylon, the Seat of the Apostatized Church of the Gentiles, devoted to destruction, they could acknowledge no such Church state in the Roman Church, nor the derivation of any Power and Order from it. So farre as there is a Declension from this Principle, so far the Cause of the Reformation is weakened, and the principal Reason of Separation from the Roman Church is rejected, as shall be farther manifested, if occasion require it.

This Principle we do firmly adhere unto; and not only so, but it is known, that our fixed Judgement concerning the Divine Institution, Nature and Order of Evangelical Churches, is such, as is utterly exclusive of the Roman Church, as a body organized in and under the Pope and his Hierarchy, from any pretence unto p. 298Church State, Order or Power. And it may be hence judged who do most weaken the Cause of Reformation, we or some of them at least, by whom we are opposed.

A second Absurdity that he chargeth on our way is, that it would make Ʋnion among the Protestant Churches impossible, supposing them to remain as they are. Sect. 24. pag. 186. To make good this Charge, he insists on two things.

(1.) That the Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies, and unscriptural Impositions then our Church hath.

(2.) That notwithstanding these things yet many learned Protestant Divines, have pleaded for Ʋnion and Communion with them, which upon our Principles and Suppositions, they could not have done. But whether they plead for Union and Communion with them, by admitting into their Churches, and submitting unto those Ceremonies and unscriptural Impositions, which is alone unto the Doctors Purpose; or whether they judge their Members obliged to Communicate in local Communion with them, under those Impositions, he doth not declare. But whereas neither we nor our Cause are in the least concerned in what the Dr. here insist upon, yet because the Charge is no less, then that our Principles give disturbance unto the Peace and Ʋnion of all Protestant Churches, I shall briefly manifest that they are not only conducive thereunto, but such as without which that Peace and Union will never be attained.

1. It is known unto all, that from the first Beginning of the Reformation, there were Differences among the Churches, which departed from the Communion of p. 299the Church of Rome. And as this was looked on as the greatest Impediment unto the Progress of the Reformation, so it was not morally possible that in a work of that Nature, begun and carried on by Persons of all for us, in many Nations, of divers Tongues and Languages, none of them being divinely inspired, that it should otherwise fall out. God also in his Holy Wise Providence suffered it so to be, for Causes known then to himself, but since sundry of them have been made manifest in the Event. For whereas there was an Agreement in all fundamental Articles of Faith among them, and all necessary meanes of Salvation, a farther Agreement considering our Sloth, Negligence, and proness of men to abuse security and Power, might have produced as evil effects, as the Differences have done; For those which have been on the one hand, and those which have been on the other, have been and would have been from the corrupt Affections of the Minds of men, and their secular Interests.

2. These Differences were principally in or about some Doctrines of Faith, whereon some fiery Spirits among them, took occasion mutually, and unjustly enough, to charge each other with Heresie, especially was this done among the Lutherans, whose writings are stuffed with that Charge, and miserable Attempts to make it Good. There were also other Differences among them, with respect unto Church Order, Rites, Ceremonies, and Modes of Worship. The Church of England as unto the Government of the Church, and sundry other things, took a way by it self, which at present we do not consider.

p. 3003. Considering the Agreement in all fundamental Articles of Faith between these Churches thus at Difference, and of what great use their Union might be, unto the Protestant Religion, both as unto its Spiritual and Political Interest in this World, the effecting of such an Union among them, hath been attempted by many. Private Persons, Princes, Colloquies or Synods of some of the Parties at variance have sedulously ingaged herein. I wish they had never missed it, in stating the nature of that Ʋnion which in this case is alone desireable and alone attainable; Nor in the Causes of that disadvantagious Difference that was between them. For hence it is come to pass, that although some Verbal Compositions have sometimes by some been consented unto, yet all things continue practically amongst them, as they were from the Beginning. And there are yet Persons who are mannaging Proposals for such an Union, with great Projection in point of Method for the compassing of it, and stating of the Principles of Agreement, some whereof I have by me. But the present state of things in Europe, with the Minds of Potentates not concerned in these things, leave little encouragement for any such Attempt, or expectation of any Success.

4. After the trial and experience of an hundred and fifty years, it is altogether in vain, to be expected that any farther Reconciliation or Union should be effected between these Protestant Churches by either Parties Relinquishment of the Doctrines they have so long taught, professed and contended for, or of their Practise in Divine Worship, which they have so long been accustomed unto. We may as well expect that a River should run backwards, as expect any such things.

p. 301In this state of things, I say, the Principles we proceed upon, are the most useful unto the procuring of Peace and Union among these Churches, in the state wherein they are, and without which it will never be effected. I shall therefore give an Account of those of them, which are of this Nature and Tendency.

1. And the first is, the absolute necessity of a general Reformation in Life and Manners of all sorts of Persons; belonging unto these Churches. It is sufficiently known what a woful Condition the Profession even of the Protestant Religion is fallen into. How little evidence is there left of the Power of Evangelical Grace, working in the Hearts of Men! what little diligence in the Duties of Holiness and Righteousness! What a Deluge of all sorts of Vices hath overwhelmed the Nations! and what indications there are of the Displeasure of God against us, on the account of these things! Who doth not almost tremble at them? Calvin, unto whom I was newly sent by our Reverend Author, in Answer to them who pleaded for a Separation from a true Church, because of the Wickedness of many of its Members, or any of them, addes unto it; It is a most just Offence, and unto which there is too much occasion given in this Miserable Age. Nor is it lawful to excuse our cursed sloth, which the Lord will not let go unpunished, as he begins already to chastise us with grievous stripes. Wo therefore unto us who by our dissolute licentiousness in flagitious sins, do cause that the weak Consciences of men should be wounded for us. And if it were so then, the matter is not much mended in the Age wherein we live. The Truth is, Sin and Impiety are come to that height and impudence, Sensuality and Oppression p. 302are so diffused among all sorts of Persons, Conformity unto the fashion▪ of the World, become so universal, and the Evidences of Gods Displeasure, with the Beginnings and Entrances of his Judgements, are so displayed, as that if the Reformation pleaded for be not speedily endeavoured, and vigorously pursued, it will be too late to talk of Differences and Union; Destruction will swallow up all. Until this be agreed on, until it be attempted and effected in some good Measure, all endeavours for farther Union, whatever there appearing success should be (as probably it will be very small) will be of no use unto the honour of Religion, the Glory of Christ, nor Good of the Souls of men. In the mean time Individual Persons will do well to take care of themselves.

