least of their Impositions which have made the Separation it might better have been stiled The Mischief of Union Now to do this as he thinks more convincingly he will first lay down some Concessions It had been a more convincing method in the judgment of most Men if he had proved Separation sinful from Scripture grounds rather than from some Mens Concessions seeing I do not understand either that we are bound to stand to their Concessions or that the Concessions themselves will do his Cause the least service And they themselves have been so bang'd by the Papists by this Argumentum ad hominem that one would think they should have little comfort to use it We cannot forget how in the Relation of the Conference between the A. B. Laud and the Jesuite the Lady who gave occasion to the Dispute asked this Question Whether a Person living and dying in Communion with the Church of Rome might be saved His Grace answered affirmatively Now what Triumphs before the Victory the Papists have made upon this Concession the Doctor has sufficient cause to understand You say they confess that Salvation is attainable in Communion with us we peremptorily deny it That Salvation may be had in your Communion And therefore the safest way is to hold Communion there where both sides agree Salvation may be attained This Argument from that Concession is much stronger than one drawn from the Concession of any one or many amongst us because we own no learned Men to be our Ecclesiastical Head as that Archbishop was supposed to have been theirs But thus fared it with them for their Charity to Rome and thus fares it with us for our Charity to them they cannot own Rome to be a true Church and that persons in that Communion may be saved but they must hear on 't on both sides of their ears why then did you separate from a true Church wherein you might have been saved Nor must we grant the Church of England to be a true Church but presently we are pelted with the same Reply that was thrown at their heads why then did you separate But we had rather suffer by our Charitableness and their Uncharitableness than admit any the least Temptation to deny the Church of England to be a true Church and to hold all the essential Points of Faith seeing the Doctor himself has granted as much as this comes to where he allows of Separation yet let us hear what these Concessions are § 1. They unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrinal Articles of our Church Doctrinal Articles Are there then any Articles that are not Doctrinal Every Article contains as I always thought some Doctrine or other and which then are the Non-doctrinal Articles more particularly 1. It is not true that the Dissenters unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of the Church for I am confident none of them but do find fault with that Doctrine That Children baptized and dying before the commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved And that other That whosoever believeth not stedfastly all that is contained in the Athanasian Creed cannot be saved but shall perish everlastingly 2. They do not believe all the Articles of the Thirty nine and particularly not the 20th of the Churches power to impose Rites and Ceremonies and that also is a Doctrinal Article 3. But if by Doctrinal Articles be intended no more than those that relate to the essential Points of saving Faith it 's true they find no fault with them but then it 's as true that the Doctor has confest also That the Church of Rome maintains all such Articles and yet he justifies the Separation from their Communion whence it will unavoidably follow that it is lawful to separate from a Church which holds all the essential Points of Faith absolutely necessary to salvation 4. And what is it to the Laity what Doctrinal Articles are contained in the Book compiled 1562. if the contrary Doctrines be now openly preached in those Parochial Churches to which their adherence is required For if their Communion with the Parish Churches be the thing which he mainly insists on it 's of more concern to them what is there preach'd than what Faith they were of an hundred years ago § 2. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these their Communion is required And are not then the Parochial Churches more beholden to the Dissenters than to the Doctor whose Principles do deny them to be true Churches For so he tells us p. 27. That although when the Churches encreased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptistry and one Bishop So that the Parochial Congregations are but occasional meetings members and appurtenances of the Cathedral Chappels of Ease under the Mother Church but no true Churches because each has not its proper Bishop And so they make the Diocesan Bishop the onely Pastor and the Parochial Teachers to be onely his Curates to ease them of the trouble and cumber of Preaching And some have observed a strange Innovation in the very office of the Minister of late years for whereas in the old Ordination of Priests they enstated them in their whole office by reading that Text Acts 20.28 Feed the Flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops This Text is now omitted and Ministers are ordain'd to preach when and where the Bishops shall give them a Licence And thus the Parochial Teachers are no Officers of Christ but creatures of the Bishops making nor have they any Jurisdiction any power of Government or Discipline in their hands which all those Pastors whom Christ appointed are vested with but serve to execute the Decrees Sentences and Awards of the Chancellors Officials and Commissaries without liberty