a little disguis'd the matter in his Discourse to make it smile upon his pretensions I will give the Reader the naked truth of the whole business There were in the Apostles days some Judaizing Christians who being not well weaned from the Mosaic Ceremonies would needs compel the Gentile Converts to their old observances for which they plausibly pretened that those Rites having been once confessedly establish'd by Divine Authority and not yet explicitely repealed by any Countermand of Christ equal to that whereby they had been enjoined were still in full force power strength and virtue and did oblige the gentil world to give their assent and consent to them and in pursuance of this imposing humor they would have obtruded upon them a Canon Acts 15.5 That except they were circumcised and observ'd the law of Moses they could not be saved To this Usurpation the Apostles oppose their authority and taking the Gentile Christians into their protection vindicate their Liberty and command them to stand fast in it and not tamely surrender themselves to the will and pleasures of these imperious Masters And because St. Peter by his compliance had hardened these Judaizers in their Superstitions St. Paul takes him up roundly reproves him to his face and strenuously asserts their Gospel Liberty which had he not done the Doctor thinks all the Gentile Christians had been forced either to a compliance with the Jews or to a perpetual Schism But herein I must beg his pardon for though they had been forced to a Separation it had been no Schism which visibly had lain on the other side for Paul in his admonition to the Church at Rome lays all the blame of the Separation not upon them that separate but on those that gave cause to the Separation Rom. 16.17 I beseech you Brethren mark them which cause divisions and offences among you and avoid them Where he points to us these three things 1. That they who cause divisions are the culpable dividers the Imposers must be responsible for the evil consequences of their Impositions 2. That it 's lawful nay a duty to divide from those that unwarrantably give such cause of division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decline or depart from them 3. That any Condition of Communion imposed besides as well as against the Doctrine received from the Apostles is a sufficient ground to condemn the Imposers to justifie those that reject such conditions for so we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so we find it rendered Gal. 1.8 Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that we have preach'd unto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be accursed Hitherto matters do not work to the Doctor 's mind he does movere but nihil promovere the step he has taken has set his cause a step backward 2 And therefore he will try another Experiment whether the Epistle with the Context may not invite or draw the Text to his Interest 1 His first approach he makes thus The Apostle exhorts the Philippians to an unanimous and constant resolution in holding fast to the faith of the Gospel in spight of all the malice and threats of their enemies Phil. 1.27 28. And most wholsom counsel it is God give all Dissenters grace to take it for if once the fears of Troubles and Persecutions make men afraid to own and maintain their Religion it will be an easie matter for their enemies first to divide and then to subdue them This will not yet do the Doctor 's work nor undo the Dissenters 2 He makes a nearer approach thus The Apostle beseeches them in the most vehement and affectionate manner not to give way to any differences or divisions among them Very good As much then as in us lies we will live peaceably with all men But what security shall we have that they will do so with us We will labor that there be no differences in judgment which yet in our imperfect state is not to be expected but if there be differences we will take care there be no divisions for we are taught to maintain Christian affections towards those that are of different apprehensions from our selves and different practices too proportionable to those different sentiments for so the Apostle adjures the Church Phil. 2.1 2. To be like minded having the same love being of one accord and of one mind Upon which words the Doctor gives us this Paraphrase q. d. I have seen the miserable effects of Divisions in other Churches indeed Divisions that are caused by or issue out in hatred malice envy persecution have effects as miserable as themselves but what miserable effects did he or we ever see that all mens faces were not of one complexion Let me therefore entreat you to avoid the first tendencies to any breaches among you and unnecessary Impositions lay the first foundations to these Mischiefs entertain no jealousies no unjust suspicions of each other as that the most godly among those that differ from you in lesser matters can least endure to be told of their faults or that the tenderness of their minds out of meer shame-facedness keeps them from declaring truth but shew all the kindness you are able to your fellow members and surely you are able to wave these Bones of Contention these make-bate Ceremonies you are able to forbear railing persecuting are you not I confess Pride is an impotency of mind and Passion a great weakness of soul the strongest wills have commonly the weakest reason to govern them and the ambition of glorying in the flesh of those whom they can make to truckle to their Humors and Crotchets is a pretty flesh-pleasing vanity which I hope in time you will overcome so that hitherto we can smell no Plot the Doctor has upon us no scent of Match or Powder or how by these Ambages and remote Fetches he intends to attack us we discern not 3 In the next place therefore he tells us the Apostle gives Cautions against some persons from whom their greatest danger was viz. such as pretended a mighty zeal for the Law Nay I always suspected our danger would come from that Quarter but am glad we know our enemies and do promise him we 'll keep a special eye upon them in all their motions Some such there are in the world who are exceeding zealous for Ceremonies and Traditions and would triumph if they could carry it for Bel and the Dragon such as would knead the world into its old mass and lump rather than want of their wills and as the Judaizers would renounce Christianity and return to Moses except the Gentiles would conform to their legal observances so have we some such who will revolt to Rome unless they may not retain for who hinders them but impose their own admired knick-knacks upon others Now such as these the Apostle deals smartly with he calls them Dogs Evil Workers the Concision because they tore in pieces the seamless Coat of Christ into shreds
