he is somewhat hard of understanding especially of those things that he has no mind to In the former discourse he argues from the lawfulness of Communion to the necessity but here also from occasional to constant Communion To which confident assertion of his we Oppose this Occasional communion with a particular Church may be lawful when yet constant fixed stated Communion may not be a duty which we prove 1. From their own Doctrines and practises Their Canons have made it the duty of every individual member of their Church to hold constant Communion with his own parish Church and Teacher and yet they allow occasional Communion with other parish Churches A journey will make occasional Communion with a remote Congregation lawful but they will hardly perswade us that they can make it our duty to take such journeys in order to such communion If the great Bell rings at the next parish to a Lecture Sermon or chimes all in to Divine Service when we have none of those at home 't is lawful to take the occasion without coming under a constant obligation to it The dissenters crave the same equity they say they are under an obligation ordinarily fixedly statedly constantly to worship God in those congregations whereof they are members they say they can readily joyn with other congregations as they have opportunity but they cannot admit the inference that because they may occasionally that therefore they must constantly practise it because Acts of worship have a larger extent then Church relation those may be performed and yet these remain sacred and inviolate 2. Some conforming Ministers and Christians judge it lawful to hold communion occasionally with the dissenters in prayer and preaching what a rare argument has the Dr. furnisht us with to prove it their constant duty and from once hearing lawfully to prove it an incumbent duty to hear them for ever 3. It may be lawful occasionally to step in and hear a very weak preacher perhaps one that is vicious in his life or unfound in some points of Doctrine when we can hear no other will it follow that we are bound or that any power on earth can bind us to hear such constantly when God has made better provision for our souls and we want only grace to accept it 4. How many have judg'd it lawful to go to a play or the Chappel at Sommersethouse occasionally who yet think that twenty Acts of Parliament cannot make either of them a constant duty 5. And how unwilling are most men to be argued into duty from the meer lawfulness of the thing The Dr. thinks it lawful to resign one of his preferments to some worthy person that has none and yet his own argument will hardly convince him 't is his duty It seems very lawful for him that is almost melted with two coats to part with one to his brother that 's almost naked and yet we despair of success in thus arguing with him Nay it were well if some men would be perswaded that plain duty when it crosses worldly interest is duty and we should the better bear with them in denying every thing lawful to be duty And 6. If all lawful things may be converted into duty and what is occasionally indifferent may be turn'd into constant necessity then farewel Christian liberty and let man hereafter eternally mourn or dance to the Musick of his fetters SECTION X. Of terms of Communion required by the Church whether upon the same Reason that some of them are Imposed the Church may not also impose some Vse of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb WE hear every day eloquent Orations in praise of peace and Union smart declamations against separation but we seldom hear of the fatal terms which obstruct the one or may justifie the other I shall not tire the Reader with a tedious enumeration of the particular conditions but shall content my self to have named One though I discontent some others that I have no more and some will find themselvs aggrieved that I have named that one It is the use of the sign of the Cross in baptism which I intend and have therefore singled out that one because it is number'd amongst the three innocent Ceremonies and because 't is imposed both on the Ministers to practice it and the people to dedicate their Children to God by it 1 And here I ask what Reason can be assigned for the use of this sign as it signifies Christs cross and him crucified thereon as it is the symbol of a persons dedication to Christ and his service but what will equally justifie the Religious use of a crucifix set up in the Church for the same use and purposes This sign of the cross is instituted by the Church First as a memorial of Christs cross Secondly as a Symbol whereby a person is dedicated to him who died the death of the cross Thirdly as a token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the Devil to continue Christs faithful servant and soldier to his lives end That these are the ends and uses of that sign is expresly owned by the Canons of 1603. and the office of baptism in the Liturgy Now why the image of Christ upon the Cross or a Crucifix may not be used for these ends upon the same Reason nay upon somewhat better reason we are yet to seek for if a sign may be used to these ends to make impression upon our minds of those spiritual truths duties and mercies the fixed visible Image will much better do the work then the transient and scarce visible sign of a cross made in the Air with the finger That the Papists do use the Image of Christ upon the Cross as an immediate though not ultimate object of Adoration is true and it is as true that the Church of England does not use the sign of the Cross nor is it by us charg'd to use it for that end but yet as there is an inferiour use of the Crucifix to be the Lay-mans hornbook to teach him to spell out a crucified Christ and a Covenanting use to initiate Converts in the profesion of the Gospel and an obliging use to engage them to serve their Redeemer so there can be no solid reason given why such lower uses of an Image or Crucifix may not be introduced but what will equally militate against our use of the Cross 2. What Reason can be alledged why circumcision may not be imposed as a tearm of Union or Communion to signify the circumcision of the heart as well as the sign of the Cross to signifie faithfulness and perseverance in the service of Christ To the Jews indeed it was a badge of their duty to keep the whole law Gal. 3.4 And such use would now be apparently sinful but suppose it were enjoyned for no other end than as the surplice to denote purity kneeling at the Sacrament to
