Chapter 8. The Church of England and Separation Considered

Of the Church of England. The charge of schisme in the name thereof. Proposed and considered: several considerations of the Church of England. In what sense we were members of it. Of Anabaptisme. The subjection due to Bishops. Their power examined. Its original in this Nation. Of the ministerial power of Bishops. Its present continuance. Of the Church of England what it is. Its description. Form peculiar and constitutive. Answer to the charge of schisme, on separation from it, in its Episcopal constitution. How and by what means it was taken away. Things necessary to the constitution of such a Church proposed: and offered to proof. The second way of constituting a national Church: considered. Principles agreed on and consented to between the parties at variance, on this account. Judgement of Amiraldus in this case. Inferences from the common principles before consented to: the case of schisme in reference to a national Church in the last sense, debated. Of particular Churches, and separation from them. On what accounts justifiable. No necessity of joining to this or that. Separation from some so called, required. Of the Church of Corinth. The duty of its members. Austin's judgement of the practice of Elijah. The last objection waved. Inferences upon the whole.

That which first presents itself, is a plea against us, in the name of the Church of England, and those intrusted with the regiment thereof, as it was settled and established some years since, the sum whereof (if I mistake not) amounts to thus much.

You were sometimes members and children of the Church of England, and lived in the communion thereof; professing obedience thereunto, according to its rules and canons; you were in an orderly subjection to the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and those acting under them in the hierarchy, who were officers of that Church; in that Church you were baptized, and joined in the outward worship celebrated therein; but you have now voluntarily, and of your own accord forsaken and renounced the communion of this Church, cast off your subjection to the Bishops and rulers; rejected the form of worship appointed in that Church, that great bond of its communion; and set up separated Churches of your own, according to your pleasures, and so are properly schismatics.

This I say, if I mistake not, is the sum of the charge against us, on the account of our late attempt for reformation, and reducing of the Church of Christ to its primitive institution, which we profess our aim in singleness of heart to have been, and leave the judgement of it to God.

To acquit ourselves of this imputation, I shall declare

1. How far we own ourselves to have been, or to be members or children (as they speak) of the Church of England, as it is called, or esteemed.

2. What was the subjection wherein we, or any of us stood, or might be supposed to have stood to the Prelates or Bishops of that Church. And then I shall

3. Put the whole to the issue, and inquiry, whether we have broken any bond or order, which by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ, we ought to have preserved entire, and unviolated: not doubting but that on the whole matter in difference, we shall find the charge managed against us, to be resolved wholly into the prudence, and interest of some men, wherein our consciences are not concerned.

As to the first proposal; the several considerations that the Church of England may fall under, will make way for the determination of our relation thereunto.

1. There being in this country of England, much people of God, many of his elect called and sanctified, by and through the Spirit and blood of Christ, with the washing of water and the Word, so made true living members of the mystical body, or Catholic Church of Christ, holding him, as a spiritual head, receiving influences of life and grace from him continually, they may be called, (though improperly) the Church of England, that is, that part of Christ's Catholic Church militant, which lives in England. In this sense it is the desire of our souls, to be found and to abide members of the Church of England, to keep with it, while we live in this world, the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Jerusalem which is above, is the mother of us all; and one is our Father, which is in Heaven; one is our head, sovereign, Lord, and ruler, the dearly beloved of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ. If we have grieved, offended, troubled the least member of this Church, so that he may justly take offence at any of our ways, we profess our readiness to lie at his or their feet for reconciliation, according to the mind of Christ. If we bear not love to all the members of the Church of England in this sense, without dissimulation, (yes even to them among them, who through mistakes and darkness, have on several accounts designed our harm and ruin) if we rejoice not with them, and suffer not with them, however they may be differenced in and by their opinions, or walkings, if we desire not their good, as the good of our own souls, and are not ready to hold any communion with them, wherein their and our light will give and afford to us peace mutually, if we judge, condemn, despise any of them, as to their persons, spiritual state and condition, because they walk not with us, let us be esteemed the vilest schismatics, that ever lived on the face of the earth. But as to our membership in the Church of England on this account, we stand or fall to our own master.

The rulers, governors, teachers, and body of the people of this nation of England, having by laws, professions, and public protestations, cast off the tyranny, authority, and doctrine of the Church of Rome, with its head the Pope; and jointly assented to, and publicly professed the doctrine of the Gospel, as expressed in their public confession, variously attested and confirmed, declaring their profession by that public confession, preaching, laws and writings suitable thereunto, may also be called on good account, the Church of England. In this sense, we profess ourselves members of the Church of England, as professing and adhering to that doctrine of faith in the unity of it, which was here established and declared, as was before spoken. As to the attempt of some, who accuse us for everting of fundamentals, by our doctrine of election by the free grace of God, of effectual redemption of the elect only, conversion by the irresistible efficacy of grace, and the associate doctrines, which are commonly known, we suppose the more sober part of our adversaries will give them little thanks for their pains therein: if for no other reason, yet at least, because they know the cause, they have to manage against us, is weakened thereby. Indeed it seems strange to us, that we should be charged with schism from the Church of England, for endeavoring to reform ourselves, as to something relating to the worship of God, by men everting, and denying so considerable a portion of the doctrine of that Church, which we sacredly retain entire, as the most urgent of our present adversaries do. In this sense I say we still confess ourselves members of the Church of England; nor have we made any separation from it, but do daily labor to improve, and carry on the light of the Gospel, which shines therein, and on the account whereof, it is renowned in the world.

Though I know not how proper that expression of children of the Church may be under the New Testament, nor can by any means consent to it, to the urging of any obedience to any Church or churches whatever on that account; no such use being made of that consideration by the Holy Ghost, nor any parallel to it insisted on by him; yet in a general sense, so far as our receiving our regeneration, and new birth, through the grace of God by the preaching of the Word, and the saving truths thereof, here professed, with the seal of it in our baptism, may be signified by that expression, we own ourselves to have been, and to be children of the Church of England, because we have received all this by the administration of the Gospel here in England, as dispensed in the several assemblies therein: and are contented, that this concession be improved to the utmost.

Here indeed are we left by them, who renounce the baptism they have received in their infancy, and repeat it again among themselves. Yet I suppose, that he, who upon that single account will undertake to prove them schismatical, may find himself entangled. Nor is the case with them exactly as it was with the Donatists. They do the same thing with them, but not on the same principles. The Donatists rebaptized those, who came to their societies, because they professed themselves to believe, that all administration of ordinances not in their assemblies was null: and that they were to be looked on as no such thing. Our Anabaptists do the same thing, but on this plea, that though baptism be, yet infant baptism is not an institution of Christ, and so is null from the nature of the thing itself, not the way of its administration: but this falls not within the verge of my defence.

In these several considerations we were, and do continue members in the Church of God in England; and as to our failing herein, who is it, that convinces us of sin?

