Corruptions as they have many Errors in the Doctrine of Faith which yet does not in his judgment destroy the essential points of the Christian Doctrine 3 Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful And then 1. Who is the true Catholick Christian and who is the real Schismatick He that holds Communion with all Protestant Churches occasionally lawful and accordingly holds Communion with them actually as Providence gives him opportunity or he that denying all Churches to be truly such except his own refuses Communion with them for want of a Ceremony or two and the necessary consequence of a Ceremony A Bishop 2. That they hold Communion with this Church to be lawful is one of those dubious Propositions which will do the conceding Party no harm nor them that make use of it any service First many of them declare so and many declare otherwise but they do neither of them prejudge the other nor intend to bind them to their private sentiments and it 's as good an argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it Secondly they declare Communion lawful but do they declare total Communion lawful The same persons will tell us that both these Propositions are true Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of worship is so in others not And thirdly they will further tell us that Communion with some parish-Parish-Churches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this reason for their judgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for peace-sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with purer administrations It is a dangerous thing to give us uncertain ambulatory Notions of Schism other than what the Scripture has given us both because the Scriptures alone can inform us what is the Notion of a true Church and by consequence what must be the true Notion of sinful Separation from it and because these unstable mutable Notions of Schism will make that to be Schism in one Countrey which is an innocent thing in another and that to be Schism one year which perhaps the next may prove a good and Catholick practice That was Schism in England in Edward the 6th's days which was not so in Queen Maries and that was Schism in Her Reign which became none in the days of Her Successor And we may be Schismaticks here in England when if we cross the water we shall be none though we practise the same Worship and retain all that which at home would have fastened that brand upon us And if we travel through Germany though perhaps we cannot be Schismaticks and Catholicks twice a day because the miles are very long yet may we be both backwards and forwards forty times in a Twelvemonth and continue the same men both in principle and practice that we were when we went our pilgrimage It is little to our purpose what the Doctor is pleased to tell us what one told him viz. that An. Dom. 1663. Divers Preachers met at London to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish-Churches where they lived in the Liturgy and Sacraments or that 20 Reasons were brought in to prove that it is a duty in some persons to join with some Parish-Churches three times a year in the Lord's Supper For 1. If they consider'd how far it was lawful I hope they spoke something at least to the Question and left it not as they found it a Question forsaken of its Answer which ought to be individual Companions 2. They met to consider what was lawful for or a duty to themselves not for or to others in whose names they had no commission to hear and determine the Question 3. If they inquired how far it was lawful or a duty they supposed that it was not unlimitedly so for to what end should they inquire how far they might go if they had once thought they could go through 4. And the design of the twenty reasons abundantly proves it for it was but some persons whose duty it was adjudged to be to receive the Sacrament thrice a year and it was but in some parishes neither where those some persons might communicate so that there might be some others many others possibly the greatest number whose duty it was not so to joyn and other some parishes many others and and possibly the greatest number with whom it was not lawful or not a duty to hold Communion The Case then is this a Christian may be placed in such circumstances that he may receive the Sacrament from some persons who will indulge him in the questionable Terms in such places where he cannot enjoy that ordinance at all if he do not receive it there and thus with many restrictions limitations distinctions and clauses a Case may be put wherein the twenty reasons may conclude some thing but yet nothing to the Doctors advantage But what effect what operation had these twenty reasons upon the Company Why none of them seemed to dissent that is they did not enter their several protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them They came to consider of the lawfulness of Communion and they would go away and consider of the strength of the Reasons propounded to convince them I see it 's more dangerous than I had thought it to have been to come into the parish Churches lest naked presence and silent appearing in those assemblies should be brought against us as an interpretative approbation of whatsoever is there done or spoken The Doctor adds that they had such another meeting after the plague and fire and if it were but such another there was no great harm in 't at which they agreed that communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good for which he quotes Plea for Peace p. 240. But here the Doctor is tardy by his favour and wrongs his Relator manifestly by nibbling off the last and most considerable words of the sentence viz. when it would do no more harm than good And we believe it lawful in that Case to hold Communion with any Church in the world so that now we must come to another enquiry and start a new question when there are one or two already up before the Dogs viz. whether Communion with the Parish-Churches will do more harm than good which it