omission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it I would gladly hear a fair Reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another why the Rule of Charity should take place in bowing towards the Altar and yet the Rule of severity in the sign of the Cross and kneeling at the Lords Supper what solid Reason can they give why they make fish of one and flesh of another The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when where and in what cases they please and in others where 't is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons Is it because we are bound to walk according to the Rule prescribed by the Church why are not they bound to walk according to the Rule prescribed by the Apostle Are we more bound to obey them than they the Lord Christ speaking in and by his immediately inspired servants why could they not have relaxed the other Canons to the moderation of this or why not have screwed up this to the inflexible rigour of the others was it for peace-sake that we were indulged in this one Let the same Motive prevail for the same Indulgence in the rest was it to shew their Authority that they may bind and loose command what they please and leave what they see good at liberty without rendring a Reason but that of their Wills Such arbitrary power is too great an encroachment upon the freehold of Conscience and Soveraignty of Christ and will justifie any Christian to assert that liberty against it wherein Christ has instated him Was it because the people had been broken by long use and custom to the others and therefore they would struggle hard to keep the ground they had got when this latter was but a Novice a Candidate a Probationer for Acceptation which if the people would tamely bow their necks unto they might be cramped with a more peremptory Canon when time should serve but if they proved restiff and cross-grain'd the next Convocation might make an honourable retreat And what if now we are stumbling ere we are aware upon the true Reason of the diversity between the tempers of this and some other Canons However whether these things be commanded or merely recommended or barely permitted all is a case as to my Argument for I find these things practised by all our leading Church-men All the Fathers of the Church all the Mother-Churches are agreed all that pretend to any hopes of comfortable Importance are agreed to outrun the Constable and though herein they outrun one another and all of them outrun the Dissenters and this is a difference in something more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of worship yet must we be supposed to be agreed This last mention'd Canon of the Church I hear is repealed by Act of Parliament which plainly proves that the Civil Magistrate has more authority even in matters of worship than the whole Church as a Church when most solemnly met together in the Representative Church as they call it of a Convocation and yet the practise runs with a full stream towards their own old Canon as if they secretly gave great Deference to the Authority of the Church against the Parliament for the leading-practise of the grand Ecclesiasticks is tantamount to a Canon nay to a Law to those whose hopes and expectancies teach them a dependance on them so that this now obsolete Canon has past into the nature of a Commandment much like the old Statute Ne Rectores prosternant Arbores in Goemeterio the Tenor whereof runs thus Which thing we will not command to be done but we will commend it when it is done Secondly The Doctor having prudently supposed one half comes to prove the other half and it 's wisely done to lose nothing for asking He argues thus If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity suppose as before supposed than a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and set up new Churches To which I answer 1. by denying the consequence strange what deny the consequence what can be plainer Where there 's an agreement a confessed agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of worship what can you pretend to divide in to separate upon but some sorry circumstances unless you will make a Schism about Goats Wool or Moon-shine in the water But if you please Sir to have a little patience I 'le tell you substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances are not so immediately opposed but there lies a certain thing in the middle between them upon which middle thing though otherwise we were agreed in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship it will be lawful to divide I say it again there is a Medium between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances A bare circumstance is that which adheres to every action as it is an action to every natural body as 't is a natural body every action whether civil or sacred must be performed in some time every body must be circumscribed in some place A substantial part of worship is a Term of the Doctors and his Friends making and we may expect it should be of their explaining As far as I can understand they mean by it either 