The unreasonableness of separation, or, An impartial account of the history, nature, and pleas of the present separation from the communion of the Church of England to which, several late letters are annexed, of eminent Protestant divines abroad, concerning the nature of our differences, and the way to compose them / by Edward Stillingfleet ...

Sect. 19. 2. I argue, from the particular force of that Text, Phil. 3. 16. As far, as we have already attain∣ed, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. From whence it appears evident, that Men ought to go as far as they can, towards Vniformi∣ty; and not to forbear doing any thing, which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity.

To take off the force of the Argument from this place, several Answers have been given, which I shall now remove; so that the strength of it may appear to remain, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it.

Some say, That the Apostles words are to be under∣stood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge, and the different conceptions and opini∣ons which they had concerning the Truths of the Gos∣pel. Thus Dr. O. understands the Text; whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expres∣sed; but as far as I can apprehend his meaning, he makes this to be the Apostles; viz.

I. That although the best Christians in this life can∣not attain to a full measure and perfection in the com∣prehension of the Truths of the Gospel, or the enjoyment of the things contained in them; yet they ought to be pressing continually after it.

II. That in the common pursuit of this design, it is not to be supposed, but the Men will come to different attainments, have different measures of light and know∣ledge, yea and different conceptions, or opinions about these things.

III. That in this difference of opinions, those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God, in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd.

IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other, as far as they had attained, they should walk by the same Rule, namely, which he had now laid down, and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them.

From whence he infers, That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with

Schism, who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel, do yet dissent from others, in some things; that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded. And again, he saith, The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties, is, that whereun∣to they have attained, wherein they do agree, which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God, they should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, that is, forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ; which, saith he, is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists.

For the clearing of this matter, there are Three things to be debated,

• 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opini∣ons, or different practises?
• 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual for∣bearance?
• 3. How far the Apostles Rule, hath an influence on our present case?

First, Whether the Apostle speaks of different opi∣nions, or of different practises? For the right un∣derstanding of this, we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design. It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution against the Teachers of the Circumcision, Vers 2. Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. But speak∣ing so reproachfully of them, he shews in the next words, that every thing that was excellent in the de∣sign

of the Law, was accomplished in the Gospel; and so he proceeds to declare, how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest priviledges of the Law, in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel, which shews, that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers, who were very busie in disturbing the Peace of the Churches, and draw∣ing Disciples after them, pleading the necessity of observing the Law; and dividing the Christians in∣to different Communions on that account, as appears by their proceedings at Antioch, where they did se∣parate themselves from the Gentile Christians, and St. Peter for a time complyed with them. If such as these had not been busie at Philippi (where it appears that Iews inhabited) What need St. Paul give so much caution against them? What need all this dispute concerning the Priviledges of the Law? If it be allowed, that they were there carrying on the same designs, which they did in other Churches, then it follows, he had great reason to perswade them to Vnity so earnestly, as he doth, Philip. 2. 1, 2. and to give so much caution against them; and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law; which being done, the Apostle after his usual method, makes a digression, concerning him∣self, viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at, and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward, toward Christian perfection; making no longer any account of legal priviledges. Which I take to be his meaning, when he saith, Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward, &c. So St. Hierome understands it, Legis obliviscens ad per∣fecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo. Forgetting the

Law, I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel. This be∣ing understood, the Apostles sence naturally follows, according to his former design; Let us therefore, as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity (so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14.) agree in pursuing our main end. But then comes the case of those, who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law; there being many and plausible Arguments on their side; well, saith the Apostle, if they are doubtful, I advise them however, not to hearken to these false Teachers, for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you, wait patiently up∣on God, which is the best means, for your satis∣faction. If any be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you, i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase, If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law, let them make no disturbance in the Church about it. And so Erasmus saith, It ought to be understood of the Iu∣daizing Christians, who did not yet discern, that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished, however, saith he, they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it. But, What sence can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded: Otherwise than what? As many as be perfect be thus minded, to pursue your main end; but, if any be otherwise minded; Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end? that is incredible; Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat, about which there were then very different apprehensions; and that it is cer∣tain there were about the Law among the Christians then. The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into; but of such as were at that time among

them; and so one Copy reads it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded; they had no difference concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the things before them; viz. the happiness of the Gospel, but they had concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the things behind, viz. the force and obligation of the Law. And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion, but was carried on so far, as to break the Peace of the Church about it; it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions, but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians.