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
Ministers be true Ministers of Christ for if there be no certainty of the Divine Right of particular Congregations there can be as little of certainty That there is any Divine Authority given to the Teachers of them And 5. It will be uncertain whether God will be solemnly and publickly Worshipped for where can he so be but in particular Assemblies And thus to make a National Church certain he has reduced all things to an utter uncertainty § 5. He argues further to this purpose It 's certainly our Duty to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians and it 's impossible so to do if Men break all orders in Pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform It 's well there is something Certain though it 's hard to conceive how we should preserve Peace if it be uncertain in what we 〈◊〉 to unite and agree It 's the Unity of the Spirit that will be kept in the Bond of Peace Peace is the Bond of the Churches but there must be first conceived a Church which Peace is to bind There must be a Vineyard or to what purpose a Hedge a City or to what purpose a Wall or Bulwark More particularly 1. As it is the Duty of all Men to preserve the Churches Peace so 't is theirs especially who have got the Management of things in their hands not to lay such dubious Terms in the way of Peace which they know many Consciencious persons cannot get over but have ever stumbled at for it may be returned with ease It is impossible to preserve Peace if wen will make such Orders as they know others must break meerly for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform 2. If Peace be impossible to be had upon this account who are in the fault Dissenters can maintain a fraternal Charity towards them and their Churches who differ from them in Principle and Practice if imposers cannot or will not discharge that Duty reciprocally we are not responsible for their Passions we can love them whether they will or no though we cannot force them against their will to return that Love and Charity 3. But must Peace be extended no farther than local and actual Communion or must the Parishes of St. Andrews Sepulchers and St. Giles go together by the ears because one Church will not hold the hundredth part of them I can hold and maintain Peace with the Greek Church and yet I never intend actual Communion with it unless she were much more Reformed from all her Corruptions than she is like to be in haste There may be such Corruptions in a Church as may defile it and yet not un-un-Church it I can distinguish between the Christians and their Christianity on one hand and the Pollutions wherewith they have abased their Christianity on the other § 6 But to this the Doctor Answers Men may please themselves in talking of preserving Peace and Love under separate Communions but our own sad experience shews the contrary This is the upshot of his Reasonings There can be no Peace under separate Communions which I shall answer by asking a few sober questions which will lead to their respective Answers 1. Whether by separate Communion he intends only such as is Locally separate if so joyful Experience shews us the contrary we have no Bellum Parochiale nor are like to have could they secure us as well against a Bellum Episcopale 2. Does he by Separated Communion intend such as differ only in some external Modes How then do the Countrey Villages agree so well with the Cathedral Mother-Churches It 's certain that the Cathedral Service and that of the under Parishes differ so much that a poor Countrey-man dropping in by chance into the Worship would be half affrighted out of his Wits such a Ditty such a Din with Organs Choristers Singing-men and Boys that from the uncertain Sound and confused noise the poor Fellow would not know what was Piped or Tooted so a grave Alderman in the days of Yore going out with the Common-hunt and being askt if he did not feel a transport and extasie of soul at the ravishing musick of the hounds protested he could not hear any musick at all for the barking of those yelping Curs but come into the Country we have nothing there but bad Rhimes set to as bad tunes and worse sung In the one you have turning hither faceing thither such ducking dopping bending bowing cringing changing of postures that the poor country man begins to question whether it be the same God that they and he worship and if it be he 's amazed that God should regard their rude homespun devotions when he has such glorious service such splendid pompous worship in other places and yet we do not see that they come to knocking If then these two sorts can live peaceably and lovingly together the one not despising the rusticity of the high-shoe devotions the other not judging of envying at or grudging against their more stately shows and pageants why will they quarrel with the plain dissenters whose only fault is that though their worship is not well trimmed up with ceremonious ribons 't is of as strong stuff will last as long and keep the wearer as warm as the other 3. Whereas the Doctor fancies that this will alienate mens affections The remedy is to preach down passion pride censoriousness and those base lusts which would produce the same effects if all men were of one Communion If one will be angry because another mans Nose is longer than his own he must restrain his anger for the other cannot help the longitude of his Nose