1. that which God has expresly commanded or 2. some notable parts of worship as the Sacraments or 3. that which God mainly requires as the directing our hearts to himself as the object and end of our worship or 4. I cannot tell what till they tell me but besides these two extremes there are some intermediate things which are neither natural circumstances cleaving to the person that worshippeth nor to the Religious action it self on the one hand nor yet on the other hand are they commanded by God either in genere or in specie i. e. God has neither commanded the things themselves nor are the things necessary to the performing those things that he has commanded nor any of their kind nor are they included in any general rule or precept of the Gospel And yet it has pleased the Church that is the Episcopal party to exalt these things to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them that is to lay them as Conditions in the way of our enjoying the Sacraments which they say God has made necessary to salvation and lay the stress and weight of the Churches peace safety and unity upon these things translated out of their proper places and that these things so used so applied so cloathed with their present circumstances are sinful is
common enemies nor make it indifferent to dissenters whether they be smothered in the house or forced to venture their necks by leaping out at the windows for so have the miserable Hungarians been tempted to think it better to live nay to dye once under the Ottoman sword than to be always dying under the Austrian tyranny I shall then begin to believe that man is afraid of a Paroxysme of the Gout who will retrench his intemperance to prevent it and will then suppose them real and sincere in complaining of what they feel or fear when they will forbear or do at least some very little thing to remove the one and obviate the other But Dominion even in a Dungeon is too sweet a morsel to be spit up again unless God gives a strong vomit A prelatical spirit will be persecuting when in exile at Frankfurt and the Jesuites thought it worthy their ambition to vex the Seculars even in Wisbich Castle Let then the Dr. conclude with that grave sentence All parties pretend a Zeal for Peace so they may have it in their own way by which it appears that it 's not peace they aim at but victory nor unity so much as having their own wills I will therefore compound with him at ten shillings per pound that is let him take one half of this for truth and resign â—â—e the other That one partie has a Zeal for Peace so they may have it in their own way and then I shall gain this by the bargain That it's â—ot Peace they seek but Victory nor Unity so much as having their own wills Peace then without bringing in St. Austin for a voucher is a good thing yes a very good thing it is if we could catch it but thus have I seen one sport with his Dog shewing him a crust which when the poor Cur has zealously jumpt to reach he holds it up higher and never intends him one snap of it Our Romish adversaries it seems do continually upbraid us with our Schisms and Separations Let 'em look at home To take off which reproach the Dr. thinks it would be happy if all those who agree in renouncing the errors and corruptions of the Roman Church could as easily join together in the great duties of our common Religion that is in our prayers and praises and Sacraments and all solemn acts of divine worship And will this make us all happy Then I proclaim to all Protestants from this day forward solid happiness for we all join together in the great duties of our common Religion for though we join not in the private fancies niceties and opinions of some one partie in the great duties common to all Protestants we are fully agreed Agreed in the matter of our prayers if not in the form in the matter of our praises though not in the mode in Sacraments though perhaps not in superstitions annexed to them in the Acts of Divine Worship though not in the parts of humane worship in the substance not in Ceremonie and in one God one Christ though not in one Place which probably we never shall till St. Pauls be built and probably not then neither but must adjourn our local meeting to the day of the General Assembly Thus are we all agreed who are agreed and so far as we are agreed in renouncing the errors and corruptions of Rome but if it shall appear that we are not agreed in this in vain do we expect agreement in other things There are two things at which the Church might possibly aim whenever merciful providence should recover it out of the gloomy shades of persecution the one Purity the other external Splendor and Glory But it 's sadly observable that Church-men who always engross to themselves the conduct and management of affairs commonly begin at the wrong end of their work Securing in the first place their own Grandeur and Dignity and leaving the Reforming the Abuses which had silently crept in as a matter of less concernment to their better leisure So was it in the days of Constantine Queen Elizabeth so was it in our own when the Clergy fell a scrambling for preferments as boys for a largess of nuts and apples whilst Reformation lay a bleeding a gasping a dying for they had other Irons in the Fire which must not cool so the Sorbonist in his Philosophia Vulgaris refutata informs us Jam postquam horrendae tyraâ—norum Carnificinae desierunt pax omnimoda parta est c. That is When once the bloody shambles of Tyrants by God's Providence were shut up and welcome Peace began to shine upon the late clouded Churches they wisely fell to work with exterior things and busied themselves about Religious Rites Ceremonies Ornaments about matters of Order and Subordination about the Degrees of Ministers their outward Splendor the power and efficacy