The second thing inquired after is, what subjection we stood, or were supposed to have stood in, to the bishops. Our subjection being regulated by their power, the consideration of this, discovers the true state of that.

They had, and exercised in this nation, a twofold power; and consequently the subjection required of us, was twofold.

A power delegated from the supreme magistrate of the nation, conferred on them, and invested in them, by the laws, customs, and usages of this Commonwealth, and exercised by them on that account. This not only made them barons of the realm, and members of Parliament, and gave them many dignities and privileges, but also was the sole fountain, and spring of that jurisdiction, which they exercised by ways and means, such as themselves will not plead to have been purely ecclesiastical, and of the institution of Jesus Christ. In this respect we did not cast off our subjection to them; it being our duty to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake. Only whenever they commanded things unlawful in themselves, or to us, we always retreated to the old safe rule, whether it be meet to obey you or God, judge you. On this foundation I say, was all the jurisdiction, which they exercised among, and over the people of this nation, built. They had not leave to exercise that, which they were invested in, on another account, but received formally their authority thereby. The tenor whereby their predecessors held this power before the Reformation, the change of the tenor by the laws of this land, the investiture of the whole original right thereof in another person, then formerly, by the same means, the legal concession and delegation to them made, the enlarging or contracting of their jurisdiction by the same laws, the civil process of their courts in the exercise of their authority, sufficiently evince from where they had it. Nor was anything herein any more of the institution of Jesus Christ, than the courts are in Westminster Hall. Sir Edward Cook, who knew the laws of his country, and was skilled in them to a miracle, will satisfy any in the rise and tenor of episcopal jurisdiction: De Jure Regis Eccles. What there is of primitive institution, giving color and occasion to this kind of jurisdiction, and the exercise of it, shall farther (God assisting) be declared, when I treat of the state of the first churches, and the ways of their degeneracy. Let them, or any for them, in the mean time evince the jurisdiction they exercised, in respect whereunto our subjection in the first kind was required, to derive its original from the pure institution of Christ in the Gospel, or to be any such thing as it was, in an imagined separation from the human laws, whereby it was animated; and more will be asserted, than I have had the happiness as yet to see. Now I say, that the subjection to them due, on this account, we did not cast off; but their whole authority, power, and jurisdiction was removed, taken away, and annulled, by the people of the land assembled in Parliament.

But this, they reply, is the state of the business in hand; the Parliament, as much as in them lay, did so indeed as is confessed, and by so doing made the schism, which you by adhering to them, and joining with them in their several places, have made yourselves also guilty of.

But do these men know what they say, or will it ever trouble the conscience of a man in his right wits, to be charged with schism on this account? The Parliament made alteration of nothing, but what they found established by the laws of this nation, pleading that they had power committed to them, to alter, abrogate, and annul laws for the good of the people of the land. If their making alterations in the civil laws and constitutions, in the political administrations of the nation be schism, we have very little security, but that we may be made new schismatics every third year, while the constitution of a triennial Parliament does continue. In the removal then of all episcopal jurisdiction founded in the laws and usages of this nation, we are not at all concerned. For the laws enforcing it, do not press it as a thing necessary on any other account, but as that which themselves gave rise and life to. But should this be granted, that the office was appointed by Christ, and the jurisdiction impleaded annexed by him thereunto; yet this, while we abide at diocesans, with the several divisions apportioned to them in the nation, will not suffice to constitute a national church, unless some union of those diocesans, or of the churches whereunto they related, into one society and church, by the same appointment, be proved, which to my present apprehension, will be no easy work for any one to undertake.

Bishops had here a power as ministers of the Gospel, to preach, administer the sacraments, to join in the ordination of ministers, and the like duties of church officers. To this we say, let the individuals of them acquit themselves, by the qualifications mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, with a sedulous exercise of their duty in a due manner, according to the mind of Christ to be such indeed, and we will still pay them all the respects, reverence, duty, and obedience, which as such, by virtue of any law or institution of Christ, they can claim. Let them come forth, with weapons that are not carnal, evidencing their ministry to the consciences of believers, acting in a spirit and power received from Christ, and who are they that will harm them?

I had once formerly said thus much. Let the Bishops attend the particular flocks over which they are appointed, preaching the word, administering the holy ordinances of the Gospel in and to their own flock, there will not be contending about them. It was thought meet to return by one concerned, I shall willingly grant herein my suffrage, let them discharge them (and I beseech all, who have any way hindered them, at length to let and quietly permit them) on condition he will do this as carefully as I, I shall not contend with him concerning the nature of their task, be it as he says the attending to the particular churches over which they are appointed (the Bishop of Oxford over that flock or portion, to which he was, and is appointed, and so all others in like manner) be it their preaching and their administering the holy ordinances of the Gospel in and to their own flock and whatever else of duty and ratione officii belongs to a rightly constituted Bishop; and let all that have disturbed this course so duly settled in this church, and in all churches of Christ since the Apostles planting them, discern their error, and return to that peace and unity of the church, from where they have causelessly and inexcusably departed.

Though I was not then speaking of the Bishops of England, yet I am contented with the application to them; there being among them men of piety and learning, whom I exceedingly honor & reverence. Among all the Bishops, he of Oxford is I suppose peculiarly instanced in, because it may be thought, that living in this place, I may belong to his jurisdiction. But in the condition wherein I now am by the providence of God, I can plead an exemption on the same foot of account, as he can his jurisdiction. So that I am not much concerned in his exercise of it, as to my own person. If he have a particular flock at Oxon, which he will attend according to what before I required, he shall have no let or hindrance from me; but being he is, as I hear he is, a reverend and learned person, I shall be glad of his neighbourhood & acquaintance. But to suppose that the diocese of Oxon as legally constituted and bounded, is his particular flock or Church, that such a Church is instituted by Christ, or has been in being ever since the Apostles times, that in his presidency in this Church he is to set up courts, and exercise a jurisdiction in them, and therewith a power over all the inhabitants of this diocese or shire (excepting the exempt peculiar jurisdiction) although gathered into particular congregations, and united by a participation of the same ordinances; and all this by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, is to suppose what will not be granted. I confess, as before, there was once such an order in this place, & that it is now removed by laws, on which foundation alone it stood before: and this is that wherein I am not concerned. Whether we have causelessly & inexcusably departed from the unity of the Church, is the matter now in inquiry. I am sure, unless the unity can be fixed, our departure will not be proved. A legal unity I confess, an evangelical I am yet in the disquisition of. But I confess it will be to the prejudice of the cause in hand, if it shall be thought, that the determination of it depends on the controversy about Episcopacy: for if so, it might be righteously expected that the arguments produced in the behalf, and defense thereof, should be particularly discussed. But the truth is, I shall easily acknowledge all my labor to no purpose, if I have to deal only with men, who suppose that if it be granted, that Bishops, as commonly esteemed in this nation, are of the appointment of Christ, it will from there follow, that we have a national Church of Christ's appointment: between which indeed there is no relation or connection. Should I grant as I said diocesan Bishops, with Churches answerable to their supportment, parceled into several congregations, with their inferior officers, yet this would be remote enough, from giving subsistence and union to a national Church.