nor give it one degree less of elevation Let them punish or otherwise restrain those incendiaries who by their hot and fiery tempers will suffer none to be cool that are in themselves of a more winterly temper Let them curb such preachers as the Author of Curse ye Meroz who did enough to have kindled a greater fire at Guild-Hall than that which begun at Pudding-Lane The disease lies in mens minds and when they would heal the outward Symptom 't is but like him that applied the plaister to the wrong finger and then complained of his plaister Let men be preacht into the spirit of mutual forbearance and there will be peace under various practices These continual beatings of the Doctor and some others upon Peace mind me of what I have somewhere or other seen or read of a great Gentleman who courted a Lady of no less virtue than Beauty and such an Inamorato was he grown that he became exceedingly melancholly his folded armes his hat plukt in 's eyes retiredness from all company witnessed great distress at last he came to a resolution that seeing he could not win her affections he would die a Sacrifice in the flame of his own This noble Lady whose Name I now remember was Madam Peace not willing that any Gentleman should die a Martyr for her sake began to relent only she desired
and tatters confounding the minds of peaceable Christians who would willingly have united upon those plain easie reasonable terms upon which they had already received and professed Christianity only these peevish trouble-houses would not let them And this is remarkable that the Apostle never gave one hard word to the Conscientious Dissenter nor one good word to the Judaizing Imposer in all his Epistles To what end now is all this pompous ceremonious train of words to what end are these Positions Suppositions and Preliminaries why so many Lines Entrenchments Galleries why these tedious Approaches why all this Spanish Gravity why does he not fall aboard with his Text and storm it Alas Things are not yet ripe and ready for such hot service and therefore 4 The Apostle having done this he persuades all good Christians to do as he did ver 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded What was that to assert his liberty he did so and would not be brought under the power even of lawful things 1 Cor. 6.12 Was it not to put his neck under the old yoke of bondage he did so or did he scorn to build up what he had once pluckt down he did so and would he have us do as be did Content Shall we stand fast in our liberty as he in his Content Must we not build up whatever of humane inventions we have pluckt down Content Would he have us as many as be perfect be thus minded Content Let as many as are as he was do as he did They that are honour'd with his Attainments let them come up to his Evangelical Practice when we were children we thought spake acted as children Are we grown up to Manhood let 's put away childish things It is a shame not to outgrow our Trinckets our Rattles our Hobby-horses when we have outgrown the Rickets Shall it be said of Christians as of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks are always children But such were the Judaizers always learning never coming to the knowledge of the truth And you may as soon whip these huge great Boys out of all Religion as out of one Ceremony so fond so doating so peevish froward awkward such a whimpering such a whining such puleing and powting for Ceremonies as if they had lost that famous Engine of the Nutcrack or had been plundered of a pin-box I have read of a learned man in this nation who tells us he had quite other sentiments of and apprehensions about death than most men others were afraid to die but he was ashamed to die Really many are afraid of the Ceremonies as sinful and I am not without those fears too but methinks I am greatly ashamed of 'em as I should that any should spie me riding upon a penny Colt or a Gelding No St. Paul would have them that are thus perfect grow up into a more manly and generous way of serving and worshipping God Though the famous Alcibiades did once to please a child condescend Ludere par impar equitare in Arundine longâ To play the fool at even-or-odd And for a hobby-horse ride a rod. 5. Hitherto we have felt no wound but like the bird in the tree looking at the gunner wonders what he 's fidling about till of a sudden she 's past feeling At last the Author comes nearer Because says he many disputes and differences as to opinion and practice might happen among them he therefore lays down two Rules to govern themselves by Here now the Dr. beats up and gets within our Quarters and very subtilly would insinuate to the unwary Reader that the Apostle gave two Rules about one and the same thing whenas 't is evident he gave but one nor was it possible he should give more in that case The case which the Dr. supposes is that there were differences of opinion and practice among the Philippians Let it be supposed Does the Apostle give two Rules in that case No! but one single Rule which was the Rule of mutual forbearance and leaving one another to Gods Instructions but in Another Case where Christians had attained to be of the like mind there the Rule was that they should walk up and according to what they had attained But we must go through now we are in and therefore let us hear what these two Rules are and what use he will make of them 1. Rule If any happen'd to differ from the body of Christians they lived with they should do it with modesty and humility not breaking out into factions and Divisions but waiting for further information Now here we want that Accuracy that might have been expected from a person of his Abilities For 1. He puts it as a rare and