or no It is not how far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian liberty Which I now inquire after of those things in the Treatise it self but whether they do consult for the Churches Peace and Unity who suspend it upon such things How far either the example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous impositions We never read the Apostles making Laws but of things supposed necessary When the Counsel of Apostles met at Jerusalem for deciding a Case that disturbed the Churches Peace we see they would lay no other burden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides these necessary things Act. 15. 29. It was not enough with them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an Antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the only ground of their imposing those Commands upon the Gentile Christians There were after this great diversities of practice and Varieties of Observations among Christians but the Holy Ghost never thought those things fit to be made matters of Laws to which all parties should conform all that the Apostles required as to these was mutual forbearance aud condescension towards each other in them The Apostles valued not differences at all and those things it is evident they accounted such which whether men did them or not was not of concernment to Salvation And what reason is there why men should be so strictly tyed up to such things which they may do or let alone and yet be very good Christians still Without all controversie the main In-let of all the distractions confusions and divisions of the Christian World hath been by adding other conditions of church-Church-communion than Christ hath done Nor am I now inquiring whether the things Commanded be lawful or no Nor whether indifferences may be determined or no Nor how far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian Liberty But only inquiring as he there doth concerning the Charter given by Christ for the binding men up to more than himself hath done And I further inquire by what power they can be bound which Christ hath not given And if there be no such power to bind them suppose the things required were all lawful which if it can be evinc't I should rejoyce to see done yet while they cannot in conscience think they are how can they apprehend themselves bound to be without the means of Salvation which Christ's Charter entitles them to I readily grant it is fit a man do many things for peace and Common Orders sake which otherwise no Law doth formally oblige him to i.e. supposing he can do those things without intolerable prejudice to himself And so it is commonly determined in the matter of scandals But can it be thought a man is to put himself out of the state or way of Salvation in complement to such as will otherwise take offence And be so Courteous as to Perish for ever rather than they shall be displeased Yea and it may be moreover added That our course being accounted lawful must also as the Doctor speaks in another case be thought a duty For the things that are as means necessary to our salvation are also necessary by Divine Precept We are commanded to hear Gods Word to devote our selves and our Children to God in Baptism and at the Lords own Table to remember him and shew forth his death till he come And if we compare together certain Positions of this Reverend Author we cannot see but he must as our case is acknowledge our obligation to the practice which he here seems to blame For in his Iren. p. 109. He asserts That every Christian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-society with others because it is his duty to profess himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without society with some Church or other And he after adds on the same page It had been a case disputed by some particularly by Grotius the supposed Author of a little Tract An semper sit communicandum per symbola When he design'd the Syncretism with the Church of Rome whether in a time when Churches are divided it be a Christians duty to communicate with any of those Parties which divide the Church and not rather to suspend communion from all of them A case not hard to be deoided for either the person questioning it doth suppose the Churches divided to remain true Churches but some to be more pure than other in which case by vertue of his genral obligation to Communion he is bound to adhâ—re to that Church which appears most to retain its Evangelical purity To which purpose he further tells us page 110. He knows not whether Chrysostom ' s act were to be commended who after being made a Deacon in the Church of Antioch by Meletius upon his death because Flavianus came in irregularly as Bishop of the Church would neither communicate with him nor with Paulinus another Bishop at that time in the City nor with the Meletians but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them And p. 113. Where any Church is guilty of Corruptions both in Doctrine and Practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her there a non-communion with that Church is necessary and a total and positive separation is lawful and convenient What he discourses page 111 112. upon the Question Whether it is a sin to communicate with Churches true as to Essentials but supposed corrupt in the exercise of Discipline Many of us will no doubt heartily concur with him in But it touches not the case of many more who do not so much fear upon the account of the neglect of Discipline to be involv'd in the guilt of other mens sin as there seems to be little cause that part being not incumbent upon us Nor if that be his meaning when he speaks of separating on a pretence of great purity is it the case with most of us but we justly fear and therefore avoid to be made to sin our selves by having such things as we judge to be sinful imposed on us as the Conditions of our Communion And as to this case this Reverend Author speaks our sense in this last cited Proposition and pleads our present Cause Nor need we more to be said on behalf of it than what is reducible to that general Proposition or particularly to that second thing compared with the third which p. 115. he says makes separation and withdrawment of communion lawful and necessary viz. Corruption of practice where we say as he doth We speak not of practice as relating to the civil conversation of men but as it takes in the Agenda of Religion when unlawful things of that kind are not only crept into a Church but are the prescribed devotion of it Those