of Church-Discipline about Laws Canons and Ecclesiastical Government about the Union and Combination of Churches about the exalting some in preeminence above others and subjection of the poorer to the greater and richer about maintaining Uniformity and preventing Schisms And this part indeed the Church happily effected and when they should have proceeded to the other of Reformation a dismal hurricane by the irruption of the Northern and barbarous Nations overspread the face of the Church with Egyptian darkness that it was some Ages before she could recover her former brightness This is the sad Fate that commonly attends great and general Deliverances Churchmen are cumber'd with many things and neglect the one thing necessary and instead of reducing Doctrine Worship and Discipline to their Original Integrity to what they were in the beginning are otherwise employ'd about setling Liturgies re-inforcing Ceremonies exacting Uniformity advancing their own Dignity till God in righteous judgment removes from them the opportunities of acting for themselves who slighted those inviting junctures wherein they might have served their God And most men have noted that within these twenty years Providence offer'd them three seasons wherein with great ease they might have healed our Breaches the first after His Majesties happy Restauration the second after the Plague Fire and War the third after the Discovery of the late Horrid and Popish Plot but yet it pleased not God to give them with the opportunities to see the things that belong'd to our Peace We see then Peace is a Commodity everywhere exposed to view They complain that we cheapen it but will not buy And indeed we would not out-bid our Purses nor buy Gold too dear We complain that they offer it but at such unreasonable Rates that we cannot reach it but so have many done that have got rich Goods in their hands set 'em too high outstand a good Market and at last perhaps may be glad to put 'em off for an old Song But it 's time to come to my self and attend the Doctor who after an eloquent Preamble in commendation of Peace which all men grant and of the danger of Divisions
Council must be the fixers of this Rule 3. That all are bound notwithstanding their various measures of light to conform to this Rule 4. That the Governors of one Church or many Churches may make Rules for other Churches and force them upon their Consciences to be observed by Divine Right instead of which and much more he has to do he has supposed what he can never demonstrate But that we shall soon see for now he draws apace towards Argument 1. He tells us That the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be a continuation of the former allusion to a Race for the first thing the Greeks were wont to do as to their Exercises was to circumscribe the bounds wherein they were to be performed now that which fixed and determined those limits was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks c. Had it not been for these Olympic and other Games and Exercises I cannot tell what our modern Criticks would have done for work but what does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 allude to is that term also applied to a Race No! it 's borrowed from the grave marching of an Army not the furious running of a Foot-match 'T is verbum militare a term of Art in the Tactics sayes Zanchy But grant that also for I 'll yield as much as reasonably he can desire for peace-sake still the Question will recur what that Rule is by which we must either soberly walk or swiftly run And there are two things that chiefly stand in competition 1. A Rule of Charity and mutual forbearance under different practices suitable to their different judgments 2. A Rule of Severity which determines to one uniform practice notwithstanding the diversity of judgment so that all must be drawn hang'd and quarter'd that come not up to this Rule 'T is the latter the Doctor now so stifly contends for and none can blame him if he be for that Rule because such a Rule would be for him if he could get it which is the best Reason he can produce for this Rule II. He pleads therefore it cannot be the Rule of Charity because the Apostle had spoken to that just before but rather think I it must be that same Rule because the Apostle had spoken of it just before and therefore he calls it the same Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that very Rule he had just before mention'd for they that have attained to the highest measure of knowledge are not exempted from the Rule of Charity towards those that have less knowledge and it 's new Grammar as well as new Divinity that a Relative cannot agree with his Antecedent because the Antecedent went before and will destroy the surest way of interpreting Scripture from the Coherence and Context if we must conceive there can be no reference of what follows after to that which immediately went before III. The Doctor yet argues farther That the Philippians understood already what Rules he had given them when a Church was first formed among them and therefore when he mentions a Rule without declaring what it was we have reason to believe it was such a Rule which they well knew he had given them before Well then 't is confessed that the Rule the Apostle exhorts them to walk by was such a Rule as he had before given them we are assured he had given them a Rule concerning all necessary things we are not assured he had given them any Rules for unnecessary things if the Doctor can let him produce the Rule and we are ready to Conform to it Apocryphal Rules about new Rites new Ceremonies new Churches new Government we find none and therefore must be contented with what he had given them before viz. that Rule by which the New Creature is guided and governed Gal. 6.16 As many