extraordinary Case If any happen such a one as might fall out in an Age or so whereas this was a most familiar Case and that which the Apostle met with everywhere that there was a difference of apprehensions about the lesser things at least of Religion nor was he to seek what direction to give in the case but uniformly determines that they should not judge nor despise each other upon these accounts nor was there ever any Church at any time wherein these differences did not happen 2. He lays the stress of the duty upon those that differ from the Body of the Christians they live with It is very true the Church or Body of Christians at Philippi at that time was sound in the Doctrine of the Gospel evangelical in their worship and regular in government and Discipline and therefore it was the duty of those that differed from that body not to separate from it but suppose any happened to differ from the body of Christians they lived with which were not so must the Rule hold equally is there the same obligation in the case also what if a Christian should happen to live at Rome what if it should be the Drs. lot to live there must he be under the same obligation not to divide from the body 3. He supposes the Rule only to be given to the person that happens to differ from the body of the Church whereas the Rule is mainly given to the Church how they are to demean themselves toward a dissenting brother viz. to wait till God shall reveal his mind to the person otherwise minded Neither is he to act nor the Church to compel till God clear it up to his Conscience that he may act like a Saint or since Saints is a term of reproach at least like a Man and not a Beast 4. He disguises his rule by those Terms of Art faction separation c whereas faction and separation are two things the one always sinful the other many times a duty 2. Rule For those that are come to a firmness and settlement upon the Christian Principles he charges them by all means to preserve Unity and Peace among themselves Now these things also are laid down with as much obscurity as one could wish For 1.
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
but as Governors Things well joined but ill divided As they were Apostles so were they Governors of Churches to whom the Care of all the Churches was committed 2 Cor. 11.28 There was indeed another matter that should have here been shuffled in and is handsomly insinuated That the Apostles in establishing Rules for Rites and Ceremonies and those other things that are supposed acted not as extraordinary Officers whose power was to expire with their persons but as ordinary Guides who were to have Successors in their whole Ruling work to the end of the World but this is far more easily hinted than proved we deny therefore and wait for evidence 1. That the Apostles ever made Rules for the determining of unnecessary Circumstances and imposed them on the Churches as terms of Communion 2. That Diocesan Bishops or Metropolitans are the Apostles Successors in the governing of Churches 3. That if they did succeed them in any part of their office and worke yet that they have the same fulness of power as wanting their infallible direction wisdom prudence and other qualifications that might either move Christ to entrust them with that power or persuade Christians to submit to their power VII To sweeten and set off the Discourse the Doctor has formed a most ingenious comparison between the power and skill of a General of an Army to command and the Duty which private Soldiers owe to their General on the one part and the Authority Wisdom and Conduct of Church-Governors to order the Ecclesiastical Militia and the Duty that private Christians owe to their Orders on the other hand which would have taken before the Trained Bands or the Artillery Company at present let it pass for as much as 't is worth that is a specimen of wit and a rare piece of ingenuity VIII But his great Refuge his safe Retreat is in and to the Council at Jerusalem concerning which the Reverend Author expresses himself thus Although there were many doubts and scruples in their times about several Rites and Customs yet the Apostles did give Rules in such Cases and bind Christians to observe them as we find in that famous Decree made upon great deliberation in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem To which it were enough to say That the Apostles did give Rules but not such as are now given They gave Rules in the Case that lay before them but that Case was nothing akin to those Cases which are now before us That in what Case soever the Apostles did give Rules it 's nothing to them who pretend a power to give Rules to us except they can shew a Commission as fairly drawn and sealed as the Apostles could produce for their Determinations But yet more particularly 1. That Decree of the Apostles was about things necessary antecedent to the Decree not necessary because decreed onely but therefore decreed because necessary Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things How far is the spirit and temper of modern Imposers from that of the Apostles who think good to impose upon us the insupportable burthen of unnecessary things 2. That Council had the infallible guidance and superintendency of the Holy Spirit which is not inconsistent with the most serious deliberation It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us But no National Church ever had any promise and therefore cannot in Faith pray for or expect such immediate assistance such extraordinary direction Let no Church assume equal power to impose without an equal Commission for such power 3. The private Christians might reasonably acquiesce in the Decree because it had their own consent