least of their Impositions which have made the Separation it might better have been stiled The Mischief of Union Now to do this as he thinks more convincingly he will first lay down some Concessions It had been a more convincing method in the judgment of most Men if he had proved Separation sinful from Scripture grounds rather than from some Mens Concessions seeing I do not understand either that we are bound to stand to their Concessions or that the Concessions themselves will do his Cause the least service And they themselves have been so bang'd by the Papists by this Argumentum ad hominem that one would think they should have little comfort to use it We cannot forget how in the Relation of the Conference between the A. B. Laud and the Jesuite the Lady who gave occasion to the Dispute asked this Question Whether a Person living and dying in Communion with the Church of Rome might be saved His Grace answered affirmatively Now what Triumphs before the Victory the Papists have made upon this Concession the Doctor has sufficient cause to understand You say they confess that Salvation is attainable in Communion with us we peremptorily deny it That Salvation may be had in your Communion And therefore the safest way is to hold Communion there where both sides agree Salvation may be attained This Argument from that Concession is much stronger than one drawn from the Concession of any one or many amongst us because we own no learned Men to be our Ecclesiastical Head as that Archbishop was supposed to have been theirs But thus fared it with them for their Charity to Rome and thus fares it with us for our Charity to them they cannot own Rome to be a true Church and that persons in that Communion may be saved but they must hear on 't on both sides of their ears why then did you separate from a true Church wherein you might have been saved Nor must we grant the Church of England to be a true Church but presently we are pelted with the same Reply that was thrown at their heads why then did you separate But we had rather suffer by our Charitableness and their Uncharitableness than admit any the least Temptation to deny the Church of England to be a true Church and to hold all the essential Points of Faith seeing the Doctor himself has granted as much as this comes to where he allows of Separation yet let us hear what these Concessions are § 1. They unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrinal Articles of our Church Doctrinal Articles Are there then any Articles that are not Doctrinal Every Article contains as I always thought some Doctrine or other and which then are the Non-doctrinal Articles more particularly 1. It is not true that the Dissenters unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of the Church for I am confident none of them but do find fault with that Doctrine That Children baptized and dying before the commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved And that other That whosoever believeth not stedfastly all that is contained in the Athanasian Creed cannot be saved but shall perish everlastingly 2. They do not believe all the Articles of the Thirty nine and particularly not the 20th of the Churches power to impose Rites and Ceremonies and that also is a Doctrinal Article 3. But if by Doctrinal Articles be intended no more than those that relate to the essential Points of saving Faith it 's true they find no fault with them but then it 's as true that the Doctor has confest also That the Church of Rome maintains all such Articles and yet he justifies the Separation from their Communion whence it will unavoidably follow that it is lawful to separate from a Church which holds all the essential Points of Faith absolutely necessary to salvation 4. And what is it to the Laity what Doctrinal Articles are contained in the Book compiled 1562. if the contrary Doctrines be now openly preached in those Parochial Churches to which their adherence is required For if their Communion with the Parish Churches be the thing which he mainly insists on it 's of more concern to them what is there preach'd than what Faith they were of an hundred years ago § 2. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these their Communion is required And are not then the Parochial Churches more beholden to the Dissenters than to the Doctor whose Principles do deny them to be true Churches For so he tells us p. 27. That although when the Churches encreased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptistry and one Bishop So that the Parochial Congregations are but occasional meetings members and appurtenances of the Cathedral Chappels of Ease under the Mother Church but no true Churches because each has not its proper Bishop And so they make the Diocesan Bishop the onely Pastor and the Parochial Teachers to be onely his Curates to ease them of the trouble and cumber of Preaching And some have observed a strange Innovation in the very office of the Minister of late years for whereas in the old Ordination of Priests they enstated them in their whole office by reading that Text Acts 20.28 Feed the Flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops This Text is now omitted and Ministers are ordain'd to preach when and where the Bishops shall give them a Licence And thus the Parochial Teachers are no Officers of Christ but creatures of the Bishops making nor have they any Jurisdiction any power of Government or Discipline in their hands which all those Pastors whom Christ appointed are vested with but serve to execute the Decrees Sentences and Awards of the Chancellors Officials and Commissaries without liberty to interpose so much as a judgment of discretion And though they retain the name of Rectors yet 't is rather a footstep of what once originally they were but not any term that carries or imports in it any real Authority And what if the Dissenters do not deny that you have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments and an implicit Covenant between Pastors and People Do not also our great Clergymen own and allow that Rome hath all these The Doctor I am certain allows them to be true Churches to have all the Essentials of true Churches and that they have true Sacraments too else why are not they re-baptized which from Rome are converted and brought over to the Church of England And true Ministers else why are they not re-ordained who after reconciliation are allowed to exercise their Ministerial Function when yet a Minister ordained by the Reformed Churches shall not enjoy that priviledge meerly for want of Episcopal Ordination And will the Doctor deny that they have the Eucharist in all its essential parts though they have superadded many gross
it to be the Dissenters duty to widen their Communion to that Latitude It 's sufficient if they that hold this Principle can justifie it without confuting other mens Notions and they Judge their own Principle and Practice sufficiently authorised from this one thing Their Doctrine Communion and Ordinances have the same extent with those of the first Christians Acts 2.42 Who continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship breaking Bread and Prayer And let the opposers prove that any larger extent of Churches than what answers these ends is necessary and they are ready to Conform themselves to it What the Doctor hath to say or however what he hath said will fall under these heads 1. I have never seen any tolerable Proof that the Churches Planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations To which more needs not be said than that 1. If the Churches planted by the Apostles were in such Congregations it 's no matter to us whether they were limited to such Congregations or no If Congregational bounds be allowed let other and larger bounds be proved by them that are concern'd to justifie them 2. If such particular Churches were not of Christs institution then it would be no Schism to separate from them I say no Schism of Christ's condemning and if others will make other Notions of Schism which Christ and his Apostles never knew and so multiply sin without cause let them contrive a hell too wherein those sins and schisms shall be punished 2 The Doctor proceeds