What then it is which is called the Church of England, in respect whereof we are charged with schism, is nextly to be considered.

Now there are two ways whereby we may come to the discovery of what is intended by the Church of England: or there are two ways, whereby such a thing does arise.

1. *Descendendo*, which is the way of the Prelates.

2. *Ascendendo*, which is the way of the Presbyterians.

For the first, to constitute a national Church by descent; it must be supposed that all Church power is vested in national officers, namely, Arch-Bishops, and from them derived to several diocesans by a distribution of power limited in its exercise to a certain portion of the nation, and by them communicated by several engines to parochial priests in their several places. A man with half an eye may see that here are many things to be proved.

Thus their first Church is national, which is distributed into several greater portions termed provinces, those again into others, now called dioceses, and those again subdivided into parochial or particular congregations. Now the union of this Church consists in the due observance of the same worship specifically by all the members of it, and subjection according to rules of their own appointment (which were called commonly canons) by way of distinction to the rulers before mentioned in their several capacities. And this is that which is the peculiar form of this Church. That of the Church Catholic absolutely so called is its unity with Christ, and in itself by the one Spirit, whereby it is animated. That of the Church Catholic visibly professing, the unity of the faith, which they do profess, as being by them professed. That of a particular Church as such, its observance, and performance of the same ordinances of worship numerically, in the confession of the same faith, and subjection to the same rules of love for edification of the whole. Of this national, as it is called, in the subjection of one sort of officers to another, within a precinct limited originally, wholly on an account foreign to any Church state whatever. So that it is not called the Church of England, from its participation of the nature of the Catholic Church, on the account of its most noble members; nor yet from its participation of the nature of the invisible Church in the world, on the account of its profession of the truth; in both which respects we profess our unity with it; nor yet from its participation of the nature of a particular Church, which it did not in itself, nor as such, but in some of its particular congregations; but from a peculiar form of its own, as above described, which is to be proved to be of the institution of Jesus Christ.

In this description given of their Church state, with whom we have now to do; I have purposely avoided the mention of things odious & exposed to common obloquy which yet were the very [illegible] & ligaments of their order, because the thing, as it is in itself being nakedly represented, we may not be prejudiced, in judging of the strength and utmost of the charge, that lies against any of us, on the account of a departure from it.

The communion of this Church they say we have forsaken, and broken its unity, and therefore are schismatics.

I answer in a word, laying aside so much of the jurisdiction of it mentioned before, and the several ways of its administration, for which there is no color or pretence that it should relate to any Gospel institution; pass by also the consideration of all those things which the men, enjoying authority in, or exercising the pretended power of this Church, did use all their authority and power to enjoin and establish, which we judge evil; let them prove that such a national Church, as would remain with these things pared off, that is in its best estate imaginable, was ever instituted by Christ, or the Apostles in his name in all the things of absolute necessity to its being and existence, and I will confess myself to be what they please to say of me.

That there was such an order in things relating to the worship of God established by the law of the land, in and over the people thereof, that the worship pleaded for was confirmed by the same law, that the rulers mentioned had power, being by the magistrate assembled to make rules and canons to become binding to the good people of the commonwealth, when confirmed by the supreme authority of the nation, and not else; that penalties were appointed to the disturbers of this order by the same law, I grant. But that any thing of all this, as such, that is, as a part of this whole, or the whole itself, was instituted by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, that is denied. Let not any one think, that because we deny the constitution pleaded about, to have had the stamp of the authority of Jesus Christ that therefore we pulled it down and destroyed it by violence. It was set up before we were born, by them who had power to make laws to bind the people of this nation, and we found men in an orderly legal possession of that power, which exerting itself several ways, maintained and preserved that constitution, which we had no call to eradicate. Only whereas they took upon them to act in the name of Christ also, and to interpose their orders, and authority in the things of the worship of God, we entreated them, that we might pass our pilgrimage quietly in our native country (as Israel would have gone through the land of Edom, without the disturbance of its inhabitants) and worship God according to the light which he had graciously imparted to us, but they would not hearken. But herein also was it our duty to keep the word of Christ's patience. Their removal, and the dissolution of this national Church, arose, and was carried on, as has been declared, by other hands, on other accounts.

Now it is not to any purpose, to plead the authority of the Church, for many of the institutions mentioned: for neither has any Church power, or can have, to institute and appoint the things, whereby it is made to be so; as these things are the very form of the Church, that we plead about; nor has any Church any authority, but what is answerable to its nature: if itself be of a civil prudential constitution, its authority also is civil and no more. Denying their Church in that form of it, which makes it such, to be of the institution of Christ; it cannot be expected that we should grant, that it is, as such, invested with any authority from Christ, so that the dissolution of the unity of this Church, as it had its rise on such an account, proceeded from an alteration of the human constitution, whereon it was built; and how that was done, was before declared. Then let them prove,

1. That ordinary officers are before the Church, and that in Ecclesia instituta, as well as instituendâ, which must be the foundation of their work: (we confess extraordinary officers were before the Church, not considering the way of men's coming to be joined in such societies; was it possible it should be otherwise? but as for ordinary officers, they were an exurgency from a Church, and serve to the completion of it (Acts 14:23, 24; Titus 1:5).)

2. That Christ has appointed any national officers, with a plenitude of ordinary power, to be imparted, communicated, and distributed to other recipient subjects, in several degrees within one nation, and not elsewhere. I mean such an officer or officers, who in the first instance of their power, should on their own single account relate to a whole nation.

3. That he has instituted any national Church, as the proper correlatum of such an officer; concerning which also I desire to be informed, whether a catalogue of those he has so instituted, be to be obtained; or their number be left indefinite? Whether they have limits and bounds prescribed to them by him, or are left to be commensurate to the civil dominion of any potentate, and so to enjoy, or suffer the providential enlargements or straits, that such dominions are continually subject to? Whether we had seven Churches here in England, during the Heptarchy of the Saxons, and one in Wales or but one in the whole? If seven, how they came to be one? If but one, why those of England, Scotland, and Ireland, were not one also; especially since they have been under one civil magistrate? Or whether the difference of the civil laws of these nations be not the only cause, that these are three Churches? And if so, whether from there any may not discern whereon the unity of the Church of England does depend?