2. That all these differing Churches, and whilst these Differences do continue, be taught to prefer their general Interest in opposition unto the Kingdom of Satan and Antichrist in the World, before the lesser things wherein they differ, and those occasional Animosities that will ensue upon them. It hath been observed in many places that the nearer some Men or Churches come together in their Profession, the more distant they are in their Affections; as the Lutherans in many places do more hate the Calvinists then the Papists, I hope it is not so among us. This makes it evident that the Want of necessary Peace and Ʋnion among Churches, doth not proceed from the things themselves wherein they differ, but from the corrupt Lusts, and Interests of the Persons that differ. This Evil can no otherwise be cured, but by such a Reformation as shall in some measure reduce Primitive Simplicity, Integrity and Love, such as p. 303were among the Churches of the Converted Jews and Gentiles, when they walked according unto the same Rule, in what they had attained, forbearing one another in Love, as unto the things wherein they differed, Until this also be effected, all endeavours for farther Union, whilst these Differences continue, (as they are like to do, unless the whole frame of things in Europe should be changed by some great Revolution) will be fruitless and Useless.

Were this conscientiously insisted on, out of a pure Love unto Jesus Christ, with Zeal for his Glory, it would not only be of more use, then innumerable wrangling Disputes about the points in Difference, but more then the exactest Methods in contriving Formularies of Consent, or Colloquies, or Synodical Conferences of the Parties at variance, with all their Solemnities, Orders, Limitations, Precautions, Concessions and Orations. Let men say what they will, it must be the Revival, Flourishing and Exercise of Evangelical Light, Faith and Love, that shall heal the Differences and breaches that are among the Churches of Christ; nor shall any thing else be honoured with any great influence into that work.

3. That all Communion of Churches as such, consists in the Communion of Faith and Love, in the Administration of the same Sacraments, and common Advice in things of common concerment. All these may be observed, when for sundry Reasons, the Members of them cannot have local presential Communion in some Ordinances, with each Church distinctly. If this Truth were well established and consented unto, men might be p. 304easily convinced, that there is nothing wanting unto that Evangelical Union among Churches which the Gospel requires, but only their own humble, holy, peaceable Christian walking in their several Places and Stations. But where men put their own Interests and Possession of present Advantages, cloathed under the Pretence of things necessary thereunto, into Conditions of Communion, or divest it of that latitude wherein Christ hath left it, by new Limitations of their own, it will never be attained on the true Evangelical Principles, that it must proceed upon. For however any may be displeased with it, I must assert and maintain, that there is nothing required by our Lord Jesus Christ, unto this end of the Communion of Churches, nor to any other end of Church Order or Worship whatever, but that only in whose Observance and Performance, there is an actual Exercise of Evangelical Grace in Obedience unto him.

4. That all Private Members of these several Churches which agree in the Communion before mentioned, be left unto their own Liberty and Consciences, to communicate in any of those Churches, either occasionally or in a fixed way and manner. Neither Orders nor compulsory Decrees will be useful in this Matter, in comparison of their own declared Liberty. And so it was among the Primitive Churches.

5. Where Men are invincibly hindered from total communion with any Church, by Impositions which they cannot comply withal without Sin, or by continuing in it, are deprived of the due means of their Edification, the Churches whereunto they did belong refusing all p. 305Reformation; it is lawful for them in Obedience unto the Law of Christ, to reform themselves, and to make use of the means appointed by him for their Edification, abiding constantly in the Communion of all true Churches before described. I confess this is that which we cannot digest; namely, an Imagination that the Lord Jesus Christ hath obliged his Disciples, those that believe in him, to abide alwayes in such Societies, as wherein, not only things are imposed on their Obedience and Observance which he hath not commanded, but they are also forced to live in the Neglect of expressed Duties which he requireth of them, and the want of that means of their own Edification, which without the restraint at present upon them, they might enjoy according unto his Mind and Will. Believers were not made for Churches▪ nor for the advantage of them that Rule in them; but Churches were made for Believers and their Edification, nor are of any use farther then they tend thereunto.

These are the Premises whereon we proceed in all that we do; and they are so far from being Obstructive of the Peace and Union of the Protestant Churches, as that without them, they will never be promoted nor attained. And I do beg of this Worthy Person that he would not despise these things, but know assuredly, that nothing would be so effectual to procure the Union he desireth, as an Ʋniversal Reformation of all sorts of Persons, according unto the Rule and Law of Christ, which it may be, no man hath greater Ability and Opportunity in conjunction for, than himself. For wo be unto us, if whilst we contend about outward Peace in smaller things, we neglect to make Peace with p. 306God, and so expose our selves and the whole Nation unto his desolating Judgement, which seem already to be impendent over us.

The third Absurdity which he chargeth on our Practise is, that it will justifie the antient Schismes which have been always condemned in the Christian Church; and in the mannagement of this Charge, he proceedeth, if I mistake not, with more then ordinary vehemency and severity, though it be a Matter wherein we are least of all concerned.

To make Effectual this Charge, He first affirms in general, that setting aside a few things, they pleaded the same Reasons for their Separation, as I do for ours; Which how great a Mistake it is shall be manifested immediately. S…condly, He gives Instances in several Schismes, that were so condemned by the Christian Church, and whose Practise is justified by us.

In Answer hereunto, I shall first premise some things in general, shewing the Insufficiency of this Argument to prove against us the Charge of Schisme, and then consider the Instances produced by him. I say,