to interpose so much as a judgment of discretion And though they retain the name of Rectors yet 't is rather a footstep of what once originally they were but not any term that carries or imports in it any real Authority And what if the Dissenters do not deny that you have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments and an implicit Covenant between Pastors and People Do not also our great Clergymen own and allow that Rome hath all these The Doctor I am certain allows them to be true Churches to have all the Essentials of true Churches and that they have true Sacraments too else why are not they re-baptized which from Rome are converted and brought over to the Church of England And true Ministers else why are they not re-ordained who after reconciliation are allowed to exercise their Ministerial Function when yet a Minister ordained by the Reformed Churches shall not enjoy that priviledge meerly for want of Episcopal Ordination And will the Doctor deny that they have the Eucharist in all its essential parts though they have superadded many gross
it to be the Dissenters duty to widen their Communion to that Latitude It 's sufficient if they that hold this Principle can justifie it without confuting other mens Notions and they Judge their own Principle and Practice sufficiently authorised from this one thing Their Doctrine Communion and Ordinances have the same extent with those of the first Christians Acts 2.42 Who continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship breaking Bread and Prayer And let the opposers prove that any larger extent of Churches than what answers these ends is necessary and they are ready to Conform themselves to it What the Doctor hath to say or however what he hath said will fall under these heads 1. I have never seen any tolerable Proof that the Churches Planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations To which more needs not be said than that 1. If the Churches planted by the Apostles were in such Congregations it 's no matter to us whether they were limited to such Congregations or no If Congregational bounds be allowed let other and larger bounds be proved by them that are concern'd to justifie them 2. If such particular Churches were not of Christs institution then it would be no Schism to separate from them I say no Schism of Christ's condemning and if others will make other Notions of Schism which Christ and his Apostles never knew and so multiply sin without cause let them contrive a hell too wherein those sins and schisms shall be punished 2 The Doctor proceeds It 's possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one assembly for worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct officers with a separate power of government I confess I know not where any such thing appears that they made new and distinct Churches that is specifically new of another kind sort or species but that they did make other Churches and other Officers that is more Churches and more Officers is made appear thus that if they had not such Officers their assemblies had not answered their ends and if they had not the same power of Government that the other Churches had they had not been of the same kind but quite another thing but what it does not appear the Apostles did it appears abundantly the succeeding corrupter times have done even to form new Churches new Officers wholly distinct from those instituted by Christ and his Apostles and hence it was that to keep Peace as is pretended amongst the Pastors of particular Churches they found out a Bishop and to keep the Bishops from falling together by the ears they invented an Archbishop and because the Metropolitans might possibly quarrel they instituted a Patriarch and because the Patriarchs were subject to the same passions with other men prudence contrived a Pope and clapt him upon them all to keep them in Decorum 3 The Doctor thinks it will not appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 in the Church of Jerusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for divine worship Things are credible or incredible as some mens interests and occasions will have them or else it were no such hard matter to make it credible to the Doctor that 5000 10000 20000 might make one stated and fixt Congregation for worship he has an instance of it in St. Andrews Holborn a place which he has cause to know contains more than 5000 and yet they have but one stated fixed Congregation for divine worship 4 The Doctor thinks that much more may be said for lim ting Churches to private families than to particular Congregations Let us hear it then Do we not read of the Church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila Rom. 16.3 5. and of the Church that was in the house of Nymphas at Coloss Col. 4.15 and in the house of Philemon in Laodicea Philem. 