It 's possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one assembly for worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct officers with a separate power of government I confess I know not where any such thing appears that they made new and distinct Churches that is specifically new of another kind sort or species but that they did make other Churches and other Officers that is more Churches and more Officers is made appear thus that if they had not such Officers their assemblies had not answered their ends and if they had not the same power of Government that the other Churches had they had not been of the same kind but quite another thing but what it does not appear the Apostles did it appears abundantly the succeeding corrupter times have done even to form new Churches new Officers wholly distinct from those instituted by Christ and his Apostles and hence it was that to keep Peace as is pretended amongst the Pastors of particular Churches they found out a Bishop and to keep the Bishops from falling together by the ears they invented an Archbishop and because the Metropolitans might possibly quarrel they instituted a Patriarch and because the Patriarchs were subject to the same passions with other men prudence contrived a Pope and clapt him upon them all to keep them in Decorum 3 The Doctor thinks it will not appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 in the Church of Jerusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for divine worship Things are credible or incredible as some mens interests and occasions will have them or else it were no such hard matter to make it credible to the Doctor that 5000 10000 20000 might make one stated and fixt Congregation for worship he has an instance of it in St. Andrews Holborn a place which he has cause to know contains more than 5000 and yet they have but one stated fixed Congregation for divine worship 4 The Doctor thinks that much more may be said for lim ting Churches to private families than to particular Congregations Let us hear it then Do we not read of the Church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila Rom. 16.3 5. and of the Church that was in the house of Nymphas at Coloss Col. 4.15 and in the house of Philemon in Laodicea Philem. 2 3. yes we do so and yet hear nothing to the purpose for a Church may be in a house and yet not composed of that house A Church may meet in a family when it consists of more than the family A Church of Dissenters may possibly meet in a house and yet if one of the ecclesiastick Setters should get them in the wind and inform against them that they were there assembled for the worship of God with above the number of four besides the family I fear A Plea that they that meet in a family are of the family would hardly prevent a Conviction 5 Again the Doctor argues thus If notwithstanding such plain examples men will extend Churches to Congregations of many families why may not others extend them to those societies which consist of many Congregations I will tell him why 1. Because his plain examples are plain mistakes nor can he give one instance of a Church that consisted of a family because it was a family 2. We read of Churches of many families but of none composed of many particular Churches Many families have warrant to unite into a Church not as families but as the individuals are duly qualified in order to the great ends of worship edification c. But many Churches have no such warrant to unite for the destruction of those ends or any one of them And it is the end and the usefulness of unity for that end which must regulate and determine the Union It is very lawful to build a Ship or Man of war as big as two or three Yachts which may do better service but it 's folly to make one that would reach from Calice to Dover which must lie like an useless Log unmeet for sailing and the ends for which all Ships are built but let the Doctor extend the name of Church as far as he pleases to the worlds end or as far as the Rules of the Kings bench have been extended we are unconcern'd so long as this is clear that how far soever men may extend Churches name or thing in Compliance with the extent of the civil government yet the extent of our actual communion in worship is no other than that of the Church of which we are by our own choice members 6 He goes on Although when the Churches increased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church one Altar one Baptistry one Bishop which will utterly destroy either parochial or Diocesan Churches For if one Baptistry and one Church be of the same extent what will become of the Diocesan Church in which there are hundred of those Baptistries and but one Bishop and if one Bishop and one Church be of the same extent what will become of the Parochials where there is one Baptistry indeed but not one Bishop And it seems very evident that in the beginning of Christianity a Church was no larger a Body than could assemble in one place for all the ends of a Christian Society so the Apostle supposes 1 Cor. 11.18 when ye come
out with the Dissenters Congregations what is all this to the overthrow of the Church This priviledg may be abused must it therefore not be used Vnsetled heads and unstable hearts will be wandring let them go 't is a good riddance of them if they be obstinate but where this humour has destroy'd one Church this rigorous forcing of Pastors upon the people has divided and destroyed hundreds The generality of Dissenters in this Nation at this day may be reduced to two Heads First Such who having been formerly sixt with and under their faithful Pastors by their deliberate choice after good experience of their Ministerial abilities to teach them the mind and will of God of their wisdom to advise them in their spiritual cases of their skill to conduct them through their emergent difficulties of their meekness sobriety heavenly-mindedness and whatever might recommend to and inforce upon their consciences their sound Doctrine do still judg it their unquestionable duty to abide in that Relation and by no terrours to be driven by no blandishments to be withdrawn from their oversight and guidance according to the word of God judging that such withdrawing such separation would be that real Schism which hears so badly in and is loaded with such guilt by the holy Scriptures A second sort is of those who having been sometime hearers at large in their respective Parish-Churches and coming at last to have more concernment for their souls and the important business of another world and finding that their Parochial Teacher was either so overlaid with a numerous throng of people which he commonly but unadvisely calls his Flock and Charge that he cannot personally take care of the hundredth part of them or so engaged in secular affairs of more weight to him than his Pastoral Charge that he has neither heart nor leisure to attend so troublesome an employment or so unskilful in the word of Righteousness that he cannot tolerably declare the Counsel of God for edification or so unsound in his judgment that he 's more likely to poyson than feed his people or so debauched in his life that he plucks down more in an hour than he builds up in a year or such a Bigot for humane Inventions and Superstitions that the naked simplicity of divine Worship is either clouded to render it useless or clogged to render it burdensome this person seeks and finds out some other Pastor qualified as before described to