Briefly, when they have proved Metropolitan, Diocesan Bishops in a firstness of power, by the Institution of Christ, a national Church by the same institution in the sense pleaded for; a firstness of power in the National Officers of that National Church to impose a form of worship upon all being within that Nation by the same institution, which should contain the bond of the Union of that Church; also that every man, who is born, and in his infancy baptized in that Nation, is a member of that National Church by the same institution, and shall have distinguished clearly in and about their Administrations, and have told us that they counted to be of Ecclesiastical power, and what they grant to be a mere emanation of the civil Government of the Nation, we will then treat with them about the business of Schism. Until then, if they tell us, that we have forsaken the Church of England in the sense pleaded for by them; I must answer, that which is wanting cannot be numbered. It is no crime to depart from nothing; we have not left to be that, which we never were; which may suffice both us and them, as to our several respective concernments of conscience and power. It has been from the darkness of men, and ignorance of the Scriptures, that some have taken advantage to set up a product of the prudence of nations, in the name of Jesus Christ, and on that account to require the acceptance of it. When the Tabernacle of God is again well fixed among men, these shadows will fly away: in the mean time we owe all these disputes, with innumerable other evils, to the Apostacy of the Roman Combination, from which we are far as yet from being clearly delivered.

I have one thing more to add upon the whole matter, and I shall proceed to what is lastly to be considered.

The Church of England as it is called, (that is, the people thereof) separated herself from the Church of Rome. To free herself from the imputation of Schism, in so doing, as she (that is, the learned men of the Nation) pleaded the errors and corruptions of that Church, under this especial consideration of their being imposed by Tyranny; so also by professing her design to be nothing, but to reduce religion, and the worship of God, to its original purity, from which it was fallen. And we all jointly justify both her and all other reformed Churches in this plea.

In her design to reduce religion to its primitive purity, she always professed, that she did not take her direction from the Scripture only, but also from the Councils and examples of the four or five first Centuries, to which she labored to conform her Reformation. Let the question now be, whether there be not corruptions in this Church of England, supposing such a national state to be instituted. What I beseech you shall bind my conscience to acquiesce in what is pleaded from the 4 or 5 first Centuries consisting of men, that could, and did err; more than that did hers, which was pleaded from the 9 or 10 Centuries following? Have not I liberty to call for Reformation according to the Scripture only? Or at least to profess that my conscience cannot be bound to any other? The sum is, the business of Schism from the Church of England, is as a thing built purely and simply on political considerations so interwoven with them, so influenced from them, as not to be separated. The famous advice of Maecenas to Augustus mentioned in Dio Cassius, is the best authority I know against it.

Before we part with this consideration; I must needs prevent one mistake, which perhaps in the mind of some may arise upon the preceding discourse: for whereas sundry Ordinances of the worship of God are rightly to be administered only in a Church and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto, the denying of a National Church state seems to deny that we had either Ministers or Ordinances here in England. The truth is, it seems so to do, but it does not; unless you will say, that unless she be a National Church state, there is no other; which is too absurd for any one to imagine. It follows indeed, that there were no National Church Officers, that there were no Ordinances numerically the same to be administered in and to the Nation at once, but that there was not another Church state in England, and on the account thereof, Ordinances truly administered by lawful Ministers it does not follow. And now if by this discourse I only call this business to a review, by them who are concerned to assert this National Church I am satisfied. That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ, they have hitherto maintained against the Romanists, on the account of the doctrine taught in it, and the successive ordination of its officers, through the Church of Rome itself, from the primitive times. About the constitution and nature of a national Church, they have had with them no contention. Therein the parties at variance were agreed. The same grounds and principles, improved with a defence of the external worship and ceremonies established on the authority of the Church they managed against the non-conformists, and separatists at home. But their chief strength against them, lay in arguments more forcible, which need not be repeated. The constitution of the Church now impleaded, deserves as I said the review: hitherto it has been unfurnished of any considerable defensative.

2. There is another way of constituting a national Church, which is insisted on by some of our brethren of the Presbyterian way. This is, that such a thing should arise from the particular Congregations, that are in the Nation united by sundry Associations and subordinations of Assemblies in and by the representatives of those Churches. So that though there cannot be an Assembly of all the members of those Churches in one place, for the performance of any worship of God; nor is there any Ordinance appointed by Christ to be so celebrated in any Assembly of them, (which we suppose necessary to the constitution of a particular Church) yet there may be an Assembly of the representatives of them all by several elevations for some end and purpose.

In this sense, a Church may be called national, when all the particular congregations of one nation, living under one civil government, agreeing in doctrine and worship, are governed by their greater and lesser assemblies (Jus Divinum Minist. Anglic. p. 12); but I would be loath to exclude every man from being a member of the Church in England, that is, from a share in the profession of the faith, which is owned and professed by the people of God in England, who is not a member of a particular congregation. Nor does subjection to our civil government and agreement on the same doctrine and worship specifically either jointly or severally constitute one church, as is known even in the judgement of these brethren. It is the last expression of lesser and greater assemblies that must do it; but as to any such institution of Christ, as a standing ordinance, sufficient to give unity yes or denomination to a Church, this is the [illegible]. And yet this alone is to be insisted on. For as was showed before, the other things mentioned contribute nothing to the form, nor union of such a Church.

It is pleaded, that there are prophecies and promises of a national Church, that should be under the New Testament, as (Psalms 32:10, 11, 12; Isaiah 2:2; Isaiah 10:18, 19, 24, 25). That it is foretold and promised that many whole nations shall be converted to the faith of the Gospel, and thereby become the people of God, who before were no people, is granted; but that their way of worship shall be by national churches governed by lesser and greater assemblies does not appear. And when the Jews shall be converted, they shall be a national Church, as England is; but their way of worship shall be regulated according to the institution of Christ in the Gospel. And therefore the publishers of the life of Doctor Gouge have expressed his judgement found in a paper in his study, that the Jews on their calling shall be gathered together into churches, and not be scattered, as now they are. A nation may be said to be converted, from the professed subjection to the Gospel of so many in it, as may give demonstration to the whole; but the way of worship for those so converted, is peculiarly instituted. It is said moreover, that the several congregations in one city, are called a Church, as in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1; Acts 12:1, 3; Acts 15:14, 22); so also may all the churches in a nation be called a national Church. But this is [illegible]; nor is that allowed to be made a medium in another case, which at the same time is sub judice in its own. The like also may be said of the Church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17; Revelation 2:1). Nor is it about a mere denomination that we contend; but the union and form of such a church: and if more churches than one were together called a Church, it is from their participation of the nature of the general visible Church, not of that which is particular, and the seat of ordinances. So where Paul is said to persecute the Church of God (Galatians 1:13), it is spoken of the professors of the faith of Christ in general, and not to be restrained to the churches of Judaea of whom he speaks (v. 22, 23), seeing his rage actually reached to Damascus a city of another nation (Acts 22:5, 6), and his design was [illegible]. That by the Church mentioned (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Ephesians 3:21) is intended the whole visible Church of Christ, as made up into one body or Church, by a collection of all particular churches in the world by lesser and greater assemblies (a thing that never was in the world, nor ever will be) is denied and not yet by any that I know proved; not that I am offended at the name of the Church of England, though I think all professors as such, are rather to be called so, than all the congregations. That all professors of the truth of the Gospel, throughout the world, are the visible Church of Christ, in the sense before explained, is granted. So may on the same account all the professors of that truth in England, be called the Church of England. But it is the institution of lesser and greater assemblies, comprising the representatives of all the churches in the world, that must give being and union to the visible Church in the sense pleaded for throughout the world, or in this nation, and that bounded to this relation by virtue of the same institution, that is to be proved.