as walk according to this Rule peace be on them But we have got another Rule and they that walk not according to that Rule though conscientiously and strictly walking by the other no peace shall be on them no peace shall be with them but wrath and vengeance Fire and Fagot but that time is short IV. The Doctor yet further argues from 1 Cor. 11.34 The rest will I set in order when I come And 1 Cor. 7.17 As God hath distributed to every man as the Lord hath called every one so let him walk and so ordain I in all the Churches Here then we have an Order an Act or an Ordinance of the Apostle a fixt standing Rule to which all are bound to Conform themselves but what now if they who call themselves the Apostles Successors will not suffer us to Conform to the Rule The Apostles Rule is Let every one walk as God has distributed to him The modern Rule is Let every one walk farther and faster than God has distributed to him Well there 's no remedy for sayes the Doctor This shews the Apostles did not leave all persons to act as they judg'd fit No I believe they did not but as God by his Apostles thought fit not by Traditions but Scripture Revelations not by the Flesh but by the Spirit not by their own Wills or the Wills of men but by and after the Will of God But the Apostles made Rules determining their practice No doubt of that but was it about Mint Anise and Cummin or the great and weighty things of the Law V. Still he proceeds That although Men might pretend that the things were not in themselves necessary that they were scrupled by some persons and therefore were not fit to be imposed upon any yet he does not find that the Apostles forbore to give Rules in such cases and to oblige Christians to observe them To which I say 1. That I do not find that the Apostles did attempt to give Rules in such Cases other than the Rule of Charity of kindness of mutual forbearing one another the Doctor does not find they did forbear Must we believe they did every thing we do not find they did forbear Really I do not find they did forbear preaching against Liturgies the Sign of the Cross Archbishops and Bishops Archdeacons and Deans will he allow me to conclude that therefore he did preach against them what wild work would an Argument from Authority negatively in matters of Fact make with our Ceremonies And what a Hubbub had it raised if such Reasonings were to be found in the Sermons of the Dissenters 2. Let him therefore shew plainly That the Apostles interposed their Authority to impose upon the Disciples any one thing which was not antecedently some way or other necessary to that Imposition and never stand casting a mist before our eyes by saying the Apostles gave Rules in such Cases when the Cases are vastly different from those that are in debate amongst us VI. He goes on What the Apostle thus imposed was not on the meer authority of Apostles but as Church-Governors whose business it is to take care of their preservation Not as Apostles
means for if they be true Churches of Christ his ill meaning will not deprive them if they be not so his good meaning will not give them a power to reform themselves 2. It may be quaeried how those Churches of the nations which separated from the Roman Empire came by this great priviledge to reform and govern themselves more than others for if it be an inherent power and right all Churches have it if not who could give it to some more than others 3. We should be glad to see what right to govern and reform themselves was given by the Scripture to national Churches which yet the Doctor affirms It had been very convenient to have proved their Being from Scripture before he asserted their right and power And it will make men admire that the Scripture should give a right to such Churches as it never knew 4. And if the Churches of those nations that were incorporated into national Churches upon the decay of the Roman Empire did by consent embody for their own preservation it can hardly be believed that they design'd their own destruction that is that those particular Churches should grant a power to National Ecclesiastical Governours that would deprive them of that power that they had within themselves For as it cannot be imagined that ever any number of families would embody to set a civil Governour over them and entrust him with a power that would destroy propriety or take away paternal authority or the just power of Masters over Servants so neither can we suppose in a dream that particular Churches should agree to unite in such a national frame as should destroy the power of the Pastors and Elders of the particular assemblies so as they should be but the Curates and their Churches but Chappels of to the Cathedrals and Bishops which were prudential Creatures erected meerly by their own consent 5. To say that the Church of Macedonia would have been National if from being a Roman province it had become a Christian Kingdom is to say thus much and no more That there would have been a national Church in Macedonia but for a small inconvenience that there was none 6. And to say that the several Churches of the Lydian or proconsular Asia would have been a National Church if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same authority under the same Rules is to say just as much that is nothing or nothing to the purpose for the uniting of several Churches under one Prince who governs them by the same Authority and Rules will not make one Church 7. And what strange kind of Churches were they who having assumed their just right of Government did then own Christianity and then incorporate into one Church where had they their just right of Government before their owning of Christianity 8. And if these particular Churches of Nations had power to incorporate into one National Church then the