2 3. yes we do so and yet hear nothing to the purpose for a Church may be in a house and yet not composed of that house A Church may meet in a family when it consists of more than the family A Church of Dissenters may possibly meet in a house and yet if one of the ecclesiastick Setters should get them in the wind and inform against them that they were there assembled for the worship of God with above the number of four besides the family I fear A Plea that they that meet in a family are of the family would hardly prevent a Conviction 5 Again the Doctor argues thus If notwithstanding such plain examples men will extend Churches to Congregations of many families why may not others extend them to those societies which consist of many Congregations I will tell him why 1. Because his plain examples are plain mistakes nor can he give one instance of a Church that consisted of a family because it was a family 2. We read of Churches of many families but of none composed of many particular Churches Many families have warrant to unite into a Church not as families but as the individuals are duly qualified in order to the great ends of worship edification c. But many Churches have no such warrant to unite for the destruction of those ends or any one of them And it is the end and the usefulness of unity for that end which must regulate and determine the Union It is very lawful to build a Ship or Man of war as big as two or three Yachts which may do better service but it 's folly to make one that would reach from Calice to Dover which must lie like an useless Log unmeet for sailing and the ends for which all Ships are built but let the Doctor extend the name of Church as far as he pleases to the worlds end or as far as the Rules of the Kings bench have been extended we are unconcern'd so long as this is clear that how far soever men may extend Churches name or thing in Compliance with the extent of the civil government yet the extent of our actual communion in worship is no other than that of the Church of which we are by our own choice members 6 He goes on Although when the Churches increased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church one Altar one Baptistry one Bishop which will utterly destroy either parochial or Diocesan Churches For if one Baptistry and one Church be of the same extent what will become of the Diocesan Church in which there are hundred of those Baptistries and but one Bishop and if one Bishop and one Church be of the same extent what will become of the Parochials where there is one Baptistry indeed but not one Bishop And it seems very evident that in the beginning of Christianity a Church was no larger a Body than could assemble in one place for all the ends of a Christian Society so the Apostle supposes 1 Cor. 11.18 when ye come
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
been assignned to them nor do they love to have him for their Pastor whom they know to be of a different Religion from theirs But here are some particulars wherein the Reader will desire the Doctor 's ingenuity and that plainness which became a sermon 1. He asserts that there has been a great deal of art used to confound these two this I say is not honest dealing for they that Judge parochial Lay-communion lawful and have the greatest latitude that way have from Press and Pulpit sufficiently proclaimed their minds and they that judge otherwise have by their own practice and example sufficiently declared their judgment unless the Doctor be angry that they do not fill up their publick worship with declamations against Ceremonies and they that have made the nearest approaches to Parochial Communion have found such bad treatment that they are tempted to judge the Clergy are more afraid of their coming wholly in than keeping out of the Church and they are to be allowed the fittest judges in this case because they know best what stock the Church-commons will bear In the mean time they may take warning how they approach too near that flame which has already singed some or their wings and may possibly consume their whole bodies but consciencious men are above those considerations 2. The Doctor tells us that in the Judgment of the most impartial among the dissenters little is to be said on the behalf of the people from whom none of those things are required None of these things what not to dedicate their Children to God by the sign of the cross not to kneel at the Sacrament I am sure the Canons of 1603. have declared Can. 30. that in memory of the Cross and other Reasons the Church of England hath thought meet to retain the sign of the Cross in baptism taking it for a symbol whereby the Infant is devoted or dedicated to the service of him who dyed the death of the Cross This is the true import of that Canon which I cannot now give the Reader the English of Verbatim having only by me a Latine Copy of those Canons And those of the most impartial among the dissenters and such as have come nearest to conformity in their Lay-Capacity will tell you that there are some things which even they in their private station cannot comply withall 3. The Doctor does not understand how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a sin in hearing them Either then the things are unintelligible or the Dr. is not that man of understanding we have always taken him for what the Divisions of Reuben were he does not well understand p. 2. Why many Cities united under one civil government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one national Church he cannot understand p. 19. And if occasional Communion be lawful that constant Communion should not be a duty is hard to understand p. 56. And now here how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a fault in hearing them he does not understand But what great difficulty lies in this Some do sin though they hear and yet not sin because they hear or there may be a sin in the hearer and yet no sin in hearing but whatever the tempers or distempers the ends and designs of the hearers are that which justifies the Ministers preaching is his own call to the Ministry not the qualification of the hearers A man may come from the next parish to hear the Doctor when by the Rules of the Church he should have been in his own parish Church and yet the Doctor will not think that this supersedes the exercise of his Ministry Some may come out of custom because they have used