But of what there is, or seems to be of divine institution in this order and fabric, what of humane prudent creation, what in the matter, or manner of it, I cannot assent to, I shall not at present enter into the consideration; but shall only as to my purpose in hand, take up some principles, which lie in common between the men of this persuasion and myself, with some others otherwise minded. Now of these are the ensuing assertions.

1. No man can possibly be a member of a national Church in this sense, but by virtue of his being a member of some particular Church in the nation; which concurs to the making up of the national Church. As a man does not legally belong to any county in the nation, unless he belong to some hundred or parish in that county; this is evident from the nature of the thing itself. Nor is it pleaded, that we are one national Church, because the people of the nation are generally baptized, and do profess the true faith, but because the particular congregations in it are ruled, and so consequently the whole, by lesser and greater assemblies. I suppose it will not be on second thoughts insisted on, that particular congregations, agreeing solemnly in doctrine and worship under one civil government, do constitute a national Church; for if so, its form and unity as such, must be given it merely by the civil government.

2. No man can recede from this Church, or depart from it, but by departing from some particular Church therein. At the same door that a man comes in, he must go out. If I cease to be a member of a national Church, it is by the ceasing or abolishing of that, which gave me original right thereunto, which was my relation to the particular Church, whereof I am.

3. To make men members of any particular Church or churches, their own consent is required. All men must admit of this, who allow it free for a man to choose where he will fix his habitation.

4. That as yet, at least since possibly we could be personally concerned who are now alive, no such Church in this Nation has been formed. It is impossible, that a man should be guilty of offending against that, which is not: We have not separated from a National Church in the Presbyterian sense, as never having seen any such thing; unless they will say, we have separated from what should be.

5. As to the state of such a Church as this, I shall only add to what has been spoken before, the judgment of a very learned and famous man in this case, whom I the rather name, because professedly engaged on the Presbyterians side. It is Moses Amyraldus the present professor of Divinity at Saumur, whose words are these that follow. Scio nonnunquam appellari particularem Ecclesiam communionem, ac veluti confoederationem plurium ejusmodi societatum, quas vel ejusdem linguae usus, vel eadem Rei-pub. forma (the true spring of a National Church) unà cum ejusdem disciplinae regimine consociavit: Sic appellatur Ecclesia Gallicana, Anglicana, Germanica particularis, ut distinguatur ab Universali illa Christianorum societate; quae omnes Christiani nominis nationes complectitur: At uti supra diximus, Ecclesiae nomen non proprie convenire societati omnium Christianorum, eo modo quo convenit particularibus Christianorum coetibus; sic consequens est, ut dicamus, Ecclesiae nomen non competere in eam multarum Ecclesiarum particularium consociationem eodem plane modo. Vocetur ergo certe Ecclesiarum quae sunt in Gallia Communio inter ipsas, & Ecclesia si Ecclesia, est multarum Ecclesiarum confoederatio non si nomen Ecclesiae ex usu Scripturae sacrae accipiatur. Paulus enim varias Ecclesias particulares, quae erant in Achaia, Ecclesia Achaiae nuncupat, non Ecclesiam Achajae vel Ecclesiam Achaicam. Amyral. Disput. de Ecclesiae Nom. & Defin. Thes. 28.

These being, if I mistake not, things of mutual acknowledgment (for I have not laid down any principles peculiar to myself, and those with whom I consent in the way of the worship of God, which yet we can justly plead in our own defence) this whole business will be brought to a speedy issue.

Only I desire the Reader to observe, that I am not pleading the right, liberty and duty of gathering Churches in such a state of professors, as that of late, and still among us, which is built on other principles, and hypotheses, than any as yet I have had occasion to mention; but am only in general considering the true notion of Schism, and the charge managed against us on that single account, which relates not to gathering of Churches, as simply considered; I say then

1. Either we have been members by our own voluntary consent, according to the mind of Christ, of some particular congregations in such a National church, and that as de facto part of such a church or we have not? If we have not been so, (as it is most certain we have not) then we have not as yet broken any bond, or violated any Unity, or disturbed any peace, or order of the appointment of Jesus Christ; so that whatever of trouble or division has followed on our way, and walking, is to be charged on them who have turned every stone, to hinder us our liberty. And I humbly beg of them, who acting on principles of Reformation according to the (commonly called) Presbyterian platform, do accuse us for separation from the Church of England that they would seriously consider what they intend thereby? Is it that we are departed from the faith of the people of God in England? They will not sustain any such crimination: Is it that we have forsaken the Church of England as under its Episcopal constitution? Have they not done the same? Have they not rejected their National Officers, with all the bonds, ties and ligaments of the Union of that pretended Church? Have they not renounced the way of worship, established by the Law of the Land? Do they not disavow all obedience to them who were their legal Superiors in that constitution? Do they retain either matter or form, or any thing, but that naked name of that Church? And will they condemn others in what they practice themselves? As for a Church of England, in their new sense, (which yet in some respects is not new but old) for what is beyond a voluntary consociation of particular Churches, we have not as yet, had experience of it.

That we shall be accused of Schism, for not esteeming ourselves made members of a particular Church against our wills, by buying or hiring an habitation within such a precinct of ground, we expect not; especially considering what is delivered by the chief Leaders of them, with whom now we are treating, whose words are as follows: We grant, that living in parishes is not sufficient to make a man a member of a Particular Church. A Turk, or Pagan, or Idolater may live within the precincts of a Parish, and yet be no member of a Church. A man must therefore in order of nature, be a member of the Church visible, and then living in a Parish, and making profession of Christianity may claim admission into the society of Christians within those bounds, and enjoy the privileges and ordinances which are there dispensed. Ans of Cammil p. 105. This is also pursued by the Authors of Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani p 9, 10. where after the repetition of the words first mentioned, they add that all that dwell in a Parish and constantly hear the Word, are not yet to be admitted to the Sacraments, which excludes them from being fideles, or Church Members and makes them at best as the Catechumeni of old, who were never esteemed members of the Church.