particular Churches are of Christs institution and these National Churches only prudential contrivances for common security and then it will follow that the National could have no power but what was freely given them by the particular Churches which cannot be imagined was ever given to their own Annihilation or rendring them meerly titular and perhaps they may resume their right when as weighty reasons do appear for the resumption as ever there were for their resignation 9. And if these particular Churches have so far devolved all the intrinsick power which Christ vested them with upon the National frame and constitution that they cannot now govern themselves reform themselves or exert the power which they sometimes had and enjoyed then have they unchurched themselves and remain only so much matter without form and then it can be no schism to separate from them since all corruptions among them must be immortal when they have foolishly quitted the power of reforming themselves except the National Church pleases This word Church has made a great noise in the world and we hear every moment what wonders what miracles the Church can do Now there 's a natural curiosity in all men to see that person or thing that boasts of this wonder-working power and accordingly we would gladly be acquainted with this body called Church To satisfie our Humour the Doctor tells us That the true Notion of a Church is no more than a society of men united together for their order and government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which description I perceive marvelously edifies all that hear it For a Parliament is a society of men and of men united and united for their order and government and truly I believe according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Quare now whether the Parliament of England be not the Church of England I humbly conceive the Doctor fell asleep in the next words It 's a great mistake says he to make a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that the true Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship For never certainly was any so bereaved of common sense as to assert that this is the adaequate Notion of a Church It had been civil to have quoted some one obscure Nonconformist that in some Book which none ever read but the Doctor has asserted such an Absurdity We say that the Publick Worship of God is one of the Ends of uniting into a Church Society but not the onely End and to exclude Worship as the Doctor seems to do in his description is as bad if not worse than to exclude Discipline and Government But we agree that Worship is not the onely End there must be Government Discipline exercised in every Church what will the Doctor gain by all this but that our Parochial Churches are not true Churches And when the Doctor says further There must be some other Bond to unite Churches some other besides Worship I cannot enough admire at the absurdity of the expression seeing Worship is not the Bond but the End of Union It has been familiar with this Reverend and Learned Person having been employ'd in more important Controversies either to mistake or misrepresent the Notions and Principles of the Dissenters for so I find him Answ to several Treatises p. 180 181. laying this down as a fundamental Principle of those who separate from the Church of England as to Worship wherein the difference lies that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he has expresly commanded And at the bottom of the same Page he repeats the same thing with the same confidence wherein the Doctor treads in the steps of Archbishop Whitgift and he must tread in his steps if ever he reach Lambeth who in his answer to the Admonition does charge the Puritans to hold That nothing was lawful in Worship but what was expresly commanded in the Word of God upon no better ground than that the Admonition had said nothing is lawful in Worship but what God has
together in the Church compar'd with ver 20. when ye come together into one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where to meet in the Church and to meet in one place are phrases of equal Latitude and so Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians Edit Voss p. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. If the Prayer of one or two Christians hath such power how much greater efficacy hath that of the Bishop and the whole Church he therefore that cometh not to that place or that Congregation is already proud and hath condemned himself Hitherto the Doctor has endeavor'd to overthrow the Principle which seeing he cannot do he comes to suppose or grant it yet withal denying that from thence any thing can be drawn that will justifie Separation § 1. Suppose says he that the first Churches by reason of the small numbers of Believers at that time were Congregational yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the Peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant state To which I answer none at all we know no such obligation lies upon us and do wish that they supposing the Church to be Metropolitical or National did see no more obligation lying upon them to disturb the Peace of the Churches that we live in to reduce all to their overgrown state we are for our own liberty without infringing theirs but it 's common to complain of other mens unpeaceableness who will have peace with none but themselves § 2. They do not think it necessary says he to introduce the first community of goods which was far more certainly practised than Congregational Churches nor to wash one anothers feet though Christ did it and bad his Disciples do as he did I answer 1. For Community of Goods I dare say I shall convince the Doctor it was no obliging example for he has no temptation to become a Leveller and would lose