exceptionable person yea though otherwise never so deserving that hath ty'd his own hands and is under such restraints that he cannot or so disinclin'd that he will not dispense the Ordinances of Christ in such a way as wherein with satisfaction to our Consciences we may enioy them Read over the Doctors Sermon again and again and you will find no course is prescribed us but to sit still without any enjoyment of Christian Ordinances at all And with how great numbers must this be the case for himself professes to believe that the People that frequent the separate meetings who you know are not a few do generally judge it to be unlawful to joyn in the Publick Assemblies And are we alwaies to sit still thus That is to exchange Visible Christianity for Visible at least negative Paganism This if you take the whole compass of it is a thing of awful importance that so great a Limb of a Christian Nation they and their posterity should be Paganized from Age to Age and cut off from the whole Body of the Christian Community only because they scruple some things the least exceptionable whereof are no part of the Christian Institution as himself and they whose Advocate he is will freely confess nor do necessarily belong to it being as they contend but indifferent things He seems rather contented we should not be Christians at all than not to be Christians of this particular mode That we should rather want the substance of Christs Gospel and Sacraments than have them accompany'd with confessedly needless additions and which we fear to be forbidden us by their Lord and ours We do sincerely profess wherein we decline the Communion he invites us to we only displease him and those of his way and mind out of a real fear of otherwise displeasing God We agree with them in far greater things than we can differ in We are of that One Body which they themselves profess to be of so far as meer Christianity is the distinction and collective bond of it and desire to be under the conduct and Government of that One Spirit We are called with them in that One Hope of our calling and earnestly expect whatever hard thoughts they have of us to meet many a one of them in the participation of the blessed hoped end of that calling We acknowledge that One Lord that One Faith that One Baptism or Covenant which the Baptism of our Lords appointment seales and that One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in us all Yet because we cannot we dare not consent with them to the additions which belong not and which we fear are unduly affixt to the Religion of Christians we are adjudged to be as much as in them is cut off from Christ deprived of the dear pledges of his love and acquisitions of his Blood are driven out from the inheritance of the Lord and it is in effect said to us go and serve other Gods Thus far the severity of this reverend Author towards us extends Which while we thus truely represent and recount let us also 2. Consider what agreement it holds with what we elsewhere observe from him We have already taken notice that for our bare non-conformity he acquits us of the guilt of Schism And p. 20. of this Sermon he says He doth not confound bare suspending Communion in some particular Rites which persons do modestly scruple and using it in what they judge to be lawful with either total or at least ordinary forbearance of Communion in what they judge to be lawful and proceeding to the forming of separate Congregations ` T is this latter he severs and singles out for his opposition Against our suspending Communion in some particular Rites which we judge unlawful if we use it in what we judge lawful which I with him presume the Lay-Dissenters in England generally do he hath nothing to say Yea and undertaking to shew what Error of Conscience doth excuse a man from sin in following the Dictates of it he tells us p. 44. That if the Error be wholly involuntary i.e. If it be caused by invincible ignorance which he thus explains in the following words or after using the best means for due information of his Conscience though the act may be a fault in it self yet it shall not be imputed to him for a sin because it wanted the consent of the Mind by which the Will is determined And now Sir I beseech you consider 1. When he confesses if we be willing to be satisfied and our Errour be involuntary it shall not be imputed to us for a sin Why are we to be so severely dealt with for what is not to be imputed to us for a sin If it were any methinks it should not deserve such rigor at the hands of Men that are themselves also liable to Mistakes and Errors Is it so very criminal if every poor illiterate Dissenter in England Man or Woman cannot in all their days attain to a better and more settled Judgment in such dubious matters than this Reverend Person had himself arriv'd to twenty years ago Especially that never had or were capable of having those peculiar helps and inducements to temper and reform their judgments that he hath enjoy'd 'T is a long time that his own judgment hath been ripening to that maturity as at length to think it fit and seasonable to say so much as he hath for the reforming of ours even in this Sermon Methinks he should not be so very quick and hard towards us upon so slender a cause as our scrupling some particular Rites to adjudge us and ours to be totally deprived of Baptism which themselves count necessary to our salvation and of the other Ordinances of Christ which they do not think unnecessary And consider secondly Whereas he says That if a man erre after using the best means for due information of his Conscience it shall not be imputed to him as a sin What if we erre this Error as he counts it after using the best means for due information that we ought rather than to return to the state of Paganism to bear our part in the forming of such Meetings for the Worship of God as wherein we may with the satisfaction of our own Consciences enjoy all his holy Ordinances It will surely be within the compass of this his general Position and not be imputable as a sin Then it is to be hoped we should rather choose to do so then Paganize our selves or live in the wilful neglect of his Institutions Which to do by our own choice when we might do otherwise we cannot but think a very great sin If here the Doctor should assume to himself to tell us not only that we erre herein whereof we are to regard his proof as it shall be considered by and by more than his Affirmation But also that our Error is wilful we shall appeal from him to one that better knows how