If we have been so members by our own voluntary consent, and do not continue so to be; then this Congregation whereof we were so members was reformed according to the mind of Christ (for I speak now to them that own Reformation, as to their light) or it was not. If it were reformed, and that a man were a member of it so reformed by his own voluntary consent, I confess it may be difficult how a man can leave such a congregation without their consent, in whose power it is to give it to him, without giving offence to the Church of God. Only I say, let all by-respects be laid aside, on the one hand, and the other, all regard to repute and advantage, let Love have its perfect work, and no Church knowing the end of its being and constitution to be the edification of believers, will be difficult and tenacious as to the granting a dismission to any member whatever, that shall humbly desire it; on the account of applying himself to some other Congregation, wherein he supposes and is persuaded that he may be more effectually built up in his most holy faith.

I confesse this to be a case of the greatest difficulty, that presents itself to my thoughts in this business. Suppose a man to be a member of a particular Church, and that Church to be a true Church of Christ, and granted so by this person, and yet upon the account of some defect, which is in, or at least he is convinced and perswaded to be in that Church, whose Reformation he cannot obtaine, he cannot abide in that Church to his spiritual advantage and edification: suppose the Church on the other side cannot be induced to consent to his secession and relinquishment of its ordinary external communion, and that person is hereby intangled; what course is to be taken? I professe for my part, I never knew this case fall out, wherein both parties were not blamable. The person seeking to depart, in making that to be an indispensable cause of departure from a Church, which is farre short of it; and the Church in not condescending to the mans desire, though proceeding from infirmity, or temptation. In generall, the rule of forbearance and condescension in love, which should salve the difference, is to give place to the rule of obeying God in all things according to our light. And the determining in this case, depending on circumstances in great variety, both with reference to the Church offending, and the person offended. He that can give one certaine rule in, and upon the whole, shall have much praise for his invention. However I am sure this cannot be rationally objected by them, who esteeming all Parishes, as such, to be Churches, doe yet allow men on such occasions to change their habitations, and consequently their Church Relations Men may be relieved by change of dwelling, Subcom. of Div. p. 52. And when a mans leaving the ordinary external communion, of any particular Church for his own edification to joyne with another whose Administrations he is perswaded in some things more, or fewer, are carryed on more according to the minde of Christ, is as such proved to be Schisme, I shall acknowledge it.

As then the not giving a mans selfe up to any way, and submitting to any establishment pretended, or pleaded to be of Christ, which he has not light for, and which he was not by any act of his own formerly engaged in, cannot with any color or pretence of reason be reckoned to him for Schisme, though he may, if he persist in his refuseall, prejudice his own edification; so no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion of one Church in all its relations, to joyne with another, be so esteemed. For instance of the first case; suppose by the Law of this Nation the severall parochiall Churches of the Land, according to arbitrary distributions made of them, should be joyned in Classicall Associations, and those againe in the like arbitrary disposall into Provinciall, and so onward; (which cannot be done without such interveniences as will exonerate conscience from the weight of pure institution:) or suppose this not to be done by the Law of the Land, but by the voluntary consent of the Officers of the Parochiall Churches, and others joyning with them; the Saints of God in this Nation, who have not formerly been given up to, or disposed of, in this order, by their own voluntary consent, nor are concerned in it any farther, then by their habitation within some of these different Precincts, that by public Authority, or consent of some among them, are combined as above: nor do believe such Associations to be the institutions of Christ, whatever they prove to be in the issue; I say they are by their dissent and refusall to subject themselves to this Order, not in the least liable to the charge of Schisme; whatever they are, who neglecting the great duty of Love, and forbearance, would by any means whatever impose upon them a necessity of so doing. For besides what they have to plead, as to the Non-institution of any such ordinary Associations, & investiture of them with power and Authority in, and over the Churches, they are not guilty of the disturbance of any order, wherein they were stated according to the minde of Christ: nor of the neglect of any duty of Love, that was incumbent on them.

For the latter; suppose a man stated in a particular Church, wherewith he has walked for a season; he discovers that some perhaps of the Principles of its constitution are not according to the minde of Christ, something is wanting or redundant, and imposed in practice on the members of it, which renders the communion of it, by reason of his doubts and scruples, or it may be cleare convictions, not so usefull to him, as he might rationally expect it would be, were all things done according to the minde of Christ; that also he has declared his judgement as he is able, and dissatisfaction; if no reformation doe ensue, this person I say is doubtlesse at liberty to dispose of himselfe, as to particular Church Communion, to his own best advantage.

But now suppose this Congregation whereof a man is supposed to be a member, is not reformed, will not, nor cannot reforme itself; (I desire that it may be minded with whom I have to do, namely those, who own a necessity of Reformation, as to the Administration of Ordinances, in respect to what has been hitherto observed in most Parochiall Assemblyes.) Those I have formerly dealt withall are not be imposed on with this Principle of Reformation: they acknowledge none to be needfull; but they are not concerned in our present enquiry. Their charge lyes all in the behalfe of the Church of England, not of particular Assemblyes or Parishes, which it is not possible that according to their principle, they should own for Churches, or account any separation from any of them to be balme worthy, but only as it respecteth the Constitutions of the Church Nationall in them to be observed. If any claime arise on that hand, as to Parochiall Assemblyes, I should take liberty to examine the foundation of the plea, and doubt not, but that I may easily frustrate their attempts. But this is not my present businesse; I deale, as I said, with them, who own Reformation; and I now suppose of the Congregation, whereof a man is supposed to be a member on any account whatever, not to be reformed.

In this case I ask, whether it be schism or no, for any number of men to reform themselves, by reducing the practice of worship to its original institution, though they be the minor part lying within the parochial precinct; or for any of them to join themselves with others for that end and purpose not living within those precincts. I shall boldly say, this schism is commanded by the Holy Ghost (1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:5; Hosea 4:15). Is this yoke laid upon me by Christ, that to go along with the multitude where I live, that hate to be reformed, I must forsake my duty, and despise the privileges, that he has purchased for me with his own precious blood? Is this a unity of Christ's institution, that I must for ever associate myself with wicked and profane men in the worship of God, to the unspeakable detriment and disadvantage of my own soul?

I suppose nothing can be more unreasonable, than once to imagine any such thing.

However, not to derive this business any farther, but to put it to its proper issue. When it is proved, that this is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, that every believer, who lives within such a precinct allotted by civil constitutions, wherein the people or inhabitants do, or may usually meet for the celebration of the worship of God, or which they have light for, on any account whatever do make profession of, how profane soever that part of them be from whom the whole is denominated, how corrupt soever in their worship, how dead soever, as to the power of godliness, must abide with them and join with them in the administration and worship, and that indispensably; this business may come again under debate. In the mean time, I suppose the people of God are not in any such subjection. I speak not this, as laying down this for a principle, that it is the duty of every man to separate from that church, wherein evil and wicked men are tolerated (though that opinion, must have many other attendances, before it can contract the least affinity with that of the same sound, which was condemned in the Donatists) but this only I say, that where any church is overborne by a multitude of men wicked and profane; so that it cannot reform itself, or will not according to the mind of Christ, a believer is so far at liberty, that he may desert the communion of that society, without the least guilt of schism. But this state of things is now little pleaded for.