more than he could hope to gain by putting all the Benefices of the Land into Hotchpot For there was never any such command or practice for the promiscuous use of all outward things without the free consent of individual Christians Propriety was not then destroyed but each Christian was the Proprietor of his Estate the great exigency of the Church did invite to a very liberal and extraordinary measure of charitable contribution to the necessity of the Saints but still it was voluntary and no otherwise forced than by Arguments Acts 5.4 While it remained was it not thy own and after it was sold was it not in thy power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Charity did not destroy Propriety And if the same distress should again overtake any particular Church as that was it would be as much the duty of the Rich to extend their Benevolence to the necessity of their poor Brethren as then it was or could be 2. For his instance of Christ's washing his Disciples Feet and commanding them to do as he did What person that reads the Scripture does not observe that it was not the washing the Feet that was commanded but that mutual deference reciprocal serving of each other avoiding of ambitious encroaching of one over another when Christ had made them Equals this was the great Point Christ would instruct them in by that temporary Ceremony For so it is commanded that we lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting 1 Tim. 2.8 when yet none ever stood so superstitiously upon 't that every man is bound to lift up his hands in Prayer but the Duty was purity of the whole man Two things therefore there are in this reasoning which would be better cleared 1. That there is no more necessity for the worship of God in particular Assemblies at all times under all conditions of the Church than there was for the Community of Goods in that extraordinary exigence of the Church at that time 2. That Propriety of our Estates and the right of our particular Churches to worship God must give way to National Church Frames in both which we have some cause to be tender and not to part with them till we receive better Arguments § 3. The Doctor reasons thus with us They believe that the first Civil Government was appointed by God himself over all Families do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to their first institution if not why shall the Peace of the Church be in so much worse a condition than that of the Civil State To which the Answer is very plain 1. We look upon our selves under no obligation to disturb much less to destroy Kingdoms or any kind of Government whatever to reduce things to their first institution nor is there any need of it to destroy the Civil Government by reducing the Church to such a posture as will answer the great designs of Religion 2. The same Divine Authority that instituted Civil Government in Families did also institute Government over Families whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and if the Doctor can shew that the same Authority which appointed particular Churches for his own service and glory and the edification of Believers hath also appointed National Churches for the same ends we shall confess that his Instance is parallel his Argument from thence cogent and such as will cut asunder the Nerves of our Answer when the wise God did institute National Civil Government yet be reserved entire to the Masters of Families their authority over Servants and Children and the propriety in their Estates but how will this justifie such a National Church-Government as destroys the inherent power of the Pastors of particular Churches making them only shadows of the primitive Pastoral Authority if shadows and leaving them onely the bare Name if the Name of Pastors without any power inherent in them to govern the Churches over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers § 4. He reasons thus It 's very uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as they fancy If so then 1. It is as uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as he Fancies If it were uncertain whether God would be Worship't in particular Congregations that had a power to Govern and Reform themselves then it must be as uncertain nay more uncertain whether God would have a Frame Erected of such Churches where God could not be Worship't 2. And if it be uncertain what the primitive Form was then it 's very crâ—â—â— to plague and torment men as Schismaticks that are quiet and peaceable 〈◊〉 design nothing but the serving their God and saving their Souls for not complying with such a Form or Frame which it is uncertain whether it were the Primitive one or no. 3. And then it will be very certain that there can be no Obligation upon us to hold Communion with the Parochial Church by Divine right since it 's uncertain whether God ever intended such assemblies of Christians or no. 4. And then it will be uncertain also whether the Parochial