antecedent to its making A wonderful instance and not to be parallel'd in latter Ages There the Holy Spirits authority and the Churches consent go together but here we have neither That burden will sit the easier on our backs which first has the approbation of our hearts and such was that Decree not only sent to the Brethren ver 23. but by and from the Brethren The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles But this is not our Case who have neither head nor heart nor hand nor finger in imposing those burdens which it seems good to my Lords the Archbishops and Bishops to lay upon us nor do we know what load we must bear till we feel it no more than the poor Pack-horse knows before hand what it shall please his good Lord and Master to lay upon him 4. That Decree was not to burden the Churches but to ease them of those burdens which they already groaned under The Case was this and it was sad and partly ours Certain men came down from Judea and taught the Brethren that except they were circumcised after the manner of Moses they could not be saved ver 1. Against this Tyranny Paul and Barnabas the great Assertors of Christian liberty made vigorous opposition ver 2. but the Zealots having reinforced their Faction from some of the Sect of the Pharisees who believed ver 5. the Case comes before the Council who determine against those Bigots that their blind zeal should not be the measure of necessary and unnecessary and yet not to exasperate them too much lest perhaps they should revolt from Christ and apostatize to Moses which they were now in a fair way to do and some of them afterwards did they agree to lay upon the Gentile Converts no greater burthen than those necessary things in opposition to those other unnecessary things which the Judaizing Christians contended for as necessary 5. If we consider the things imposed we shall find them none of those Trifles which the more pragmatical After-Ages divided the Churches with Abstaining from meats offered to Idols from blood from things strangled and from fornication ver 25. Of which Fornication was in its self unlawful meats offered to Idols under that notion were then and are still unlawful to be eaten things strangled had prescription and countenance from most Reverend Antiquity against their use and by Blood some understand Murther in which sense that also was simply unlawful but if by Blood be understood Flesh with the life thereof which is the Blood Gen. 9.4 that is a limb taken from a living creature and so eaten to forbid that was no more than to forbid them to be Canibals and if thereby we will understand Blood in the most general acceptation yet that also was so averse to the Jews that it 's no wonder if the Church agreed to gratifie them in it Nay I have known amongst some others a Reverend Dignitary of our Church who from this Decree and the Precepts given to the sons of Noah Religiously abstained from all things strangled and from blood to his dying day 6. The end of that Decree was to avoid Scandal the morality of which had it been well understood by these raw Gentile Converts had taught them to
deny themselves in a greater matter than things strangled and blood rather than give offence to their weak Brethren without troubling the Church to make any Decree about them And when this Canon was in its greatest force and vigor the Gentile Believers might have eaten the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately yea in company where no offence would be given or taken for what was the Jewish Convert concern'd what another should eat at home either of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fragments of heathenish Sacrifices presented to him by his Relations or of those things killed by suffocation But alas the Case is otherwise with us for such is the necessity of the Cross the white Garment kneeling at the Supper c. That the omission of them shall silence and suspend a learned faithful laborious Minister of Jesus Christ ab officio beneficio from his work and wages 7. The Apostles add no penalty neither pecuniary corporal or spiritual to afright men into compliance with it but contented themselves to have commanded in the Name of Christ and of his true Church they made not those necessary things the conditions of ministerial or lay-communion Significavits Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo were not then invented nor till a long time after that the Lady Churches having lost the true spiritual Sword began to arm themselves with secular power to back and set an edge upon their Dictates 8. This Decree was onely negative not positive a restraint from the use of some but not an imposition of any It was onely This you shall not Do not This you shall Do which kind of Canons are much easier than the other Conscience may better be tyed up from acting in a hundred than forced to act in one particular A negative precept restrains us from acting at any time in any Case an affirmative always obliges but obliges not always to act in every Case But things at home are much otherwise where we are commanded both what to do and what not to do and are still constrain'd to act even in those things we apprehend against the command of God either in general or special 9. Lastly It appears from the Apostle Paul's After-writings that when this Decree had a little gratified the Jewish Converts weaned them a little from their old customs and usages whereof they were so tenacious mollified their morose and rugged tempers sweeten'd and endear'd them towards the Gentiles it expired of course as to what obligation it received from man and lay among those obsolete Canons which were not regarded because antiquated for when the reason of an humane