It is usually objected about the church of Corinth, that there was in it many disorders and enormous miscarriages, divisions, and breaches of love: miscarriages through drink at their meetings; gross sins in the incestuous person tolerated; false doctrine broached; the resurrection denied; and yet Paul advises no man to separate from it, but all to perform their duty in it.

But how little our present plea and defensative is concerned in this instance, supposed to lie against it, very few considerations will evince.

1. The church of Corinth was undoubtedly a true church, lately instituted according to the mind of Christ, and was not fallen from that privilege by any miscarriage, nor had suffered any thing destructive to its being; which wholly differences between the case proposed in respect of many particulars, and the instance produced. We confess the abuses, and evils mentioned had crept into the church, and do from there grant, that many abuses may do so into any of the best of the churches of God. Nor did it ever enter into the heart of any man to think, that so soon as any disorders fall out, or abuses creep into it, it is instantly the duty of any to fly out of it, like Paul's mariners out of the ship, when the storm grew hazardous. It being the duty of all the members of such a church untainted with the evils and corruptions of it, upon many accounts to attempt and labor the remedy of those disorders, and rejection of these abuses to the uttermost; which was that, which Paul advised the Corinthians all and some to, in obedience whereunto they were recovered. But yet this I say, had the church of Corinth continued in the condition before prescribed, that notorious, scandalous sins had went unpublished, unreproved, drunkenness continued, and practiced in the assemblies, men abiding by the denial of the resurrection, so overturning the whole gospel, and the church refusing to do her duty, and exercise her authority to cast all those disorderly persons upon their obstinacy out of her communion; it had been the duty of every saint of God in that church, to have withdrawn from it, to come out from among them, and not to have been partaker of their sins, unless they were willing to partake of their plague also; which on such an apostasy would certainly ensue.

I confess Austin in his single book against the Donatists, post collationem, cap. 20. affirms, that Elijah and Elisha communicated with the Israelites in their worship, when they were so corrupted, as in their days, and separated not from their sacraments (as he calls them,) but only withdrew sometimes for fear of persecution; a mistake unworthy so great and wise a person as he was. The public worship of those 10 tribes in the days of those prophets was idolatrous, erected by Jeroboam, confirmed by a law, by Omri, and continued by Ahab. That the prophets joined with them in it, is not to be imagined. But earnestness of desire for the attaining of any end, sometimes leaves no room for the examination of the mediums, offering their service to that purpose.

Let us now see the sum of the whole matter and what it is that we plead for our discharge as to this crime of schism, allowing the term to pass in its large and usual acceptation, receding for the sake of the truth's farther ventilation from the precise propriety of the word annexed to it in the Scripture: the sum is, we have broken no bond of unity, no order instituted or appointed by Jesus Christ, have causelessly deserted no station, that ever we were in, according to his mind, which alone can give countenance to an accusation of this nature. That on pure grounds of conscience we have withdrawn, or do withhold ourselves from partaking in some ways, engaged into upon mere grounds of prudence we acknowledge.

And thus from what has been said, it appears in what a fair capacity notwithstanding any principle or practice owned by us, we are to live peaceably, and to exercise all fruits of love towards those who are otherwise minded.

There is not the least necessity on us, may we be permitted to serve God according to our light, for the acquitting our selves from the charge, which has made such a noise in the world, to charge other men, with their failings, great, or small, in or about the ways and worship of God. This only is incumbent on us, that we manifest, that we have broken no bond, no obligation, or tye to communion, which lay upon us by the will & appointment of Jesus Christ our Lord, and Master: what is prudentially to be done in such a Nation as this, in such a time as this, as to the worship of God, we will treate with men at farther leisure, and when we are lawfully called thereto.

It may be some will yet say, (because it has been often said) there is difference between reforming of Churches already gathered and raised, and raising of Churches out of meer materialls. The first may be allowed, but the latter tends to all manner of Confusion.

I have at present, not much to say to this objection, because as I conceive, it concernes not the businesse we have in hand: Nor would I have mentioned it at all; but that its insisted on by some on every turne, whether suited for the particular cause, for which it is produced, or no. In briefe then.

1. I know no other reformation of any Church, or any thing in a Church, but the reducing of it to its primitive Institution, and the order allotted to it by Jesus Christ. If any plead for any other Reformation of Churches, they are in my judgement to blame.

And when any society, or Combination of men, (whatever hitherto it has been esteemed) is not capable of such a Reduction and Renovation. I suppose I shall not provoke any wise and sober person, if I professes I cannot look on such a society, as a Church of Christ, and thereupon advise those therein, who have a due right to the priviledges purchased for them by Christ, as to Gospell Administrations, to take some other peaceable course to make themselves partakers of them.

2. Were I fully to handle the things pointed to in this Objection, I must mannage Principles, which in this Discourse I have not been occasioned to draw forth at all, or to improve. Many things of great weight and importance must come under debate and consideration, before a cleare account can be given of the case stated in this Objection; as

1. The true nature of an instituted Church under the Gospell, as to the matter, forme, and all other necessary constitutive causes, is to be investigated and found out.

2. The nature, and forme of such a Church is to be exemplifyed from the Scripture, and the stories of the first Churches, before sensibly infested with the poyson of that Apostacy which ensued.

3. The extent of the Apostacy under Antichrist, as to the ruining of instituted Churches, making them to be Babylon, and their worship Fornication, is duely and carefully to be examined.

Here lyes our disorder and division; hence is our darknesse and pollution of our garments, which is not an easy thing to free our selves of; though we may arise, yet we shall not speedily shake our selves out of the dust.

4. By what way and meanes God begat anew and kept alive his Elect, in their severall Generations, when Antichristian darknesse covered the Earth; and thick darknesse the Nations, supposing an intercision of instituted Ordinances, so farre as to make a nullity in them, as to what was of simple and pure Institution; what way might be used for the fixing the Tabernacle of God againe with men, and the setting up of Church worship according to his minde, and will. And here the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia would come under consideration; who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian, could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it; and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing of that Ordinance in a way of succession, sent some to the Greek and Armenian Churches, who observing their wayes returned with little satisfaction; so that at the last committing themselves, and their cause to God, they chose them Elders from among themselves, and set them apart by fasting and prayer; which was the foundation of all those Churches, which for piety, zeale, and suffering for Christ, have given place to none in Europe.