1. In times of Decay, the declining times of Churches or states, it cannot be, but that some will be uneasie in their Minds, although they know not how to remedy what is amiss, nor it may be fix on the particulars which are the right and true Causes of the state which they find troublesome unto them. And whilst it is so with them, it is not to be admired at, that some Persons do fall into irregular Attempts for the redressing of what is amiss. p. 307The Church, where the instances insisted on happened, was falling into a Mysterious Decay from its original Institution, Order and Rule, which afterwards encreased more and more continually. But all being equally involved in the same Declension, the Remedies which they proposed who were uneasie either in themselves or in the manner of their Application, were worse then the Disease; which yet lying uncured and continually encreasing, proved in the issue the Ruin of them all. But here lay the Original of the Differences and Schismes which fell out in the 3d, 4th, and 5th Centuries; that having all in some Measure departed from the Original Institution, Rule and Order of Evangelical Churches, in sundry things, and cast themselves into new formes and Orders, their Differences and Quarrels related all unto them, and could have had no such occasion, had they kept themselves unto their Primitive Constitution. Wherefore those Schismes which were said to be made by them that continued sound in the Faith, as those of the Andeans, and Meletians as by some is pretended, and Johannites at Constantinople, with sundry other, seeing they disserted not any Order of Divine Institution, but another which the Churches were insensibly fallen into; No Judgement can be made upon a meer Separation, whether of the Parties at Difference were to blame; I am sure enough that sometimes neither of them could be excused. Whether the Causes, Reasons, Ends, Designs, and ways of the Mannagement of those Differences that were between them, on which Schismes in their present Order did ensue, were just, regular, according to the Mind of Christ, proceeding from Faith and Love, is that whose Determination must fix aright the Guilt of the Divisions that were among them. And whereas we p. 308judge most of those who so seperated from the Church of old, as is here alledged, to have failed in these things, and therein to have contracted Guilt unto themselves, as occasioning unwarrantable Divisions, and missing wholly the only way of Cure for what was really blameworthy in others; Yet whereas we allow nothing to be Schisme properly, but what is contrary to Christian Love, and destructive of some Institution of Christ, we are not much concerned who was in the Right or Wrong, in those Contests which fell out among the Orthodox themselves, but only as they were carried on unto a total Renunciation of all Communion whatever; but only that which was enclosed unto their own Party.

2. To Evidence that we give the least countenance unto the antient Schismes, or do contract the Guilt with the Authors of them, the thing aimed at, there are three things incumbent on him to prove.

1. That our Parochial Churches from whom we do refrain actual presential Communion in all Ordinances, where it is required by Law, which cannot be many and but one at one time, do succeed into the room of that Church, in a Separation from which, those Schismes did consist. For we pass no Judgement on any other Church; but what concerns our selves as unto present Duty, though that in a Nation may be extended unto many or all of the same sort. But these Schismes consisted in a professed Separation from the whole Catholick Church, that is, all Christians in the World, who joyned not with them, in their Opinions and Practises, and from the whole Church state then passant and allowed. But our Author knows full well, that there are others, p. 309who long before our Parochial Churches, do lay claim unto the absolute enclosure of this Church state unto themselves, and thereon condemn both him and us, and all the Protestants in the World, of the same Schisme that those of old were guilty of; especially they make a continual Clamour about the Novatians and Donatists. I know that he is able to dispossess the Church of Rome from that Usurpation of the State and Rights of the antient Catholick Church, from whence those Separations were made, and it hath been sufficiently done by others. But so soon as we have cast that out of Possession, to bring in our Parochial Assemblies into the room of it, and to press the Guilt of Separation from them, with the same Reasons and Arguments, as we were all of us but newly pressed withal by the Romanists, namely, that hereby we give countenance unto them, yea do the same things with them, who made Schismes in Separating from the Catholick Church of old, is somewhat severe and unequal.

Wherefore unless the Church from which they separated, which was the whole Catholick Church in the World, not agreeing and acting with them, and those Parochial Assemblies from whose Communion we refrain, are the same and of the same consideration, nothing can be argued from those ancient Schismes against us, nor is any countenance given by us unto them, For if it be asked of us, whether it be free or lawful, for Believers to joyn in Society and full Communion with other Churches, besides those that are of our way, and especial Communion, we freely answer, that we no way doubt of it, nor do judge them for their so doing.

p. 3102. It must be proved unto the End proposed, that the Occasions and Reasons of their Separation of old, were the same, or of the same nature only, with those which we plead, for our refraining Communion from Parochial Assemblies. Now though the Dr. here makes a flourish with some Expressions about Zeal, Discipline, Purity of the Church, Edification (which he will not find in any of their Pretences) yet in truth there is not one thing alledged, wherein there is a Coincidence between the Occasions and Reasons pleaded by them, and ours.

It is known that the principal thing in general which we insist upon, is the unwarrantable Imposition of unscriptural Termes and Conditions of Communion upon us; was there any such thing pleaded by them that made the Schismes of Old? indeed they were all of them imposers, and separated from the Church because they would not submit unto their Impositions. Some Bishops, or some that would have been Bishops but could not, entertaining some new Conceit of their own, which they would have imposed on all others, being not submitted unto therein, were the Causes of all those Schismes which were justly esteemed Criminal. So was it with the Novatians and Donatists in an especial manner. Even the great Tertullian (though no Bishop) left the Communion of the Church on this Ground. For because they would not admit of the strict Observance of some Austere Severities in Fasting, Abstinence from sundry Meates, and Watching, with the like, which he esteemed necessary, though no way warranted by Scripture Rule or Example, he utterly renounced their Communion; and countenanced p. 311himself by adhering unto the Dotages of Montanus. It is true, some of them contended for a Severity of Discipline in the Church, but they did it not, upon any pretence of the Neglect of it in them unto whom the Administration of it was committed; but for the want of establishing a false Principle, Rule, or Erronious Doctrine which they advanced; namely, that the most sincere penitents were never more to be admitted into Ecclesiastical Communion; whereby they did not establish but overthrow one of the Principal ends of Church Discipline. They did not therefore press for the Power or the Ʋse of the Keys, as is pretended, but advanced a false Doctrine in prejudice both unto the Power and Use of them. They pretended indeed unto the Purity of the Church, not that there were none impure, wicked, and hypocritical among them, but that none might be admitted who had once fallen, though really made pure by sincere Repentance. This was their Zeal for Purity. If a Man were overtaken, if they could catch him in such a fault, as by the Rules of the passaint Discipline, he was to be cast out of the Church, there they had him safe for ever. No Evidence of the most sincere Repentance, could prevail for a Readmission into the Church. And because other Churches would admit them, they renounced all Communion with them, as no Churches of Christ. Are these our Principles, are these our Practices? do we give any countenance unto them by any thing we say or do? I somewhat wonder that the Dr. from some general Expressions, and casting their Pretences under new Appearances should seem to think that there is the least Coincidence, between what they insisted on, and what we plead in our own Defence. He may see now more fully, what are the Reasons of our Practise, and I hope p. 312thereon will be of another Mind; not as unto our Cause in general, which I am far enough from the expectation of, but as unto this invidious Charge of giving Countenance unto the Schismes condemned of old in the Church. And we shall see immediately, what were the Occasions of those Schismes which we are as remote from giving countenance unto, as unto the Principles and Reasons which they pleaded in their own Justification.