Ecclesiastical Law ceases the Law itself ceases without any formal Repeal which because some expected should have been more solemn they will not be beaten out on 't but it 's still in force Thus have we seen the Vanity of the Doctor 's Supposition which he would persuade us is the Apostles viz. That there was a necessity of one fixed and certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians Which I am not afraid to call vain being so dark that we neither know whether the Rule must be of Divine or Humane Institution what the matter of it must be nor is it proved by Reason or any Scripture argument but what is ultimately resolved into that Decree made at Jerusalem which I have now fully shewn will do him nor his Cause any service SECT III. The Dissenters Plea from Rom. 14. and whether the Doctor hath spoken Reason to invalidate their Reasonings from hence THe Reverend Dr. having toiled hard to prove the necessity of a fixed standing Rule notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians about unnecessary matters and caught nothing to reward his pains bethinks himself of an objection that Dissenters might possibly make which he thus words for them Doth not the Apostle in the 14th Chapter of his Epistle to the Rom. lay down quite another Rule viz. only of mutual forbearance in such Cases where men are unsatisfied in Conscience Yes he doth so and the same Rule he lays down in the verse before the Drs. Text That if any were otherwise minded they should wait and not Act the Church should wait and not impose but leave them to the instruction of God To which the Dr. gives an intimation of a general answer That there was a vast difference between the case as it stood then at Rome and the case as it stood at Philippi For sayes he The Church of Rome consisted most of Jews where they did not impose the necessity of keeping the Law on the gentile Christians And therefore in this case he perswades both parties to forbearance and charity But now in those Churches suppose at Philippi for one where the false Apostles made use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches there the Apostle bids them beware of them and their practices as being of a dangerous and pernicious consequence So that the preserving the peace of the Church and preventing separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his Directions and that makes him insist so much on this advise to the Philippians that whatever their attainments were they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things I have often observed that when men are pinch't with plain Scripture they use to twist and twine and turn themselves into all shapes to get out of their streights and they have no more ordinary way of evasion than to fancy some imaginary various Cases upon which a various judgment must be made and a various Rule laid down to serve the present turn which is most notorious in this answer The Apostle acted like a prudent governour says he and in such a manner as he thought did tend most to the propagation of the Gospel and good of particular Churches To which some would reply that then there are a great many in the world that have acted like fools But my general answer is that the Apostle acted upon higher Reasons than those dictated to humane prudence even the infallible guidance and immediate direction of the Holy Ghost Divine directions and the supernatural counsels of the H. Spirit are well consistent and had he only gone upon thinking as the Dr. fancies I had rather have built my faith and practice upon one of his thinkings than upon one of the Drs. full perswasions 1 Cor. 7.40 I think also that I have the Spirit of God And he was not deceived in so thinking But for a particular answer § 1. The Doctors Reason why the Jewish professors at Rome did not impose on the gentile Christians the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses is this Because we do not find they did so And is not this an ingenious course for a person of his learning to suppose the main foundation upon which he builds the variety of the case with no other proof but that he does not find it so I do not find a
of which my Inviter will not taste but the Doctor and the Reader will expect other Answers and that whatever becomes of others we do clear our selves 1. Then we will acknowledge that what we can lawfully do we ought to do for peace sake when peace will certainly be obtained from them by doing what we can lawfully do but if the doing all we lawfully can will not be accepted as the condition of peace to what end should we stretch our selves and straine our uttermost powers to reach that which can never be reacht I will part with much of my right deny my self in what I may lawfully do to buy my peace at the hands of a vexatious Neighbour but if all that I can lawfully do will not purchase it It s better saved than ill spent For an Indifferent thing that becomes good as it tends to a good end will yet be no good thing again but return into its old box of Indifferents when it tends not to that good end Nay that which is in its general nature a duty as relating to such an excellent end yet ceases to be a duty nay becomes a sin when it s applied to no such end An oath is a part of worship and so far a duty the end of an assertory Oath is to put an end to Controversies to procure peace among men but if an Oath of that sort be used where it cannot put an end to the controversy it becomes sinful as taking the name of God in vain 2. We acknowledge that what we lawfully can do for peace sake that we ought to do But withal we affirm that we actually do it and do it as our duty to for suppose I find it lawful in general to hear a sound pious Conformable Minister