willingly how gladly we should receive information and admit the belief that we ought to content our selves entirely and only with such provisions as the established Religion to use the Doctors phrase allows us if the evidence of the thing it self did not seem irresistibly and unavoidably to perswade us otherwise And for him to say so were but to suppose men wilful only for not being of his mind who can as easily think him so for not being of theirs But this cannot be a Question between the Doctor and us whom as we have taken notice above he hath so far obliged as to admit p. 37. That we generally judge as we practice and that it is not to be supposed that faction among us should so commonly prevail beyond interest But since this appears to be his determination concerning us and that his Assertion seems positive and peremptory p. 20. That in this our case to proceed to the forming of Congregations under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the establisht Religion allows where a sinful and mischievous separation We are in the next place 2ly To discuss the Matter with the Doctor wherein we shall endeavour to shew 1. The indefensibleness of the Judgment the Doctor hath given in this case which will both infer and in some part excuse what we are afterwards to discover Viz. 2ly The Infirmity of what is alledged by him in this Attempt of his to defend it 1. For the former it being obvious to common observation that a natural self-indulgence and aptness to decline and wave what is of more terrible import to themselves doth usually insinuate and influence mens minds in their judging of such Cases We are the more concern'd because a favourable false judgment will do us no good with an impartial strictness to hold our selves to the thing it self And when we most strictly do so methinks the Doctor should have somewhat an hard Province of it For his Determination amounts to thus much That we ought to be kept in a state of Damnation for scrupling the Ceremonies i.e. to be deprived of the necessary means of our salvation And that while he accounts our scruple after the use of due means for our information not imputable to us as a sin And not that only but that we ought to consent to our own damnation for this no sin of ours Inasmuch as it would be sinful and mischievous to procure to our selves the necessary means of our salvation in another way while we apprehend that without our sin we cannot have them in the way which he allows us We are indeed satisfied that our sin one way or other would contribute little to our salvation But when also we are satisfied that we cannot enjoy the means of salvation in his way without sin and he tells us we cannot without sin enjoy them in our own We hope every Door is not shut up against us and cannot think the merciful and holy God hath so stated our case as to reduce us to a necessity of sinning to get out of a state of damnation And therefore this Reverend Author having already determined that our Remedy cannot lie as our Consciences are hitherto inform'd in coming over to him and his way For he believes we generally judge it unlawful to joyn with them in the publick Assemblies p. 37. and says p. 43. That no man that hath any Conscience will speak against the power of it and he that will speak against it hath no reason to be regarded in what he says as no question he expected to be otherwise he had not given himself so much trouble and concludes p. 44. That we should sin in going against it As he also thinks we should in acting with it which as is necessarily imply'd we as yet see not Our great hope upon the whole matter is that our relief must lye in taking the way which we do take And that it cannot be proved to be sinful We reckon it is not and that the Doctors judgment herein is simply indefensible because whatsoever is sinful must transgress some Law immediately divine or that obliges by vertue of the divine Law And we cannot find that God hath made any Law or enabled any made by others to oblige us so far in our present Circumstances as that we should be involv'd in the guilt of sin by some variation from the letter of it For any Divine Law that can be supposed to oblige us to the use of the things we scruple or else to live without the Worship and Ordinances of God not knowing any such our selves we must wait till we be inform'd of it And that his Law doth give an obliging force so far to any other we as yet understand not Wheresoever he hath been pleased to lodge and entrust the Keys of the Church we do not find he hath appointed them to that use to admit us into the Communion of his Worship and Ordinances or totally to exclude us upon such terms And herein we suppose we have the Doctor consenting with us Who in his Irenicum p. 216. plainly asserts That the Office which the power of Keys implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Declarative and not Juridical And says in the Preface to the same Book That He that came to take away the unsupportable Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies did never intend to gall the Disciples Necks with another instead of it Whereto he immediately adds in the same Preface And it would be strange the Church should require more than Christ himself did and make other conditions of her Communion than our Saviour did of Discipleship What possible reason can be assign'd or given why such things should not be sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for eternal Salvation And certainly those things are sufficient for that which are laid down by our Lord and Saviour in his Word What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in them Was there ever more true and Cordial reverence in the Worship of God What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more than himself hath done or to exclude those from her society who may be admitted into Heaven Will Christ ever thank men at the great day for keeping such out from Communion with his Church whom he will Vouchsafe not only Crowns of Glory to but it may be aureolae too if there be any such things there The Grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with was only to teach what Christ had Commanded them Not the least Intimation of any power given them to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the Immediate guidance of the Spirit of God It is not whether the things Commanded and required be lawful or no It is not whether indifferences may be determined