to trundle thither down the hill others out of curiosity to hear a person of whom fame has spoken so much others out of a carping humour to pick quarrels as no doubt Priests and Jesuites have done and yet the Doctor satisfies himself that it is his duty to do his Masters work and however they hear sinfully schismatically captiously yet he is acquitted in his ministerial service 3 The Doctor tells us he does not confound bare suspending Communion in some particular Rites with either total or at least ordinary forbearance of Communion in what they judge lawful and proceeding to the forming of separate Congregations What great matter is it to us or to the controversie what the Doctor shall please to confound or to distinguish The law of the nation which is the assigned Rule and Reason of Conformity requires total Conformity to all Rites The Law considers not whether mens scruples be modest or immodest nor what they judge lawful or unlawful Conformity is exacted to the whole Liturgy Ceremonies and the Laity must not pick and chuse what they can use and refuse the rest they must like Travellours on the King 's high way keep to the road and not break out here and there to escape the foul way If the Doctor were the Church of England or the Parliament it were considerable but as the case stands we are under a peremptory law Now then if there be some things which we do scruple and not only scruple but upon the most impartial scrutiny we can make do judge sinful and these be made the condition of enjoying one Sacrament or other Ordinance of Christ and that by a law of his as peremptory as any of these of men and imposed upon a far more severe penalty than man can inflict we are bound to live in the constant use of all his institutions we must unite our selves to those churches where we may enjoy them upon better terms Thus much in consideration of his considerations But yet we are to seek for the answer to the Question How far we are obliged to comply with an establisht Rule Separation of whole Churches is shut out of the Question Ministerial Conformity is shut out of the Question Suspending Communion in some particular Rites is shut out of the Question But where is the answer to the Question That is adjourned or prorogued or utterly lost and therefore if any honest Gentleman or Citizen has taken up the answer to this question lost between St. Pauls and the Guild-Hall Chappel let him restore it to the owner and he will be well rewarded for his pains And now let the Reader judge whether the dissenters are not likely to be well instructed by a Catechism made up of Questions without Answers SECT V. The state of the present Controversie between the disagreeing Parties as laid down by the Doctor what Concessions some Dissenters make and what use the Doctor makes of them THE former Question being laid by at present he comes to consider the present Case of Separation and to make the sinfulness and mischief of it appear And this is it which denominates the Discourse The Mischief of Separation Though to an impartial Considerer how loth they are to step over a straw or to forgo the
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-Parish-Churches will do more harm than good which it
will certainly do 1. When such Communion shall persuade the parish-Parish-Churches that their Frame is eligible and not only tolerable that they are righteous and need no repentance pure as well as true Churches of Christ and need no Reformation 2. When that Communion shall be so managed that the persons communicating must be obliged to separate from all other Churches which they judge to be of a purer mold and wherein they may enjoy all Christ's Ordinances with much greater and clearer satisfaction to their Consciences and more notable advantages for edification 3. When such Communion shall visibly harden the Papists in their superstitious usages As kneeling at the Sacrament bowing before Altars Churches the East and at the word Jesus has apparently done and so much T.G. the Doctor 's grand Antagonist has professed in his Dispute about Idolatry 4. When such Communion and Conformity shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general and that this would have been the effect of an universal Conformity was well express'd by a Conformable Minister of good Note in the Church who told his Friend a Captain in His Majesties Service That he was heartily glad that so many Ministers had refus'd to Conform upon the Terms proposed And being ask'd with some wonderment a reason of his strange expression he answer'd thus Not that thereby they had more good Livings to scramble for as one answer'd Had all Conform'd the People would have thought there had been nothing in Religion that it had been onely a thing to talk of in the Pulpit to serve a State design but now by throwing up their Livings and exposing themselves and Families to outward ruine rather than Conform to the things imposed not agreeable as they apprehend to the Gospel they had preached they have convinced the world there is a Reality in Religion and thereby given a check to Atheism To shut up this Discourse If the Doctor would have us Conform as far as we judge it lawful when such Compliance is cloathed with all its particular circumstances we are willing to it provided the Doctor can secure us that such Compliance shall be accepted in full satisfaction of the debt But we doubt it must not be the Dean of St. Paul's but the Convocation there that must assign the Limits Bounds Terms and Measures of our Conformity If hearing a Sermon as we have occasion and going as much further as Conscience warranted by the Word