3. It ought also to be proved, that the Separation which is charged on us, is of the same nature with that charged on them of old, for otherwise we cannot be said to give any Countenance unto what they did. For it is known they so separated from all other Churches in the World, as to confine the Church of Christ unto their own Party, to condemn all others, and to deny Salvation unto all that abode in their Communion, which the Donatists did with the greatest fierceness. This was that which if any thing, did truely and properly constitute them Schismaticks; as it doth those also, who deny at this day, Church State and Salvation, unto such Churches as have not Diocesan Bishops. Now there is no Principle in the World that we do more abhor. We grant a Church state unto all, however it may be defective or corrupted, and a possibility of Salvation unto all their Members, which are not gathered in pernicious Errors, overthrowing the Foundation, nor Idolatrous in their Worship, and who have a lawful Ministry with sufficient means for their Edification, though low in its Measures and Degrees. We judge none but with respect unto our own Duty, as unto the Impositions attempted to be laid on us, and the Acts of Communion required of us; p. 313which we cannot avoid; Nor can any man else, let him pretend what he will to the contrary, avoid the making of a Judgment for himself in these things, unless he be brutish, These things are sufficient to evidence that there is not the least countenance given unto the antient Schismes by any Principles of ours; yet I shall add some farther Considerations on the Instances he gives unto the same Purpose.

The first is, that the Novatians whose Pretences were the Discipline and Purity of the Churches, wherein he says, there was a Concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas; Zeal for Reformation of Discipline, the greater Edificatian of the People, and the asserting of their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was likely to promote their Edification. I am sorry that Interest and Party should sway with learned Men, to seek Advantages unto their Cause so unduly▪ The story in short is this; Novatus or Novatianus rather, being disappointed in his ambitious Design to have been chosen Bishop of the Church of Rome, Cornelius being chosen by much the Major Part of the Church, betook himself to indirect means to weaken and invalidate the Election of Cornelius. And this he did by raising a new Principle of false Doctrine, whereunto he as falsly accommodated the Matter of Fact. The Error he broached and promoted was that there was no place for Repentance (such as whereon they should be admitted into the Church) unto them who had fallen into sin after Baptisme, nor as some add any Salvation to be obtained by them who had fallen in the time of Persecution. This the antient Church looked on as a pestilent Heresie; and as such was it condmened in a considerable Counsel at Rome with Cornelius. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43; where p. 314also is reported the Decree which they made in the Case, wherein they call his Opinion Cruel or inhumane and contrary to Brotherly Love. As such it is strenuously confuted by Cyprian Epist. 82. ad Antonianum. But because the Church would not submit unto this Novel false Opinion of his, contrary to the Scripture and the Discipline of the Church, he and all his Followers separated from all the Churches in the World, and rebaptized all that were baptized in the Orthodox Churches, they denying unto them the means of Salvation. Cyprian ad Julian: Epist. 73. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 8. That which was most probably false also in Matter of Fact when this foolish Opinion, which Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Dionysius of Rome, calls a most profane Doctrine, reflecting unmerciful cruelty on our most gracious Lord Jesus Christ; Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 8. was invented to be subservient unto, was that many of those by whom Cornelius was chosen Bishop, were such as had denied the Faith under the Persecution of Decius the Emperor. This also was false in Matter of Fact. For although that Church continued in the antient Faith and practise of receiving penitents after their Fall, yet there were no such number of them, as to influence the Election of Cornelius. So Cyprian testifieth, Factus est Cornelius Episcopus, de Dei & Christi ejus judicio, de Clericorum poene omnium Testimonio, de suffragio Plebis, &c. Epist. 52. On that false Opinion and this frivolous Pretence they continued their Schisme; Hence afterwards, when Constantine the Emperor spake with Acesius the Bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople finding him sound in the Faith of the Trinity, which was then impugned by Arius, he asked him why then he did not communicate with the Church; whereon he began to tell him a story of what had happened p. 315in the time of Decius the Emperor, pleading nothing else for himself; the Emperor replying only, O Acesius, set up a ladder and climb alone by thy self into Heaven, left him. Socrat. lib. 1: cap. 7.

This Error endeavoured to be imposed on all Churches, this false Pretence in Matter of Fact, with the following Pride in the condemnation of all other Churches, denying unto them the lawful use of the Sacraments, and rebaptizing them who were baptized in them, do if we may believe the Doctor herein contain all my Pleas for the forbearance of Communion with Parochial Assemblies, and have countenance given unto them by our Principles and Practises.

Of the Meletians whom he reckons up in the next place, no certain Account can be given, Epiphanius reports Meletus himself to have been a Good honest Orthodox Bishop; and in the Difference between him and Peter Bishop of Alexandria to have been more for Truth, as the other was more for Love and Charity. And according unto him, it was Peter and not Meletus that began the Schisme; Haeres. 68. N. 2, 3. But others give quite another account of him. Socrates affirmes that in time of Persecution he had sacrificed to Idols, and was for that Reason deposed from his Episcopacy by Peter of Alexandria; Lib. 3. cap. 6. Hence he was enraged against him, and filled all Thebais and Aegypt with Tumults against him, and the Church of Alexandria, with intolerable Arrogance, because he was convicted of sundry Wickednesses by Peter. Theod. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. And his Followers quickly complyed with the Arians for their Advantage. The Error he proceeded p. 316on according to Epiphanius, was the same with that of Novatus; which how it could be, if he himself had fallen in Persecution, and Sacrificed, as Socrates relates, I cannot understand. This Schisme of Bishop Meletius also it is thought meet to be judged, that we should give Countenance unto.