Christian World viz. the adding other conditions of Church-communion than Christ hath done And though he hath lately told the World there are some passages in that book that shew only the inconsiderateness of Youth and that he seems to wish unsaid yet he hath not that we know declared that these are some of them However since this present determination and judgement of his against us is so peremptory and positive as well as severe let us in the next place 2. Consider and carefully examine as we are concerned what he hath performed in defence of it and it is to be hoped the inefficacy and weakness of his attempt therein will sufficiently appear What I can find in his Sermon hath any aspect or design that way is either ad rem or ad hominem And to my apprehension his reasonings of the one kind or the other are altogether unconcluding 1. As to what may be supposed to be ad rem if you look narrowly you will find that the principal things alledged by him that can under that notion give support to his Cause are only affirmed but not proved For instance p. 9. When he tells us that the Apostle supposed the necessity of one fixed and certain Rule c. This had been very material to his purpose if 1. He had told us and had proved the Apostle meant some Rule or other super-added to the Sacred Scriptures For then he might it is to be presumed as easily have let us know what that Rule was which most probably would have ended all our controversie it being little to be doubted we should all most readily have agreed to obey it Or 2ly If he had proved that because the Apostle had power to make such a Rule and oblige the Churches to observe it that therefore such Church-Guides as they whose cause the Doctor pleads have an equal power to make other Rules divers from his containing many new things which he never enjoyn'd and to enforce them upon the Church though manifestly tending to its destruction rather than edification But these things he doth but suppose himself without colour of proof Again for his Notion of Churches p. 16 17 18 19. examine as strictly as you will what he says about it And see whether it come to any thing more than only to represent a National Church a possible thing and whereto the name Church may without absurdity be given His own words seem to aim no higher Why may there not be one National Church from the consent in the same Articles of Religion and the same order of Worship pag. 18. The word was used in the first Ages of the Christian Church as it comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and the people of whole Cities And why many of these Cities being united together under one Civil Government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one National Church I cannot understand p. 19. But can it now be infer'd thence that therefore God hath actually constituted every Christian Kingdom or Nation such a Church Can it further be infer'd that he hath invested the Guides of this Church not chosen by the people according Scripture and Primitive practice for some ages with a power to make Laws and Decrees prescribing not only things necessary for common order and decency but new federal Rites and teaching Signs and Symbols superadded to the whole Christian Institution with many more dubious and unnecessary things besides and to exclude sober and pious Christians from the Priviledges that are proper to the Christian Church as such meerly for that out of conscience towards God they dare not admit into their Worship those Additions to the Christian Religion To take order they shall have no Pastors no Sacraments no Assemblies for Worship and because they will not be so much more than Christians that they shall not be Christians at all He that would go about to make these Inferences meerly from the forementioned ground would gain to be laught at by all sober men instead of a conclusion whatsoever better success he should have who should undertake to prove the same things any other way This Reverend Author was so wise as not to attempt either of these But then in the mean time what doth the meer possible notion of such a Church advantage his Cause Because it is possible there might have been such a Macedonian or such a Lydian Church is such a one therefore necessary and any other Constitution of a Christian Church impossible or unlawful Or because the General meeting of the Magistrates of the whole City and People together in Pagan Athens was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore such must be the constitution of a Christian Church And therefore such a Church hath such powers from Christ as were above mentioned Here howsoever we make our stand and say that till the Doctor hath proved these two things 1. That such a Church as he hath given us the notion of as of a thing meerly possible is actually a Divine Institution And 2ly That God hath given to the Ecclesiastical Governours in it never chosen by the Christian Community or to any other Power to super-add Institutions of the nature above mentioned and to enforce them under the mentioned Penalties All his reasonings that pretend to be ad rem are to no purpose and do nothing at all advantage his Cause Yet there are some passages in this part of his Discourse that though they signifie nothing to his main purpose are yet very remarkable and which 't is fit we should take some notice of As when pag. 16. He tell us what he means by whole Churches viz. The Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just power of Government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common tyes and rules of Order and Government As if there could be no whole Churches in the world that had not been of the Roman Empire Or as if those of the Roman Empire could not have been whole Churches without resumption of the Civil Government Or as we suppose he means as if which he intimates p. 19. we needed this so dearly espoused notion as a ground to acquit us from the imputation of Schism in our separating from the Church of Rome Which certainly it were not for the advantage of the Protestant Cause to admit For then all that remain within the Empire were bound to continue in the Communion of the Roman Church And in the other Kingdoms where Princes have not resumed their just right of reforming Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship all should be Schismaticks that should separate from the Church of Rome Again when p. 17. He would confute that great mistake the making the notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship A mistake whereof I never knew any man guilty He surely runs into as great an opposite mistake in making the notion of a