preach the Gospel when circumstances meet together to call me out to go I do it under the strict Notion of duty And they that find it lawful to Communicate in the prayers and Sacraments and the Church do judge they are doing a duty in such communion There must then be something else that the Doctor would have if we could get out the secret which his next Magisterial assertion perhaps may discover 3. They that judge it lawful nay their duty to hold Communion with the Church in prayer and Sacraments yet neither think it their duty nor lawful to joyne with one Church to deprive them of the lawfulness and duty of joyning with other Churches least whilst they press after positive duty they should neglect a Comparative duty for seeing they judge it a duty to joyne with the parochial Churches for peace sake and to joyne with others Churches also for the same end they shew a more true and Catholick Spirit for a general peace amongst all Christians then they whose Narrow straight laced Souls only designe a peace within the limits of their own Constitutions And 4. If it be true that what we may lawfully do without sin we ought to do as our duty why may not others turn the inference thus That seeing its lawful to joyn with the separate Churches without the guilt of schism it will be a duty also so to joyn for these that think the one lawful think the other lawful also and as the argument holds on one side it will hold on the other with equal force Nay 5. With more for those persons against whom this argument is brought from their own judgment of the lawfulness of joyning do judge it a more clear case that its lawful to joyn with those other meetings which are more near the word of God in worship and discipline and where the dubious Conditions of Communion are not found to raise scruples about the lawfulness of Communion with them which in other places cannot but sometimes occur Nor will those external accidental advantages which one side has got above the other vary the case seeing 't is the intrinsick merits of the cause that conscience regards in forming a right judgement about its duty And let thus much serve for an Answer 2. Yet I rather think there 's a further meaning in his words which we poor heedless sleepy Creatures little dream of I do not question but in time if they find it lawful they will judge it to be their duty In time yes all in good time that is when they have preacht up the Magistrate to a due height for persecution and alarm'd the Nation with another Presbyterian Plot or retrieved that of Ax-yard and the Meal-Tub when they have rallied up the whole Legion of Informers and once more given us a specimen of ecclesiastical Grace in driving us out of our houses into prisons then is the time when we shall all find it a duty to conform I have no great Reason to be confident of my self and I hope I know my own heart a little better than to trust it nor can I tell whether one terrour may not make me think that Lawful which I never so thought before and the next make me think it a duty a man is ready enough to stretch his Conscience rather than an halter there 's no such feeling conviction like that of the Statute nine and fifty dull arguments and one sharp sword will create a good title to the seventeen Provinces It may be then in time we shall find it a duty that is a duty not to God or our Consciences but to our Carcasses and other duty upon this account is not yet discovered 3 But the most probable intendment of this Paradox is That if we find such Communion lawful the intervening authority of the Magistrate will turn the scale and make it a duty To this I shall not need to say much because so far as we judge Communion lawful before the Command of the Magistrate so far we do judge it to be a duty under due circumstances and no further can we judge it to be either lawful or a duty when the Magistrates command has had its most operative influence either upon the things themselves or our Consciences yet these things we take to be clear 1. That where Communion with the Church would have been sinful under all its circumstances no command of the Magistrate can make it lawful 2. That no command of the Magistrate can discharge a Christian from that duty which he owes his proper Pastor or that particular Church whereof he is a member according to Gods Word 3. That the Magistrate has power from God to enforce all his Christian subjects to live peaceably among themselves and punish them that do otherwise but not to destroy that for which Peace is desirable namely the leading a quiet and secure life in all godliness and honesty for he is the Minister of God to us for our good and not for our ruine 13 Rom. 4. § 2. A second uncouth passage of the Doctors is that of page 56. It s hard to understand if occasional Communion be lawful that constant Communion should not be a duty I perceive