All things are in like manner uncertain concerning Audus and his Followers, whom he mentions in the next place. The Man is represented by Epiphanius to have been a Good Man, of an holy Life, sound in the Faith, full of Zeal and Love to the Truth. But finding many things amiss in the Church, among the Clergy and People, he freely reproved them, for Covetousness, Luxury, and Disorders in Ecclesiastical Affairs. Hereon he stirred up the hatred of many against himself, as Chrysostome did for the same cause afterwards at Constantinople. Hereupon he was vexed, persecuted and greatly abused, all which he bare patiently and continued in the Discharge of his Duty, as it fell out also with Chrysostome. Nevertheless he abode firmly and tenaciously in the Communion of the Church; but was at length cast out, as farre as it appears by him, for the honest discharge of his Duty; whereon he gathered a great Party unto himself. But Theodoret and others, affirm him to have been the Author of the impious heresie of the Anthropomorphitae, his principal followers being those Monks of Egypt which afterwards made such Tumults in defence of that foolish Imagination; and that this was the Cause why he was cast out of the Church, and set up a Party of the same Opinion with him, lib. 4. cap. 10. Yea he also ascribes unto him some foolish Opinions of the Manichees. What is our concernment in these things I cannot imagine.

p. 317Eustathius the Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, and his Followers, are also instanced in, as Orthodox Schismaticks, and as such were condemned in a Council at Gongrae in Paphlagonia. But indeed before that Council, Eustathius had been condemned by his own Father Eulanius and other Bishops, at Caesarea in Cappadocia. And he was so for sundry foolish Opinions and evil Practises, whereby he deserved to be so dealt withal. It doth not unto me appear certainly whether he fell into those Opinions before his Rejection at Caesarea, where he was principally it not only charged with his undecent and fantastical habit and Garments. Wherefore at the Council of Gangrae. he was not admitted to make any Apology for himself, nor could be heard, because he had innovated many things, after his Deposition at Caesarea; such as forbidding of Marriage, shaving of Women, denying the lawfulness of Priests keeping their Wives, who were married before their Ordination, getting away Servants from their Masters, and the like; Socrat. Hist. lib. 2. chap. 3. These were his Pretences of Sanctity and Purity, as the Dr. acknowledgeth; and I appeal unto his Ingenuity and candour, whether any Countenance be given unto such Opinions and Practises thereon, by any thing we say or do.

This Instance and some others of an alike Nature, the Doctor affirmes that he produced in his Sermon, but that they were gently passed over by my self and Mr. B. I confess, I took no notice of them, because I was satisfied that the cause under Consideration was no way concerned in them. And the Dr. might to as Good Purpose have instanced in forty other Schismes, made for the most p. 318Part by the Ambition of Bishops, in the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, and sundry other places; yea, in that made by Epiphanius himself at Constantinople, upon as weighty a Cause, as that of those who contended about, and strove for and against the driving of sheep over the Bridge, where there were none present.

The story of the Luciferians, is not worth repeating; In short, Lucifer the Bishop of Caralli in Sardinia, being angry that Paulinus whom he had ordained Bishop at Antioch was not received, fell into great dissention with Eusebius Bishop of Vercells in Italy, who had been his Companion in Banishment, because he approved not what he had done at Antioch; And continuing to contend for his own Bishop, it occasioned a great Division among the People, whereon he went home to his own Place, leaving behind him a few followers, who wrangled for a time about the Ordination of Bishops by Arians, by whose means Lucifer had been banished, and so after a while disappeared.

I had almost missed the Instance of the Donatists. But the story of them is so well known, that it will not bear the Repetition. For although there be no mention of them in Socrates or Zozoman, nor the History of Theodoret, yet all things that concerned them are so fully declared in the Writings of Austin and Optatus against them as there needs no other account of them. And this Instance of an Heretical Schisme, is that which the Papists vehemently urge against the Church of England itself, and all other Protestants. Here their Weapon is borrowed for a little while, to give a wound unto our Cause, but in vain. Yet I know full well p. 319that it is easier for some men on their Principles, to flourish with this Weapon against us, than to defend themselves against it in the hands of the Papists. In breif these Donatists were upon the matter of the same Opinion with the Novatians; and as these grounded their dissension, on the receiving those into the Church who had fallen and sacrificed under Decius; so did these on a pretence of severity against those who had been Traditors, under Maximinus. Upon this Pretence improved by many false Allegations, Donatus and those that followed him rejected Cecilianus who was lawfully chosen and ordained Bishop of Carthage, setting up one Majorinus in opposition unto him. Not succeeding herein, on this foolish unproved Pretence, that Cecilianus had been ordained by Traditor, they rejected the Communion of all the Churches in the World, confined the whole Church of Christ unto their own Party; denied Salvation unto any other, rebaptized all that came unto them from other Churches, and together with a great number of Bishops that joyned with them, fell into most extravagant Exorbitances.

Upon the Consideration of these Schismes, the Dr. concludes, that on these Grounds there hath scarce been any considerable Schisme in the Christian Church, but may be justified upon Dr. O's Reasons, for Seperation from our Church. Concerning which I must take the Liberty to say, that I do not remember that ever I read in any Learned Author, an Inference made, or Conclusion asserted, that had so little countenance given unto it by the Premises whence it is inferred, as there is into this, by the Instances before insisted on, whence it is pretended to be educed.

p. 320All that is of Argument in this story, is this, that there were of old some Bishops, with one or two who would have been Bishops, and could not, who to exalt and countenance themselves against those who were preferred to Bishopricks, before them, and above them, invented and maintained false doctrinal Principles, the confession whereof they would have imposed on other Churches; and because they were not admitted, they separated at once from all other Churches in the World, but their own, condemning them as no Churches, as not having the Sacraments or means of Salvation; for which they were condemned as Schismaticks; therefore those who own not Subjection to Diocesan Bishops, by vertue of any Institution or Command of Christ, who refrain Communion from Parochial Assemblies, because they cannot without Sin to themselves, comply with all things imposed on them in the Worship of God, and Ecclesiastical Rule, without judging their state, or the Salvation of their Members, are in like manner as they, guilty of Schisme.

But we have fixed grounds whereon to Try, Examine, Judge and Condemne all Schismes that are justly so called, all such as those before mentioned. If Separations arise and proceed from Principles of false Doctrine and Errors, like those of the Novatians and Donatists; if they are occasioned by Ambition and desire of Preheminence, like those that fell out among the Bishops of those days, when their Parishes and claimes were not regulated by the Civil Power as now they are; If they do so from a Desire to impose Principles and Practises not warranted in the Scripture, on others, as it was with Tertullian; If for slight Reasons they rend and destroy that p. 321Church state and order which themselves approve of, as it was with all the antient Schismaticks, who were Bishops, or would feign to have been; if those that make them or follow in them deny Salvation unto all that joyn not with them, and condemn all other Churches as being without Gods Covenant, and the Sacraments, as did the Donatists, and those do, who deny these things unto all Churches who have not Diocesan Bishops; if there be not a sufficient justifiable Cause pleaded for it, that those who make such a separation cannot abide in the Communion which they forsake, without wounding their own Consciences, and do give Evidences of their abiding in the Exercise of Love towards all the true Disciples of Christ, we are satisfied that we have a Rule infallibly directing us, to make a Judgment concerning it.