whose Ministerial conduct under Christ the only chief shepherd he commits himself and there peaceably and patiently continues notwithstanding the barbarick clamours of Schism and Separation And all this without more prejudice to the Church he forsakes then it 's an injury to a Tradesman to leave his shop who has left it himself or has his hands full of better customers 2. That it is the duty of every Christian to worship God not only in purity of the heart but according to the purity of Gospel-administrations The true measure of which Purity is to be taken from its consonancy and harmony with the word of God which has sufficiently either in general special or particular instructed us in the acceptable service of our God Purity of worship is no such idle and contemptible thing to be flam'd off with an impertinent story that we must not separate from a true Church upon pretence of greater purity Nor can I imagine upon what pretence except that of greater purity the Church of England separated from Rome if it be true what we read in Rat. Account p. 293. That the Church of Rome is a true Church and what he further owns Defence against T. G. p. 785. I allow says the Doctor the Church of Rome to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of the Christian faith and what the Archbishop Laud confessed to that Lady who would needs go before to Rome alone because she could not bear a crowd that she might be saved in Communion with the Roman Church Now if Rome be a true Church if she holds all the essential points of Christianity If salvation may be attained in that Communion why was there such a stir about reforming of Accidents when the Essentials were secured Why such a Contest about a little easier way when the other way was passable Why all this a-do about a purer Church when the other is confessed a true Church These things then will follow in the lump from the Archbishops and Doctors Concessions 1. That a person or party may separate from some true Church which holds all the essential points of the Christian faith without the Imputation of a Schismatick 2. That a person or party may separate from some Church where salvation is attainable without peril of the guilt of Schism 3. That the only Reason that yet appears to justifie the Church of Englands departure from Rome is that it is lawful in some cases to withdraw from the Communion of a true Church wherein all the essential points of faith are owned and wherein salvation may be attained for the sake of greater purity of worship greater clearness of Doctrine and greater security of salvation Is it then lawful for England to separate from Italy for greater purity It may be lawful for others to separate from England for greater purity 'T is readily acknowledged that the Impurity of the Roman Synagogue is much more unconceivably more than that of the Church of England and therefore there was not so great cause to leave the latter as the former upon that account but in aspiring after Conformity to the Institutions of Christ we are not to consider so much what is behind as what is before not so much what we have left as what we have yet to reach nor so much the Terminus aquo from what state of Impurity we have emerged as the Terminus ad quem to what state of purity we would arrive for if it be true that there is such a state of Purity to be obtained and such a state of Impurity to be avoided as will justifie our forsaking of this for that and such a measure of both these as will not It must be exactly stated what is the lowest degree of corruption that will and what is the highest that will not warrant a separation The Dissenters being judges there are enow at home to excuse their secession The Romanists being judges there are not enow abroad to vindicate the Church of Englands separation and the former are more confirm'd in their judgment since the Doctors Epistle Dedicatory to the now B. of London prefixt to his Defence against T. G. where he openly avows on the behalf of the English Church that it has reformed those abuses only which have crept in since the times of the first four general Councils Now the last of these four first being held at Chalcedon An. 451. there were such Corruptions crept into the Church before that time which if imposed upon any as the condition of enjoying
Is it not the duty of those who are not arrived at that firmness and settlement of judgment to preserve Unity and Peace without question only this will handsomly mislead us to a mistake that Unity and Peace among Christians are unattainable till they are all of one scantling in Opinion for this is the fancy that is gotten into mens heads That we must have peace with all that in order to Peace there must be Unity of judgment and uniformity in practice 2. He says the Apostle charges them by all means to preserve Unity which if we understand of Gods means is very true but we are not to use our own means such as a naughty heart would prompt to us not to prostitute our Reasons and Consciences to the lust of men but if it be possible as much as in us lies to live in Unity and Peace The Text I see is exceedingly unwilling to be dragg'd into the Doctor 's service two or three plucks therefore he will try more and if it will not come leave it as incorrigible and untractable for says he the Apostle supposes two things § 1. The necessity of one fixed certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians This the Dr. calls one of the Apostles but 't is certainly one of his own supposals For 1. We are even now told of two Rules one for them that differ from the body of Christians they lived with and here the Rule was to leave them to Gods immediate Care for farther illumination but now there is but one fixed standing Rule notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians 2. And to what end is there a fixed Rule inflexible and untreatable when dissatisfaction of Conscience about these matters will exempt any man from it or to what purpose had we a Rule for Indulgence if now it must be vacated by this certain and fixed Rule 3. If there be such a necessity of a fixed standing Rule notwithstanding mens different attainments It 's a wonder the Scripture that contains all things necessary should not speak of it neither of the matter of this Rule nor the makers of the Rule nor the Rules by which the Rule must be made 4. And if there must be one fixed Rule then perhaps The particular forms of Church-government may in time prove jure Divino 5. And what are we the nearer to satisfaction to be told of a Rule and not to be told also what that Rule is If a Scripture Rule we agree but that will not serve his turn if a Rule sent down by Tradition that would do his work but that we want evidence it was intended by the Apostle If Christ or his Apostles had made the Rule with what security of Conscience with what satisfaction of mind could we acquiesce in it but if it be a rule made by the Church governours of after times to hamper and snickle all that they can get within their clutches it will alter the case and we see no reason to give that subjection to it 6. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule about things in their own natures indifferent then when those things by their particular Circumstances are reduced ad actum exercitum what must the poor Christian do If the Rule commands him to Act and the Circumstances have made the Act sinful in that time place c. where is he now here 's a rule against his acting here 's another made by men for his acting they might as well have made one Rule more and that is to hang 'em out of the way rather than to leave them to be tormented between two contrary Rules 7. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule in circumstantial matters how comes it to pass that the Church of England has determined that she has power to alter and varie these Rules according as she sees cause And 8. Must this Rule be for the Universal Church or a National Church or a Particular Church If for the Universal Church it crosses the judgment of your National Church which says it is not necessary that Rites and Ceremonies be alike If for a National Church it must be proved that ever the Apostle understood any such Creature If for a Particular Church only then what will become of Uniformity in the face of the National Church which is the great thing for which this Rule is pretended useful and necessary 9. If there be a necessity of one fixed standing Rule notwithstanding differing attainments then either this fixed Rule must yield and bend to those weak ones that have not attained to see the lawfulness of it or those weak ones must be stretch'd and screw'd up to the fixed Rule If the former how is it fixed that in thousands of Cases every day must bend If the latter what is become of the other Rule that allows those that have not attained to stand or fall to their own Master and appoints them to be left to God's gracious instruction For 10. The Rule prescribed by the Apostle If any man be otherwise minded is the only fixed Rule in matters of indifferent nature which Rule is plain Nonsense if there must be another Rule to which all Christians must come up notwithstanding their dissatisfactions about it 11. That which exceedingly prejudices the Doctor 's Rule is that the universal current and stream of all Expositors run against him Grotius thus glosses it Etiam qui de Ritibus aliter sentiunt interim sciant Evangelii praecepta quae Divina esse persuasi sunt sibi esse sequenda i. e. They that differ in their judgments about Rituals must yet know that they are obliged to walk according to the Precepts of the Gospel which they are persuaded to be of Divine Authority So that the Rule of Scripture was that alone to which they were obliged who were not satisfied about Rites and Ceremonies So Tirinus Regulam hic intelligit à Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam He understands the Rule prescribed by Christ and his Apostles Zanchy takes it for the Rule of Brotherly Love and Holiness and in a word all conspire against the Doctor 's interpretation 12. And why could not the Apostle have spoken intelligibly had he pretended any such thing it had been easie to have said Notwithstanding what I said just now of leaving those that have not attained so far as you and I to God's instruction yet my will is that you all walk by one fixed and standing Rule whether you have attained or no 't is no great matter I 'll not indulge these peevish tender Consciences Let 'em Conform or the Prelates and their Chancellors shall admonish them admonish them admonish them thrice with one breath and then Excommunicate and deliver them up to the Devil To conclude the Doctor had much better have employed his Talents in demonstrating 1. That by a Rule is meant a fixed Rule about things indifferent or dubious 2. That the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy in Convocation Synod or
thousand things that they did and must be presumed to have done and may I thence conclude they never did 'em and thence make what inferences collections and conclusions I think good § 2. He asserts that because the Apostle was willing to have the law buried with as little noise as might be that therefore in this case he perswades both parties to forbearance and charity And what is that other case or those other cases wherein the Apostle would dispense with forbearance and charity Are there any select and reserved cases wherein he would have Christians fall together by the ears was it a duty at Rome not to judge and despise one another and will these be such Cardinal Virtues at Philippi or were they at Rome only to stand or fall to their own Master and must the poor wretches at Philippi be sold for Galley-slaves was it good Doctrine in one Church that every man should be fully perswaded in his own mind before he adventured upon acting and was it Heterodox in the other that they might debauch and prostitute conscience to all pretenders and set their souls for every dog to piss on If the Doctor presumed upon his Auditors had he the same confidence to impose upon his Readers § 3. The Church of England in her Canons of 1640. tells us she followed the Rule prescribed by the Apostle in this chapter to the Romans and has 40. years more so altered the case If the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle to Rome does reach us here in England it 's less matter whether it obliged them at Philippi or no and yet that it obliged them also has been made clear from the Text. § 4. The Dr. manifestly prevaricates when he tells us The Apostle does so much insist upon this advice to the Phillippians that whatever their attainments were they should walk by the same Rule when the innocent Apostle insists upon no such thing He commands as I have oft observed the clear contrary that different attainments should have different walkings and practices that they are to walk as they have attained and not a◠they have not attained And that Rule to which the Apostle refers that which he injoyns is a Rule that may be equally observed under different attainments as under the same namely that evangelical Rule of charity which neither infringes christian liberty nor violates conscience but teaches us to exercise forbearance of one another notwithstanding our different attaintments which is that Royal Law commanded by the Apostle James Jam. 2.8 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Not to be repealed by all the authority on earth nor ever will by that of Heaven § 5. If the Apostle bids the Churches beware of those who make use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches He does also by parity of Reason bid us beware too of those who upon pretence of any other Ceremonies old Customs and apocryphal usages divide the Church and render Communion with it grievous and burdensom and I hope we shall hearken to his advice to beware of them and trust them no further than needs must especially when those old customs have been found of such dangerous and pernicious consequences that they have divided and almost ruined a most flourishing Church and madeway for a common Enemy to break in with utmost fury upon us § 6. If the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his Directions Then those directions or whatever they are called that disturb the Churches Peace and give just cause for separation proceed by other measures and it 's time to look about us when we meet with such as hazard that precious blessing of Peace upon such Rules Canons and Institutions as have almost and if not seasonably prevented will certainly destroy us SECT IV. Of the Obligation that lies upon Christians to walk by the same Rule The Doctor 's two questions propounded The former considered but no answer to it given by him Several preliminaries examined THe Reverend Doctor having at length got over the flats and bars that lay at the mouth of the channel is now hoising up his main Sail to the wind And can