he is somewhat hard of understanding especially of those things that he has no mind to In the former discourse he argues from the lawfulness of Communion to the necessity but here also from occasional to constant Communion To which confident assertion of his we Oppose this Occasional communion with a particular Church may be lawful when yet constant fixed stated Communion may not be a duty which we prove 1. From their own Doctrines and practises Their Canons have made it the duty of every individual member of their Church to hold constant Communion with his own parish Church and Teacher and yet they allow occasional Communion with other parish Churches A journey will make occasional Communion with a remote Congregation lawful but they will hardly perswade us that they can make it our duty to take such journeys in order to such communion If the great Bell rings at the next parish to a Lecture Sermon or chimes all in to Divine Service when we have none of those at home 't is lawful to take the occasion without coming under a constant obligation to it The dissenters crave the same equity they say they are under an obligation ordinarily fixedly statedly constantly to worship God in those congregations whereof they are members they say they can readily joyn with other congregations as they have opportunity but they cannot admit the inference that because they may occasionally that therefore they must constantly practise it because Acts of worship have a larger extent then Church relation those may be performed and yet these remain sacred and inviolate 2. Some conforming Ministers and Christians judge it lawful to hold communion occasionally with the dissenters in prayer and preaching what a rare argument has the Dr. furnisht us with to prove it their constant duty and from once hearing lawfully to prove it an incumbent duty to hear them for ever 3. It may be lawful occasionally to step in and hear a very weak preacher perhaps one that is vicious in his life or unfound in some points of Doctrine when we can hear no other will it follow that we are bound or that any power on earth can bind us to hear such constantly when God has made better provision for our souls and we want only grace to accept it 4. How many have judg'd it lawful to go to a play or the Chappel at Sommersethouse occasionally who yet think that twenty Acts of Parliament cannot make either of them a constant duty 5. And how unwilling are most men to be argued into duty from the meer lawfulness of the thing The Dr. thinks it lawful to resign one of his preferments to some worthy person that has none and yet his own argument will hardly convince him 't is his duty It seems very lawful for him that is almost melted with two coats to part with one to his brother that 's almost naked and yet we despair of success in thus arguing with him Nay it were well if some men would be perswaded that plain duty when it crosses worldly interest is duty and we should the better bear with them in denying every thing lawful to be duty And 6. If all lawful things may be converted into duty and what is occasionally indifferent may be turn'd into constant necessity then farewel Christian liberty and let man hereafter eternally mourn or dance to the Musick of his fetters SECTION X. Of terms of Communion required by the Church whether upon the same Reason that some of them are Imposed the Church may not also impose some Vse of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb WE hear every day eloquent Orations in praise of peace and Union smart declamations against separation but we seldom hear of the fatal terms which obstruct the one or may justifie the other I shall not tire the Reader with a tedious enumeration of the particular conditions but shall content my self to have named One though I discontent some others that I have no more and some will find themselvs aggrieved that I have named that one It is the use of the sign of the Cross in baptism which I intend and have therefore singled out that one because it is number'd amongst the three innocent Ceremonies and because 't is imposed both on the Ministers to practice it and the people to dedicate their Children to God by it 1 And here I ask what Reason can be assigned for the use of this sign as it signifies Christs cross and him crucified thereon as it is the symbol of a persons dedication to Christ and his service but what will equally justifie the Religious use of a crucifix set up in the Church for the same use and purposes This sign of the cross is instituted by the Church First as a memorial of Christs cross Secondly as a Symbol whereby a person is dedicated to him who died the death of the cross Thirdly as a token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the Devil to continue Christs faithful servant and soldier to his lives end That these are the ends and uses of that sign is expresly owned by the Canons of 1603. and the office of baptism in the Liturgy Now why the image of Christ upon the Cross or a Crucifix may not be used for these ends upon the same Reason nay upon somewhat better reason we are yet to seek for if a sign may be used to these ends to make impression upon our minds of those spiritual truths duties and mercies the fixed visible Image will much better do the work then the transient and scarce visible sign of a cross made in the Air with the finger That the Papists do use the Image of Christ upon the Cross as an immediate though not ultimate object of Adoration is true and it is as true that the Church of England does not use the sign of the Cross nor is it by us charg'd to use it for that end but yet as there is an inferiour use of the Crucifix to be the Lay-mans hornbook to teach him to spell out a crucified Christ and a Covenanting use to initiate Converts in the profesion of the Gospel and an obliging use to engage them to serve their Redeemer so there can be no solid reason given why such lower uses of an Image or Crucifix may not be introduced but what will equally militate against our use of the Cross 2. What Reason can be alledged why circumcision may not be imposed as a tearm of Union or Communion to signify the circumcision of the heart as well as the sign of the Cross to signifie faithfulness and perseverance in the service of Christ To the Jews indeed it was a badge of their duty to keep the whole law Gal. 3.4 And such use would now be apparently sinful but suppose it were enjoyned for no other end than as the surplice to denote purity kneeling at the Sacrament to
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