Our Author adds, Sect. 26. p. 197. Another Argument against this course of separation is, that these Grounds will make separation endless; which is to suppose all the Exhortations of the Scripture to Peace and Ʋnity among Christians, useless. But why so? Is there nothing in the Authority of Christ, and the sence of the Account which is to be given unto him, nothing in the Rule of the Word, nothing in the works of the Ministry, and exercise of Gospel Discipline, to keep professed Disciples of Christ unto their Duty, and within the bounds of order Divinely prescribed unto them, unless they are fettered and staked down with humane Laws and Constitutions? Herein I confess I differ, and shall do so whilst I am in this World from our Reverend Author and others. To say as he doth, (upon a supposition of the taking away of humane Impositions, Laws and p. 322Canons) that there are no bounds set unto separation but what the fancies of men will dictate unto them, is dishonourable unto the Gospel and somewhat more. To suppose that the Authority of Christ, the Rule of the Word, and the Work of the Ministry, are not sufficient to prescribe bounds unto separation efficaciously affecting the Consciences of Beleivers; or that any other bounds can be assigned as obligatory unto their Consciences, is what cannot be admitted. The Lord Christ hath commanded Love and Ʋnion among his Disciples; he hath ordained order and Communion in his Churches, he hath given unto them and limited their Power, he hath prescribed▪ Rules whereby they and all their Members ought to walk; he hath forbidden all Schismes and Divisions, he hath appointed and limited all necessary separations, and hath truly given all the bounds unto it, that the Consciences of men are or can be affected withal. But then it is said, if this be all, separation will be endless, if such a separation be intended as is an unlawful Schisme, I say, it may be it will, even as Persecution and other evils, sins and wickednesses will be, notwithstanding his severe Prohibition of them. What he hath done is the only means to preserve his own Disciples from all sinful separation, and is sufficient thereunto. Herein lyeth the Original mistake in this matter; we have lost the Apprehension that the Authority of Christ in the Rule of his Word, and Works of his Spirit, is every way sufficient for the Guiding, Governing, and Preserving of his Disciples, in the Church Order by him prescribed, and the observance of the Duties by him commanded. It hath been greatly lost in the World for many Ages, and therefore instead of Faithful Ministerial Endeavours to enforce a sence of it on the Consciences of all Christians, p. 323they have been let loose from it, through a confidence in other devises, to keep them unto their Duty and Order. And if these devises, be they Ecclesiastical Canons or Civil Penalties, be not enforced on them all, the World is made to beleive, that they are left unto the dictates of their own fancies and Imaginations, as if they had no concern in Christ or his Authority, in this matter But for my part I shall never desire, nor endeavour to keep any from Schisme or separation, but by the ways and means of Christs appointment, and by a sense of his. Authority on their own Consciences.

The remainder of his Discourse on this Head, consists in a lepid Dram…tical Oration, framed and feigned for one of his Opposers; wherein he makes him undertake the patronage of Schism before Cyprian and Austi…. The Learned Person intended is very well able to defend and vindicate himself, which I suppose also he will do. In the mean time I cannot but say two things.

(1.) That the Imposition on him of extenuating the Guilt of any real Schism, is that which none of his Words do give the least countenance unto.

(2.) That the Doctors attempt in his feigned Oration to accommodate, his Principles, or Ours, unto the case of the Donatists for their Justification, (the weakness whereof is evident to every one who knows any thing of the case of the Donatists,) is such an instance of the Power of Interest, a design to maintain a Cause, causelessly undertaken, by all manner of Artifices and Pretences, prevailing in the minds of men otherwise Wise and Sober, as is to be lamented.

p. 324We come at length in the 5th. place. Sect, 28. p. 209. unto that which is indeed of more importance duly to be considered, then all that went before. For as our Author observes, it is that, wherein the Consciences of men are concerned. This Argument therefore he takes from the Obligation which lyes upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church. For the confirmation of this Argument, and the Application of it unto the case of them who refrain from total Communion with our Paroc…ial Assemblies which alone is the case in hand, he lays down sundry suppositions, which I shall consider in their Order, although they may be all granted without any disadvantage unto our Cause. But they will be so the better, when they are rightly stated.

1. His first supposition is, that Christians are under the strictest Obligations to preserve the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church.

This being the foundation of all that follows, it must be rightly stated. And to that end three things may be enquired into.

(1.) What is that Church, whose Peace and Unity we are obliged to preserve. For there are those who lay the firmest claim unto the Name, Power, and Priviledges of the Church, with whom we are obliged to have neither Peace nor Ʋnity in the Worship of God.

(2.) What is that Peace and Ʋnity which we are so obliged to preserve.

(3.) By what means they are to be preserved.

1. We are obliged to follow Peace with all men, to seek Peace and pursue it, and if it be possible to live peaceably with all men.

p. 3252. There is a peculiar Obligation upon us, to seek the Peace and prosperity of the whole visible Church of Christ on Earth, and therein as we have Opportunity to do good unto the whole houshold of Faith. And considering what Differences, what Divisions, what Exasperations there are among Professors of the Name of Christ all the World over, to abide stedfast in seeking the Good of them all, and doing Good unto them, as wee have opportunity, is as evident an indication of Gospel Love, as any thing else whatever can be.

(3.) As unto particular Churches, there is an especial Obligation upon us, to preserve their Peace and Unity from our own voluntary consent, to walk in them in Obedience unto the Commands of Christ. Where this is not, we are left unto the general Obligation of seeking the Peace of all men, and of the whole professing Church in an especial manner, but have no other peculiar obligation thereunto. For being cast into Churches of this or that form, meerly by humane Constitutions and Laws, or by inveterate Traditions, lays no new obligation upon any to seek their Peace and Unity; but whilst they abide in them, they are left unto the influence of other general Commands which are to be applied unto their present circumstances. For into what state or condition soever Christians are cast, they are obliged to live peaceably whilst they abide in it.