we expect his discourse should run more naturally and smoothly for having begg'd one half of the controversie he may more easily borrow the rest of it And therefore from the obligation that lies upon Christians to walk by the same Rule that is such a Rule as he has made for the Apostle and us There will arise saies he two very considerable Questions that is to say where one absurditie is granted two more nay twenty will follow 1. Question How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an establisht Rule and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in This Question I confess is considerable very considerable had he told us what the Rule establisht is for there are very crooked ones in the World and who must be the Rule maker for there are many pretenders and then proved that we are to comply with it but to enquire how far we are to comply and not make it out that we are to comply at all to such Rules as he has contrived is not so considerable as he would perswade us And yet seeing the hare is started I wish it were caught and since he has propounded the question it had been well if he had answered it which we might demand in Justice but shall take it for a special favour if he will at any time hereafter tell us how far we are to comply with an establisht Rule At present he cannot be at leisure in the mean time for the preventing all misunderstanding the design of his Discourse he desires us to consider 1 That he speaks not of the separation or distinct communion of whole Churches from each other we are glad of that First because if he allow separation by whole sale we shall do the better if the retail trade be denyed And secondly because hereby the Churches of the dissenters will be out of the way his anger for as he adds These whole Churches according to Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just right and power to reform themselves If then the Churches of the dissenters be but true Churches and whole Churches If they have in them all the essentials of Churches If they have pastors rightly qualified duly chosen the word of God purely preached the Sacraments duly administred and all other ordinances of Christ regularly used they have then power to govern and reform themselves But by whole Churches he means the Churches of such nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian society under the same common Ties and Rules of Government To which I answer 1. It 's not material in this Case what Churches he
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
him that he would not be so morose and humoursome however that he would shave his face that made him look so like satyr and besides she could not tell how to have communion with his lips for the bristles of his chin and the turn-pikes of his overgrown Mustachoes but Monsieur Moroso for so was the gallant called protested he would not lose a hair of his beard as poor an excrement as the ignorant Laity call'd it for the greatest Lady in Europe and so all this hot love evaporated in Complement and Ridicule SECT VII The principle assigned to some others of the Dissenters considered The Arguments from the Papers of Accommodation between a Sub Committee of the Assembly and their Brethren of the Congregational persuasion modestly examined HItherto the Doctor 's reasonings against that principle that there is a separation but yet the separation is no Schism have fallen under consideration He proceeds now to that of some others who confess as he says That to live in a state of separation from such Churches as many at least of ours are is a sin what mystery may there be in the phrase of living in a state of separation I am not well aware of and therefore cannot prevent what mischeif may be design'd against us by it Of a State of Nature and a state of Grace we have read in old Protestant Authors but now adays all the outcry is against this state of separation Now the Doctor informs us that the men of this Plea deny that they live in a state of separation although they preach when and where it is forbidden by law and worship God and administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what our Church requires They own separation to be sinful and have no other Refuge left but to deny the fact which is evident to all persons In the general I shall only say that the principles and pleading of these whom the Doctor would make two parties are really and indeed but one and the same only they have made use of other expressions to declare their minds They that say separation is lawful take the word only for a withdrawing from the Communion of a Church when they have good reasons to justifie their departure They that say separation is sinful take the word in an evil sense as denoting a departure from a Church out of humour Levity or some worse principle as hatred of opposition to those Churches from which they withdraw And this he might have seen in those very words he quoted from the Author of Concord Causeless renouncing Communion with true Churches is Schism especially if it be joyned with setting up Anti-Churches unwarrantably against them Now how many things must concur to make separation culpable according to the tenor of these words I can hardly reckon up 1. It must be separation without cause from a true Church Now the Doctor himself will allow that there may be a just cause of separation from a true Church 2. It must be renouncing communion but though these men suspend or forbear Communion for a while yet when the Church shall return to herself and abate of her rigors they carry in their breasts Animum revertendi a propensity to return again 3. It must be setting up Churches against Churches not one besides another to carry on the common cause of Religion against Atheists Hereticks Infidels prophane persons and all the debauchees both in faith and manners And 4. all this must be done in an unwarrantable manner the circumstances must be such as cross the general rules of the Gospel and if all these be found in any separation let it be doomed and condemned for schism and sinful I wonder therefore with what sincerity the Doctor could say They own the thing to be sinful and yet deny the fact Whereas that which they confess to be sinful in the Rule or Principle that only they deny themselves to have done in fact And what they confess themselves to have done they never confessed to be sinful There is a separation that is sinful this say they we never practised And there is a separation too that is lawful and here they own the fact and deny the sinfulness of it These tricks therefore will never satisfie his Auditors nor his Readers but the Doctor 's great Repute and smoothness of his Style and a notable talent to misrepresent his adversaries have made very mean and ordinary Discourses pass for superexcellent and his name being up he may lie-abed till noon for so have I heard somewhere of a Cutler's boy that was making a knife and unluckily the steel fell off when he had welded it No matter no matter Let it go boy said the Master my name 's up and my Iron will sell though not cut better than other mens Steel And now for a more particular return 1. They confess that they three months ago you must understand that we come not within the statute preach when and where it was forbidden by law and they have a cause for it Because they can preach no where nor time else without such conditions as they judge are and think they have proved unlawful but they say that to preach when