present Dissenters have particularly expressed the matters of their Offence and cannot obtain a removal of them neither for Love nor Money and it 's a very hard World when neither of those two Wedges will drive 12 And they say farther That the Honourable Houses may find out more for Reformation than haply the Assembly have Advised or themselves yet concluded so that they will be willing to be farther instructed in the things that belong to the Churches Peace But our good Masters have set up their Hercules's Pillars and Engraven on them Ne plus ultra so that now Hope it self is become hopeless Patience worn to the Stumps and all Endeavours out of breath for after Cheese and Canon comes Nothing 13 Whatever the Altercations and Debates between the two Parties were in the Sub-Committee yet the Resolve at last which is the main if not only thing considerable was this Decemb. 15. Resolved upon the question That they which agree in the substance of the Worship in the Directory according to the Preface and agree in the Confession of Faith and with the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches contained in their Confessions and writings as we do who differ from those Brethren in matters of Discipline shall have the benefit of the Indulgence In short It may be a plausible but no righteous Method to take the Arguments of the Committee which were only conclusive in the Case before them and perhaps not there and to applie them to our present Case which is quite another thing And yet when all is said that can be said in this matter it must be confessed there were undue heats and animosities between the Brethren both standing too high upon their Pantables which deserves to be lamented and not Imitated and drawn into Argument and Example to justifie the inflexible Rigour of the present Terms of Communion SECT VIII Philip. 3.15 Considered How the Doctor rids himself of the danger of the Context His second Question propounded and answered like the former that is not at all His Discourse about Conscience examined THe Author of the Discourse was very apprehensive that the Context would be urged against his interpretation of the Text and therefore to save us a labour he has from thence formed an objection for us against his own Doctrine which we thankfully acknowledge and accept whatever may be said says he as to other Pleas for their present practices my Text it should have been the verse before it seems to afford the strongest of all that men are to be pressed to go no further than they have already attained and not to be strained up to an Uniformity beyond the dictates of their Consciences but to be let alone as the Apostle directs in the foregoing verse If any one be otherwise minded he must be left to God and that manifestation of his will he will be pleased to give him This Objection to say truth is drawn up with as much integrity as we could well expect For the Counsel for the Defendent is hardly to be trusted to draw up the declaration for the Plaintiff One small exception we have against his wording our Plea and 't is but a small one We say not that men are not to be pressed to go further than they have attained provided they be only pressed with such Arguments as are proper for the conviction of Rational Creatures For thus would our Blessed Savior have them pressed who was the grand exemplar of all moderation and meekness Luke 14.23 Compel them to come in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And let tender Consciences be thus compelled and spare them not we shall never complain of this force this violence But there is a more savage and ferine Method of Compulsion like that of the Gentleman who courteously invied his poor Tenants to a Christmas dinner by a Bum-bailiff and Tickets of green-wax which filled his house indeed with guests but spoiled all the mirth of the Feast A Hawk will never make a good sign for a Dove-Coat We would not have men pressed and oppressed with Club-Logick as a procedure unsuitable to the nature of Christianity And now we abide by the Objection If God himself has given the Indulgence what man has power to take off the Seal or why should the Church trouble it self and others with doubtful Canons when they that have not attained to satisfaction about them have the condescension of God to plead for the suspension of their own Acts during such dissatisfaction Now this knot the Doctor will untie or cut or break And the clearing of it he says will give a full answer to the second enquiry viz. what is to be done if men cannot come up to the Rule prescribed But is not this very much about and about the Bush why should he give himself the needless trouble to enquire so scrupulously what is to be done in case men cannot come up to the Rule when the Apostle has already given us a short but plain answer to it namely that they are to be left to God for farther instruction But the Doctor is not satisfied with this Answer and therefore he will answer it in these particulars Answer it yes just as he did the former question by speaking never a word to it Had he been pleased to have answered the Question what is to be done he should have resolved us first What means are to be used to reclaim them that cannot come up whether fair or fowl Christian or barbarous whether corporal penalties are to be suspended or the Dissenters whether they are to be left in Gods hands or taken into the Gaolers clutches Secondly By whom this must be done that is to be done as what they are to do who are dissatisfied what course they must take to attain more knowledge of Gods mind and Will in that matter that so they may enlarge their practice according to the improvement of their understanding Let it not then be ill taken if we put a few questions about this Question I. What must they do to whom a Rule is prescribed by Men about their worshiping of God who cannot come up to it And surely if pride and interest had not muddied it the Answer had run very clear They ought to examine and try that Rule by the word of God to beg of him instruction in any point wherein they may possibly be otherwise minded than he would have them And in the mean time to forbear for whatsoever is not of faith is sin that is whatever a man does and is not persauded that it may be lawfully done II. What must be done by Church Governours if men cannot come up to their establisht Rules and thus much of the Answer is exceeding obvious 1. That they had better sit still and do nothing than rise up and do mischief Let 'em do no more harm than good and let them be doing 2. That if they must need have more work to do let 'em be sure they have a Commission