will permit us would excuse us from being reviled and railed at as Schismaticks Rebels Traytors and what not would do it it would be done nay it is done but if he has no Commission to treat with us and compound the matter I fear he has spoiled the Wit and Ingenuity of his late Allegory and fought a Skirmish without the Command of his General for though he stand upon very high Ground he stands not as yet on the highest and there are higher than he SECT VI. The Grounds of the present Separation assigned by the Doctor Examined and Cleared THE main Question so solemnly propounded by the Reverend Doctor having given us the slip we are entertained with another What are the Grounds of the present Separation and the utmost he can find in the best Writers of the several Parties amounts but to these two 1. That although they are in a State of Separation from the Church yet this Separation is not Schism And he courteously supposes them to have one Reason for this Principle from the Author of Evangelical Love p. 68. Our Lord Christ Instituted only Congregational Churches or particular Aslemblies for Divine Worship which having the sole Church-power in themselves they are under no Obligation of Communion with other Churches but only to preserve Peace and Charity with them and from the Author of The true and only way of Concord p. 111. That to devise new Species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the World yea in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make and Impose new Ceremonies This is all the reason the Doctor can find to justifie their Separation to be no Sin But does the vast weight of their Cause hang upon one single string I can shew him where he may find more assigned by the Author of Evangelical Love whom he quotes 1. That there are many things in all Parochial Churches that openly stand in need of Reformation which these Parochial Churches neither do nor can nor have power to Reform And who would joyn with them that have no power to Reform themselves 2. Many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men which are not aceording to the mind of Christ And will Christ Condemn them for Schismaticks who are ready to come up to his Commands because they dare advance no further 3. That there is no Evangelical Church-Discipline administred in such Parochial Churches which yet is a necessary means unto the Edification of the Churches appointed by Christ himself And are they Schismaticks who separate not from but to any of Christ's means for their Edification 4. The Rule and Government which such Parochial Churches are under in the room of that which ought to be in and among themselves viz. by Bishops-Courts Chancellors Commissaries is unknown to the Scriptures And are they Schismaticks who refuse an unscriptural for a Scriptural Rule and Government 5. There is a total Deprivation of the Peoples Liberty to chuse their own Pastors whereby they are deprived of all use of their Light and Knowledge for providing for their own Edification And it 's hard that men shall be made Schismaticks because they would use their Reasons that is unless they will be something worse than Men they cannot be good Christians 6. That there is a want of due means of Edification in many of those Parochial Congregations and yet none shall be allowed to provide themselves better And is it not very severe for Christians to be Damned because they would be more certainly and easily Saved Thus then we see there are other many other Reasons alledged to justifie such Separation to be no Schism though it pleased the Doctor to wink at them and Assign only this one which yet it 's well if he can Confute In order to which He thinks That to clear the practice of Separation from being a Sin two things are necessary to be done § 1. To prove that a Christian has no obligation to external Communion beyond a Congregational Church And is this the Duty incumbent upon them They think they have done enough if they prove there 's an Obligation lies upon them to hold external Communion in that Church whereof they are Members and let others prove that they are obliged to Communion beyond those Bounds If the Dissenters enlarge their Communion as far as Christ enlarged the Churches let them who have enlarged the Bounds of the Churches prove
there are other just rules of conscience then Gods Law which is a Notion we cannot admit of without better evidence we would gladly know where those other just Rules are to be found must we seek them in Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical whether then are all such or only some of them such just rules If onely some of them which are they and by what characteristical marks may we distinguish them but if all be so then must we acquiesce in all the Canons decrees rescripts and Rules that were ever made by any Counsel or convocation and why then did not the Church of England rest satisfied with those rules which were given her before the Reformation 2. We must needs say that if the Dissenters do examine things fairly on both sides praying for Divine Direction and have had a world of patience to boot to hear any thing against their Opinion though never so weak in Reason and strong in passion which they profess before the searcher of all hearts they have done and continue still to do they must be discharg'd before all the world that shall take cognizance of their cause and hear their pleas of any wilful or voluntary error And for the suggestion that they form their judgments from prejudice passion and interest they dare not judge of other men contenting themselves to have averred their own innocency when