forbidden by Law is not always sinful For so did the Ministers of Jesus Christ even when their Commission was not vouched by Miracles till 300 years after Christ And if it be said that it is sinful in our case that must be tryed out by no general Arguments and Reasons but such as are special and proper to the case 2. They confess they do worship God and administer Sacraments by other Rules and in other manner than what the present Church prescribes If the Dissenters do all this by other Rules and in other manner than the Assenters do it will follow unavoidably that the Assenters do them by other Rules and in other manner than the Dissenters do which is the worst that I know will follow unless he can prove that the Rules by which they worship God the manner in which they administer Sacraments are nearer then or as near the Rule and Prescript of the Word as those of the Dissenters So that the Question must come to this at last Whether those Rules by which that manner after which the Church requires to worship God and administer Sacraments be conformable to the Scripture Rule of Worship the Scripture manner of Administration for if they be then these Dissenters flatly affirm That they worship God they administer the Sacraments by no other Rule in no other manner than what the Church prescribes But if they be not then they say If they in all their ways of Worship Conform to the Canonical Rules though they do swerve a little from such as are Apocryphal they hope and believe God will acquit them as their Consciences now do of the guilt of Schism and if others will not 't is not so much material because they shall not receive their final doom from
it been done in our case all differences might have been composed 2 The Dissenting Brethren say p. 15. That they agreed in those things which contained the Substance of the Service and Worship of God in the Directory according to the Preface and were confident they should agree in the Confession of Faith so that here was nothing but a Punctilio of Government about which they differ'd 3 The Committee p. 19. render this Reason why the desire of their Brethren could not in Terminis be granted Because it held out a total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor their Churches be Communicated with in any thing which argued Church-Communion and that more could not be done or said against false Churches wherein though they might be mistaken yet it shews upon what Reasons they proceeded but the Persons against whom the Doctor disputes neither plead for nor practice a total Separation nor do any thing that may imply the Parrochial Churches to be false Churches 4. The Committee or Sub-Committee had many things to urge which the Doctor cannot make use of against the Dissenters as 1. That they were now endeavouring a further Reformation according to the Word of God and therefore there was more ground for Hope more reason for Patience to see what the Issue of their Consultations might prove And herein perhaps the Dissenting Brethren might be a little too hasty and nimble with them who knows but matters might have been adjusted to their satisfaction But things are much otherwise with us For 1. they are so far from Reforming according to the Word of God that they own it not for a perfect Rule of Reformation 2. They have taken up their Rest and will not proceed one Step farther not to King Edward's Beginning nor Queen Elizabeths Beginning much less to what Posture things were in at Christ's Beginning 3. When they had power in their hands by His Majesties Commission to have reformed the Liturgy to have eased the People of their Burdens they would not Abate an Ace of their Pretensions but rendred the Terms of Communion more severe and difficult 4. The Parish Churches are meer Minors and under Age they move by the Motions of others cannot Reform themselves but are strictly tyed up to the Rubricks Canons and Constitutions of the Convocation so that we have not the same Reason to hope for their Reforming of Worship according to the Word of God 5. And yet this shall not be any prejudice to them for if they shall do so though it were to morrow or a year or ten years hence we stand ready to fall in with such Reformation And farther 2. the Committee did plead That they had both of them Covenanted to endeavour the nearest Conjunction and therefore for their Oaths sake were bound to part with as much of their Right as with a good Conscience they could foregoe But Dissenters are under no such Obligation that they know of to endeavour such Conjunction with them who obtend their meer Wills to their Edification and some pretend farther That they are under a Solemn Covenant to endeavour a Reformation according to the Word of God in their respective places and stations and therefore ought not to comply with any Declensions and Departures from such Reformation 5 the Committee were willing That some Expedient should be endeavoured how to bear with Dissenters in the Particulars wherein they could not agree But we see no such expedient endeavoured after nor once thought of nay declared against notwithstanding the many Humble Petitions for Peace that have been presented to them notwithstanding His Majesties Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Parliaments Inclinations to shew some favour to tender Consciences nay they have declared against any Condescentions and are daily provoking Magistrates to the utmost Rigour and are like the immovable Bank to which if the Dissenters will not wholly come over the Boat and the Bank must never meet 6 Such was the tenderness of that Committee that we find not so much in a dozen Convocations For first they offer That such as through scruple or error of Conscience cannot joyn to partake of the Lords Supper shall repair to the Minister and Elders for satisfaction which if they cannot receive they shall not be compel'd to Communicate in the Lords Supper provided that in all other parts of Worship wherein there was an agreement they joyned with the Congregation 2. They offer p. 22. That such as are under the Government of the Congregation where they live not being Officers shall seek satisfaction as before which if they cannot receive they shall not be compel'd to be under the power of Censures from Classes or Synods provided they continued under the Government of that Congregation How joyful at how thankful for such Moderation would thousands of poor English-men be if they might enjoy the Benefit of such a Canon to save their Persons from a Prison their Estates from Ruine and their Families from Desolation 7 The Sub-Committee do readily acknowledge That Schism consists not in every diversity of Opinion and Practice but in an open Breach of Love and that no Uniformity is necessary to prevent Schism p. 47. But the Doctor would make us believe p. 32. That men may please themselves in talking of Peace and Love under separate Communions but sad Experience shews the contrary 8 The Committee p. 48. think the Dissenting Brethren wrong them in saying That they make those Impositions upon the people as qualifications for receiving Sacraments whenas they desired no more than that the people appeared to be Orthodox But certainly here 's something more than Orthodoxy required of us even in the judgment of their own Test of Orthodoxy as a qualification for receiving Sacraments and we must Submit to the Sign of the Cross in the one Sacrament for our Infants and Kneeling in the other as necessary to our own receiving them when neither the one nor the other were mentioned by the Assembly 9 The Committee expresly declare they would not have the Dissenting Brethren walk by their Rule farther than as they had attained But the Doctor is for the Rule of Severity waving the great Rule of Charity notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians 10 The Committee profess their Wonder p. 49. That their Brethren should impute it to them as if they arrogated to themselves a power in Ecclesiastical Assemblies to determine and impose circumstantial matters Seeing say they our Proposition doth mention nothing but Agreement in Substance But the Doctor supposing that we are agreed in the Substantials of Worship with him yet presses us to come to the Churches Rules in those things which they themselves call Circumstantials 11 The Committee p. 49. desires That the matters of Offence may be particularly expressed professing their earnest desire as much as in them lay to remove whatever may hinder comfortable Communion that there may be no just cause of Separation But the