2. It may be enquired what is that Peace and Ʋnity of the Church, that we are bound to preserve. There may be an Agreement, with some kind of Peace and Unity in Evil. They are highly pretended unto in the Church of Rome, but they are so in Idolatry, Superstition and Heresie. There may be Peace and Unity, in any false p. 326and heretical Church; the Unity of Simeon and Levi, Brethren in Evil. But the Peace and Unity which we are obliged to observe in particular Churches, is the Consent and Agreement of the Church in general and all the Members of it, walking under the conduct of this Guide in a due observation of all the Institutions and Commands of Christ, performing towards the whole and each other, the mutual Duties required by him, from a Principle of Faith and Love. This, and this alone, is that Ʋnity and Peace, which we are peculiarly obliged to preserve in particular Churches, what is more then this, relates unto the general Commands of Love, Unity and Peace before mentioned.

3. Wherefore 3dly, This states the means whereby we are to preserve this Peace and Unity; for we are not to endeavour it,

(1.) By a Neglect or Omission of the observance of any of the Commands of Christ. Nor,

(2.) By doing or practising any thing in divine Worship which he hath not appointed. Nor,

(3.) By partaking in other mens sins, through a neglect of our own duty. Nor,

(4.) By foregoing the means of our own Edification which he Commands us to make use of. For these things have no Tendency to the Preservation of that Peace, and his third supposition, is, That nothing can discharge a Christian from the Obligation to Communion, with his fellow members, but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles, as a sufficient Reason of it. It is fully agreed unto, where a man is a member of any Church of Divine Institution by his own Consent, and virtual consideration, nothing can discharge him, from Communion with that Church, p. 327but what is allowed by Christ as a sufficient Reason for it.

But a little farther Enquiry may be made into these things; It was before asserted that all things lawful were to be done for the Preservation of the Peace of the Church. Here it is pleaded that there are many Obligations on us, to preserve its Peace and Ʋnity. I desire to know, unto whom these Rules are Obligatory? who they are that ought to yeild Obedience unto them? If it be said, that these Rules are not prescribed unto the Rulers and Guides of the Church, but unto them only who are under their Conduct, I desire a proof of it, for at the first veiw it is very absurd. For as the preservation of the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church, is properly incumbent on them who are the Rulers of it, and it is continually pleaded by them that so it doth, so all the Rules given for that End, do or should principally and in the first place, affect them, and their Consciences. And these are the Rules of their Duty herein which are laid down by the Dr. I desire therefore to know, that since there are such obligations on us to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church, that for that End we must do what we lawfully may; whether the same Rule doth not oblige us to forbear the doing of what we may lawfully forbear, with respect unto the same End. Nay this Obligation of forbearing what we may do, and yet may forbear to do without sin, for the Peace and Unity of the Church, especially when any would be offended with our doing that which we may lawfully forbear to do, is exemplified in the Scripture, confirmed by Commands and Instances, is more highly rational, and less exposed unto danger in Practise, than the other of doing what we can.

p. 328Now things that are not necessary in themselves, nor necessary to be observed by a just Scandal and Offence in case of their omission, are things that may be Lawfully forborn. Suppose now the Rules insisted on to be given principally and in the first place unto the Rulers of the Church; I desire to know whether they are not obliged by them, for the preservation of the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church, to forbear the imposition of such things on the practise of the whole Church in the Worship of God, as being no way necessary in themselves, nor such whose omission or the omission of whose Imposition, can give Scandal or Offence unto any; if they are obliged by them so to do, it will be evident where the blame of the Division amongst us must Lye. To say they are not obliged hereunto by vertue of these Rules, is to say, that although the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church be incumbent on them in a particular manner, and the chief of them can assign no other End of the office they lay Claim unto, but only its expediency, or as is pretended, its necessity unto the preservation of the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church; Yet they are not by vertue of any Divine Rules obliged thereunto. But it seemes to me somewhat unequal, that in this Contest about the preservation of the Peace of the Church, we should be bound by Rules to do all that we can, whatever it be, and those who differ from us, be left absolutely at their liberty, so as not to be obliged to forbear, what they may lawfully so do. But to proceed.

Upon these suppositions and in the Confirmation of them, the Dr. produceth a passage out of Irenaeus, whose impartial Consideration he chargeth on us with great Solemnity, p. 329as we Love our own Souls. Now although that passage in that great and Holy Person, be not new unto me, having not only read it many a time in his book, but frequently met with it urged by Papists against all Protestants. Yet upon the Drs. intimation, I have given it again the Consideration required; The Words as they Lye in the Author are to this purpose.

We shall also judge them, who make Schismes being vain (qui sunt immanes, or inanes) not having the Love of God, rather considering their own Profit, than the Ʋnity of the Church; who for small or any causes, rend and divide the Glorious body of Christ, and as much as in them lyes destroy it; speaking Peace but designing War, straining at a Gnat, and swallowing a Camel. For there can be no rebuke of things by them, to equal the mischief of Schisme. Lib. 4. cap. 62.

I know not why he should give us such a severe Charge for the impartial Consideration of these words; that as we love our souls; we should impartially and without prejudice consider them? We hope that out of Love to the Truth, the Glory of Christ, and Care of our own Souls, we do so Consider, and have long since so considered, whatever belongs unto the Cause wherein we ingaged, and the Oppositions that are made unto it. Nor will we be offended with any, that shall yet Call on us to persist and proceed in the same way. But why such a Charge should be laid on us with respect unto these words of Irenaeus, I know not. For although we greatly value the Words and Judgment of that Holy Person, that great Defender of the Mystery and Truth of the Gospel, and of the Liberty of the Churches from unwarrantable impositions, yet it is the Word of Christ and p. 330his Apostles alone, whereby we must be regulated and determined in these things, if we Love our own souls.