What was the way of the first Reformation in this Nation, and what principles the Godly Learned men of those daies proceeded on, how farre, what they did may be satisfactory to our Consciences, at the present, as to our concurrence in them, who from there have the Truth of the Gospell derived downe to us,

Whether ordinary officers be before or after the Church, and so whether a Church state is preserved in the preservation of Officers, by a power forraigne to that Church, whereof they are so; or the Office be preserved, and consequently the Officers, inclusively in the preservation, and constitution of a Church. These I say, with sundry other things of the like importance, with inferences from them, are to be considered to the bottome, before a full Resolution can be given to the enquiry coucht in this objection, which, as I said, to do, is not my present businesse.

This taske then is at its issue and close; some Considerations of the manifold miscarriages that have insued for want of a due and right apprehension of the thing we have now been exercised in the Consideration of, shall shut it up.

It is not impossible, that some may, from what has been spoken, begin to apprehend, that they have been too hasty in judging other men. Indeed none are more ready to charge highly, then those who when they have so done, are most unable to make good their charge; si accusasse sufficiat, quis erit innocens? What real schisms in a moral sense have ensued among brethren, by their causeless mutual imputation of schism in things of institution, is known. And when men are in one fault, and are charged with another, wherein they are not, it is a ready way to confirm them in that, wherein they are. There is more darkness and difficulty in the whole matter of instituted worship, then some men are aware of: not that it was so from the beginning, while Christianity continued in its naked simplicity: but it is come occasionally upon us by the customs, darkness and invincible prejudices, that have taken hold on the minds of men by a secret diffusion of the poison of that grand Apostacy. It were well then, that men would not be so confident, nor easily persuaded, that they presently know how all things ought to be, because they know how they would have some things to be, which suite their temper and interest. Men may easily perhaps see, or think they see, what they do not like, and cry out schism and separation, but if they would a little consider what ought to be in this whole matter; according to the mind of God, and what evidences they have of the grounds and principles, whereon they condemn others, it might make them yet swift to hear, but slow to speak, and take off from the number of teachers among us; some are ready to think, that all that join not with them are schismatics; and they are so, because they go not with them, and other reason they have none: being unable to give any solid foundation of what they profess; what the cause of unity among the people of God, has suffered from this sort of men, is not easily to be expressed.

2. In all differences about religion to drive them to their rise and spring, and to consider them as stated originally, will ease us of much trouble and labor. Perhaps many of them will not appear so formidable, as they are represented. He that sees a great river, is not instantly to conclude that all the water in it comes from its first rise and spring; the addition of many brooks, showers and landfloods, have perhaps swelled it to the condition wherein it is: every difference in religion is not to be thought to be as big at its rise, as it appears to be when it has passed through many generations, and has received additions and aggravations from the disputings and contendings of men, on the one hand, and the other, engaged. What a flood of abominations does this business of schism seem to be, as rolling down to us through the writings of Cyprian, Austin, and Optatus of old: the schoolmen, decrees of Popish councils with the contrivances of some, among ourselves, concerned to keep up the swelled notion of it! Go to its rise, and you will find it to be, though bad enough, yet quite another thing, then what by the prejudices accruing by the addition of so many generations, it is now generally represented to be. The great maxim, To the Law and to the Testimony, truly improved, would quickly cure all our distempers: in the mean time, let us bless God, that though our outward man may possibly be disposed of, according to the apprehension that others have of what we do, or are, our consciences are concerned only in what he has appointed. How some men may prevail against us, before whom we must stand or fall according to their corrupt notion of schism, we know not: the rule of our consciences, in this, as in all other things, is eternal and unchangeable. While I have an uncontrollable faithful witness, that I transgress no limits prescribed to me in the Word, that I do not willingly break, or dissolve any unity of the institution of Jesus Christ, my mind as to this thing is filled with perfect peace. Blessed be God, that has reserved the sole sovereignty of our consciences in his hand, and not in the least parcelled it out to any of the sons of men, whose tender mercies being oftentimes cruelty itself, they would perhaps destroy the soul also, when they do so to the body, seeing they stay there, as our Savior witnesses, because they can proceed no farther. Here then I profess to rest; in this does my conscience acquiesce: while I have any comfortable persuasion, on grounds infallible, that I hold the Head, and that I am by faith a member of the mystical body of Christ, while I make profession of all the necessary saving truths of the Gospel, while I disturb not the peace of that particular church, whereof by my own consent I am a member, nor do raise up, nor continue in any causeless differences with them, or any of them, with whom I walk in the fellowship and order of the Gospel, while I labor to exercise faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ, and love towards all the saints, I do keep the unity, which is of the appointment of Christ; and let men say, from principles utterly foreign to the Gospel, what they please, or can, to the contrary, I am no schismatic.

3. Perhaps the discovery, which has been made, how little we are many of us concerned in that, which having mutually charged it on one another, has been the greatest ball of strife, and most effectual engine of difference, and distance between us, may be a means to reconcile in love them that truly fear God, though engaged in several ways as to some particulars. I confess I have not any great hope of much success on this account; for let principles and ways be made as evident, as if he that wrote them carried the sun in his hand; yet while men are forestalled by prejudices, and have their affections, and spirits engaged suitably thereunto, no great alteration in their mind and ways, on the clearest conviction whatever, is to be expected. All our hearts are in the hand of God; and our expectations of what he has promised, are to be proportioned to what he can effect, not to what of outward means, we see to be used.

4. To conclude; what vain janglings men are endlessly engaged in, who will lay their own false hypotheses, and preconceptions, as a ground of farther procedure, is also in part evident, by what has been delivered. Hence (for instance) is that doubty dispute in the world; whether a Schismatic does belong to the Church, or no? Which for the most part is determined in the Negative; when it is impossible a man should be so, but by virtue of his being a Church member. A Church is that alienum solum, wherein that evil dwells. The most of the enquiries that are made, and disputed on, whether this or that sort of men belongs to the Church or no, are of the same value and import. He belongs to the Church Catholic, who is united to Christ by the Spirit, and none other. And he belongs to the Church General visible, who makes profession of the faith of the Gospel, and destroys it not by anything of a just inconsistency with the belief of it. And he belongs to a Particular Church, who having been in a due order joined thereunto, has neither voluntarily deserted it, nor been judicially ejected out of it. Thus one may be a member of the Church Catholic, who is no member of the General visible Church, nor of a particular Church, as an elect infant, sanctified from the womb, dying before baptism; and one may be a member of the Church General visible, who is no member of the Church Catholic, nor of a particular Church, as a man making profession of the true faith, yet not united to Christ by the Spirit, nor joined to any particular visible Church; or he may be also of the Catholic Church, and not of a particular; as also of a particular Church, and not of the Catholic. And a man may — every true believer walking orderly — ordinarily is a member of the Church of Christ in every sense insisted on: of the Catholic Church, by a union with Christ the head; of the visible General Church, by his profession of the faith; and of a particular Congregation, by his voluntary associating himself therewith, according to the will and appointment of our Lord Jesus Christ.