too bad to redeem and whil'st there are such the Church unless She will be a Shrew or a Stepmother must take a tender care of them But if it be so endless to satisfie these erring Consciences leave 'em to God he can do it and he will either forbear them in their ignorance or give them knowledge whom it might become those men a little to imitate who call themselves his servants 3. That Scruple of Conscience is no protection against Schism Who says it is It 's only a Prohibition to afford Communion in what we scruple Except when the things scrupled and not scrupled are so blended together that we cannot swallow what appears lawful but we must gorge that with it which appears otherwise which has been the policy of some modern Imposers so artificially to mix the certain and the uncertain the questionable with the unquestionable that these scrupulous Consciences cannot enjoy that wherein they are satisfied except they will venture at that about which they are not so so are Private Bills stitch'd with the Publick ones that the more useful may sell the other which few else would regard So have I seen idle Masters delight themselves to see their Children play at Bob-apple where the poor young Rascals would have been glad of a Bit but were always prevented by the Candle 4 That the Apostles notwithstanding the difference of mens judgments did prescribe Rules of Uniformity Well but mark their proof Did not the Apostles bind the burden of some necessary things on the Churches albeit there were in those Churches gradual differences of light And will the Doctor infer hence a power to bind unnecessary burdens upon the necks of Disciples because the Apostles imposed such as were necessary The Argument then concludes If the Apostles who were infallible had power to impose Necessaries much more may the Prelates impose Unnecessaries though they be fallible But of these things thus much § 3. Come we now to his third and last Proposition A wilful Error or mistake of Conscience doth by no means excuse from sin These things surely are oddly joined together that a wilful Error and a mistake of Conscience should be made the subject of one Proposition There may be a mistake of Conscience where there 's no wilful Error wilfulness makes every Error double obstinacy being added to it but a mistake of simple ignorance makes it not half so great though it makes it not to become nothing it may excuse à tanto though not à toto and mollifie it a little though not justifie it nor nullifie it It will not excuse from sin And yet p. 44. he moves this Question What Error of Conscience doth excuse a man from sin in following the dictates of it If no Error will excuse why is the Question put What Error will excuse And if some Error will excuse why is the Proposition laid down so loosely and uncertainly A wilful Error or Mistake will not excuse from sin And upon this proposition he makes a case If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it which is one of the wildest cases that ever was put For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a Man in his wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful separation A man may think himself bound to separate and that separation may possibly be sinful but he cannot think himself bound to sinful separation He that is bound is under a Law He that thinks himself bound thinks himself under a law but it Implies a broad contradiction for a man to think himself bound to sin because that implies that he thinks himself bound not to be bound or under a law to be under no law A sort of men there are that think it lawful to tell a Lie to avoid a great evil to procure some great good Yet none ever owned this principle that it was lawful to sin to procure the one or avoid the other but they pretend that to tell a Lie in such a case under such circumstances is no sin 2. I very much question whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it but how should such a crotchet come in 's head that he was bound to divide it when the Church of England separated from Rome did they think it their duty to make divisions in it 3. The instances that he gives are short or wide of his case by many leagues Paul thought himself bound to do many things against the Name of Jesus He did so but not to do one thing that was sin The Jews thought themselves bound in Conscience to kill the Apostles True but yet they thought not themselves bound to kill them sinfully they wanted not pretences to justifie the cause to the World nor untemper'd mortar to daub over their own Conscience 't was easie to say they were rebels against traitors to the Emperor An easie thing to cry out of heresie and schism and sects every where spoken against nor wanted they a Tertullus who before the Magistrates and Judges could accuse Paul for a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition and a Ring-leader of a sect so that all the world sees and the poor dissenters feel the Truth of what the Dr. says men may do very bad things and yet think themselves bound in conscience to do them 4. It s freely granted by all the world that wilful error that is Interpretively such for no man can formally err wilfully does not excuse from sin that is what God has prohibited no mans errour can make a duty what God has commanded no mans errour can discharge him from obedience to it Nor do we or ever did we make Conscience a stalking horse for these ends And thus we have got through the three famous propositions that should have cleared up the objection and so answered to the second Question but what are we edified by all this discourse or how do we understand either what we or Church governours must do in case we or others cannot come up to the establisht rule men are not justifiable in not doing what they lawfully may do well but if they see not that may be lawfully done which may so must they be left to God or no wilful error and mistake will not excuse from sin be it so still what must be done when men cannot come up to the establisht rule I confess I am just as wise as I was but this is the Genius of the Sermon He propounds an enquiry p. 15. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an establisht rule He shuts one thing out of the Question then a second thing out of the Question then excludes a third out of the Question and at last shuts the Question out of doors and it goes wandring up and down like a vagabond to this day