Secondly, Whether the Rule which the Apostle layes down, be only a Rule of mutual forbearance? Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. The sence according to Dr. O. is this, That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion, should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences. Which is a sence very uncertain, and doth not reach to the differences then among them▪ It is very un∣certain, because it sets no bounds to differences; and supposes the continuance of such differences among them, which he designed to prevent, by perswad∣ing them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind, of one soul; as well as to mind the same things. Besides, the difference then on foot, was none of the smaller differences of opinions, but that about which they differ'd was urged on one side, as necessary to Salva∣tion, by the false Apostles; and opposed on the other, as pernicious and destructive to it. One of my Answerers saith, That the Iudaizing Christians were leaven'd with such a corrupt Opinion, as was by

no means to be born with; which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain. And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main, shewing the dreadful consequences of it. And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbear∣ance, in such a case as this? especially, when in the same Chapter, he gives so great a caution against them, with so much unusual sharpness of expression; Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance, as to the differences then among them? these we know there were, let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion, which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mu∣tual forbearance. But now, if we suppose the Apo∣stle to speak to the difference about the Law, about which the Churches were then divided, the sence is plain, easie, and pertinent. For so, either (1.) It takes in those who hitherto differ'd about the Law; and then the sence is, although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have, yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians, you live with; keep within one Rule; break not the bounds of Peace and Vnity which Christ hath set you; run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing cour∣ses. (2.) It is directed to those who have got the start of others, and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them, especially so have a mighty re∣gard to the Peac•• and Vnity of Christians; not to break the Common••ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments, nor to Separate from others, as meaner and lower Christians, because they are not come up to that perfection, which you have at∣tained

to. And so either way, it contains an excel∣lent Rule, and of admirable use to the Christian Church, not only at that time, but in all Ages of the World, viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things, should go as far as they can to∣wards preserving Peace and Communion among Chri∣stians; and not peevishly separate and divide the Church, because they cannot in all things think as others do; nor others on the account of greater san∣ctity and perfection, despise the inferior sort of Chri∣stians, and forsake their Communion, but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace, and the Vnity of the Church.

Thirdly, How far this Rule hath an influence on our case? (1.) It follows from hence, that as far as Communion is lawful, it is a duty, since, as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule. And so much Dr. O. doth not deny; when he saith, Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion, or in the Principles of Faith and Obe∣dience, should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ. Then as far, as they agree, they are bound to joyn together, whether it be as to Opini∣on, or Communion. Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion, as far as that is judged to be lawful. (2.) That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others, though of lower attainments, and to keep within the same Rule; which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race, and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judg∣ed necessary to hold the Members of a Christian

Society together. But, saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his, and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it. This is the Apostles Rule, to go as far as they can; and if they can go no farther, to sit down qui∣etly, and wait for farther instruction, and not to break the Peace of the Church, upon present dissatisfaction, nor to gather new Churches out of others upon sup∣position of higher attainments.

If the Rule reach our Case, saith he again, it must be such as requires things to be observed, as were never divinely appointed, as National Churches, Ceremonies and Modes of Worship. And so this Rule doth in order to Peace, require the observation of such things, which although they be not particularly appointed by God, yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority, provided, they be not unlawful in them∣selves, nor repugnant to the World of God.

But the Apostles never gave any such Rules them∣selves, about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremo∣nies, Feasts, Fasts, Liturgies, &c. What then? It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule, That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace: And without this no Vnity, or Order can be preserved in Churches. The Apostles, saith he, gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule, viz. of mutual forbearance, Rome. 14. And herein the A∣postle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence, but as a Teacher divinely inspired. That he was Divinely in∣spired, I do not question, but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances, which resolution may not always bind, when the circum∣stances are changed. For then, the meaning of the

Apostle must be, that whatever differences happen a∣mong Christians, there must be no determination either way. But the direct contrary to this, we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem, up∣on the difference that happened in the Christian Churches. And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way; yet the Apostles made a determination in the case, contrary to their Judgment. Which shews, that the Rule of Forbearance, where Conscience is al∣ledged both wayes, is no standing Rule to the Christian Church; but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Wel∣fare of that Church, which they are bound to pre∣serve. And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation, as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers: whereas, it is most evident, that the true Apostles made this perempto∣ry Decree, in a matter of great consequence, and a∣gainst the pretence of Conscience on the other side.

But saith Dr. O. further, The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty, provided they did not impose on others; and the Dissenters at this day, desire no more, than the Gentile Churches did, viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied, it is the mind of Christ should be imposed up∣on them. I Answer, 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church, that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty, out of respect to the Law of Moses; and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church, which might have

been extremely hazarded, if the Apostles had present∣ly set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves. 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it, which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters. For, (1.) They were none of their lawful Governors, but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them. (2.) They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation, and not as meerly indifferent things. And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians, as to the Impositions of the false Apostles. Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text.

The Author of the Letter saith, (1.) That I ought to have proved, that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures; and, (2.) That other Church-Guides had the same Power, as the Apostles had. But what need all this? If it appear (1.) That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches, which are not extant in Scriptures, as ap∣pears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule, for omitting some Divine Rules; or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government, (2.) That it is a standing Rule of Scripture, that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church. And this I have shewed, was the Apostles design in the words of this Text.

Notes

• Vindication of Non-con∣form••ts. p. 25, 30.
• Act. 16. 13.
• Phil. 1▪ 27. 2. 2.
• Act. 15. 1.
• Rector of Sutton, p. 15, 16.
• Gal. 5. 2.
• Vindication of Non-con∣formists, p. 26.
• Page 27.
• Page 28,
• Page. 28▪ 31.
• Act. 15, 28.
• Page 7, 8.
• Letter cut of the Country, p. 24.