Besides! What are we Concern'd in them; is every Separation from a Church a Schisme? Our Author shews the contrary immediately; Is refraining Communion in a Church state not of Divine Institution, and in things not prescribed by the Lord Christ in the Worship of God, holding Communion in Faith and Love with all the true Churches of Christ in the World, a damnable Schisme, or any Schisme at all? hath the Reverend Author in his whole Book once attempted to prove it to be so, though this be the whole of the matter in difference between us? is our Forbearance of Communion in Parochial Assemblies upon the Reasons before pleaded, especially that of humane impositions, of the same Nature with the Schisme from the whole Catholick Church, without pretence of any such Impositions? Doth he judge us to be such as have no Love unto God? such as prefer our own profit before the Unity of the Church? I heartily wish and pray, that he may never have a share in that profit and advantage which we have made unto our selves by our principles and practise. Poverty, Distress. Ruine to our Families, Dangers, Imprisonments, Revilings with Contemptuous reproaches, Comprize the profit we have made unto our selves. Is our refraining Communion in some outward Order, Modes and Rites of Mens institution, our want of conscientious submission unto the Courts of Chancellours, Commissaries, Officials, &c. a rending and destroying of the glorious Body of Christ? is it Cemented, United, and Compacted or fitly framed together by these things? They formerly pretended to be his Coat, and must they now be esteemed to be his glorious Body, when they no way belong unto the one p. 331or the other. Is the Application of these things unto us, an effect of that Love, Charity and Forbearance which are the only preventive means of Schisme, and whereof if men are void, it is all one upon the matter whether they are Schismaticks or no, for they will be so when it is for their Advantage. Wherefore we are not concerned in these things. Let whosoever will declare and vehemently assert us to be guilty of Schisme, which they cannot prove, we can cheerfully subscribe unto these Words of Irenaeus.

It may not be impertinent on this occasion to desire of some others, that as they Love their own Souls, and have compassion for the Souls of other men; they would seriously consider, what state and Condition things are come unto in the Church of England; how much Ignorance, Profaneness, Sensuality, do spread themselves over the Nation; what Neglect of the most important Duties of the Gospel? Yea what scoffing at the power of Religion doth abound amongst us? What an utter decay and loss there is of all the primitive Discipline of the Church, what Multitudes are in the way of Eternal Ruin, for want of due Instruction and Example from them who should lead them; How great a necessity there is of an universal Reformation, and how securely Negligent of it, all sorts of Persons are? What have been the pernicious Effects of imposing things unnecessary and unscriptural on the Consciences and Practises of men in the Worship of God, whereby the Church hath been deprived of the labour of so many faithful Ministers, who might have at least assisted in preventing that Decay of Religion which every day encreaseth among us; How easie a thing it were for them, to restore Evangelical p. 332Peace and Ʋnity amongst all Protestants, without the loss of their Ministry, without the diminution of their Dignity, without deprivation of any part of their Revenues, without the Neglect of any Duty, without doing any thing against their light and Consciences, with respect unto any Divine Obligation; and thereon set themselves seriously to endeavour the Remedy of these and other Evils of the like nature, under a sense of that great Account which they must shortly give before the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ.

He proceeds to Consider the Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation, which he affirms to be three.

The First is in Case of Idolatrous Worship. This none can Question, they do not see, from whom yet we all separate as from Idolaters.

The second is in Case of false Dostrine being imposed instead of true; which he confirms with sundry Instances. But there is a little Difficulty in this Case, for,

(1.) It is uncertain when a Doctrine may be said to be imposed. Is it when it is taught and preach'd by the Guides and Governours of the Church, or any of them without controul? if so, then is such preaching a sufficient cause of Separation, and will justifie them who do at present separate from any Church, whose Ministers preach false Doctrine. How false Doctrine can be otherwise imposed I know not, unless it be, by exacting an express Confession of it as Truth.

(2.) What false Doctrine it is, which is of this Importance, as to justifie Separation, is not easily determinable.

(3.) If the Guides and Governours of the Church do p. 333teach this false Doctrine, who shall judge of it, and determine it so to be, and that ultimately, so as to separate from a Church thereon, shall the People do it themselves? are they meet? are they Competent for it? are they to make such a Judgement on the Doctrine of their Guides; do they know what is heresie; have they read Epiphanius or Binius? How comes this allowance to be made unto them, which else where is denied?

The Third is; in Case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church on that account. But,

(1.) I know not which is to precede or go before, their Division of the Church, or the just Separation, nor how they are to be distinguished; but it was necessary to be so expressed.

(2.) There are two things in such an Imposition, first the practise of the things imposed, Secondly the Judgement of them that impose them. The former alone belongs unto them who are imposed on; and they may submit unto it, without a Compliance with the Doctrine, as many did in the Apostles days. For the Judgement of the imposers, it was their own Errour and concernment only,

(3.) Why is not the imposing of things indifferent, so as to make the observation of them necessary unto mens Temporal Salvation in this World, so as that the Refusal of it, shall really affect the Refusers with Trouble and Ruine, as just a Cause of Separation, as the imposing of them as necessary unto Eternal Salvation, which shall never affect them.

(4.) This making things indifferent necessary unto Salvation, and as such imposing of them on others, is a thing impossible, that never was, nor ever can be. For it is the Judgment of the Imposers that is spoken of, and p. 334to judge things indifferent in themselves, to be in themselves necessary to Salvation, is a Contradiction. If onelyonly the Judgment of the Imposers that such things are not indifferent, but necessary to Salvation, be intended, and otherwise the things themselves may lawfully be imposed, I know not how this differs from the Imposition of indifferent things, under any other pretence.

In his following Discourse concerning miscarriages in Churches, where no Separation is enjoyned, we are not at all concerned, and therefore shall not observe the mistakes in it, which are not a few.

But may there not be other Causes of peaceable withdrawing from the Communion of a Church, besides these here enumerated?

(1.) Suppose a Church should impose the Observation of Judaical Ceremonies and make their observation necessary, though not to Salvation, Yet unto the Order and Decency of Divine Worship. It may declare them to be in themselves indifferent; but yet make them necessary to be observed. Or

(2.) Suppose a Church should be so degenerated in the Life and Conversation of all its Members, that being immersed in various sins, they should have only a form of Godliness, but deny the power of it? the Rule of the Apostle being to avoid and turn away from them.

(3.) Suppose a Church be fallen into such decayes, in Faith, Love, and fruits of Charity, as that the Lord Jesus Christ by his word, declares his Disapprobation of it, and in that State refuses to reform itself, and persecutes them who would reform themselves; Or

(4.) Suppose the Ministry of any Church, be such as p. 335is insufficient and unable to dispense the Word and Sacraments unto Edification, so as that the whole Church may perish as unto any Relief by or from the Administration of the Ordinances of the Gospel? I say in these and such other Cases, a peaceable withdrawing from the Communion of such Churches, is warrantable by the Rule of the Scripture.