the temptation visibly lies on the other side § 4. For a Conclusion The Dr. would apply the charge of a wilfully erroneous Conscience to the Dissenters If men says he through the power of an erroneous Conscience may think themselves bound to make schisms to disobey Laws to break in pieces the Communion of the Church they may satisfie themselves that they pursue their Consciences and yet for want of due care of inforcing themselves those actions may be wilful and damnable sins But we think not our selves bound to any such wickedness There are enow that think themselves bound t do that without our assistance enow besides us to perpetuate the cause of our divisions and to entail contentions upon Innocent posterity whose teeth must be set on Edge with the sowre grapes their Fathers have eaten but if any shall think themselves bound through the power of an Erroneous Conscience to make unjust Rules of Conscience when t is Impossible they should make one de novo that is just and thereby break the Church in peices they may think what they please that they are pursueing their just rights to impose upon other mens Consciences and satisfying their own and yet for want of a due care to inform themselves better in their duty the extent of their power and the ends for which it was given be guilty in the sight of God of willful and damnable sins as bad as those of the Jews who thought they did God good Service when they persecuted and murtherd his faithful Servants SECTION IX A consideration of those Assertions of the Doctor If Communion with the Church be lawful it will in time be judged a duty And If occasional Communion be lawful its hard to understand that constant Communion should not be a duty I Find the Doctor ever and anon insinuating that what is lawful to be done upon some account or other ought to be done Which if it be universally true will take away the difference between merely lawful and necessary at least as to use and practice since it implies that whatever is lawful may be made constantly and fixedly a duty If it were only asserted that what is merely lawful might through a concurrence of circumstances pro hic nunc become a duty as it would do this cause no service so neither would it meet with our opposition But to be thus laid down in general without further explication needs a little consideration and so in this case that which otherwise had been but lawful will be incumbent on me as my duty Two expressions I find worthy our Notice 1. I do not question but in time if they find it Communion in prayers and Sacraments lawful they will judge it to be their duty Now because we have ever thought that what was lawful and merely so stood in the midst between sinful and necessary forbidden and Commanded it deserves some care and pains to dive into the Mystery of it how or why these lawfulls may become determined to one side of their extremes or termes between which they formerly stood neuters And by what we can gather from his discourse it must be one of these things 1. That whatever we judge lawful to be done in any case for peace sake will become a duty to be alwayes done For he tells us p. 31. 32. There 's nothing Christ and his Apostles have charged more upon the Consciences of Christians then studying to preserve peace and unity among Christians To which pupose the Doctor quotes us several places of Scripture which it is needless here to repeat seeing none ever yet denied the study of peace to be a very great and manifest duty But if it be charg'd on the Consciences of all Christians to study to preserve peace We hope they find the charge upon their Consciences also for they are Christians Have they then studyed the things that make for peace I mean not their own but the peace of all the Christians in the Nation A little study would have discovered the means had they been as they pretend such passionate Lovers of the end What expedients have they then found out by all their study or what expedients will they accept that others have studied and found out to releive and procure peace so far as it s lost to preserve peace so far as it yet remaines and to further peace so far as it may be attainable in the Imperfect state of this life what will they part with to purchase it will they step over one straw remove one stumbling block that lies in the way of it will they wave the least of their pretensions or condescend to others in the smallest of their desires will they promise to reforme our Rubrick that one Rule for finding out Easter for ever when it would not find it out for but proved it self Erroneous in almost half seven years will they forbear to exact our Assent and consent to a known falshood for that excellent thing which they so much predicate Peace The matter is slight yet if an Error they can more easily forgoe it then we avow it we know not why we should tell the smallest lie for peace if they will not part with one Nay tell us what thing so Inconsiderate so minute which all our humble Petitions for peace could procure the relaxation of And yet thâ—se are the Men that boast themselves highly of their burning zeal for peace To be an Advocate for peace is an office of good credit but I cannot tell what to think on 't when I am pressed so earnestly and heartily to feed lustily on that Dâ—sh
out with the Dissenters Congregations what is all this to the overthrow of the Church This priviledg may be abused must it therefore not be used Vnsetled heads and unstable hearts will be wandring let them go 't is a good riddance of them if they be obstinate but where this humour has destroy'd one Church this rigorous forcing of Pastors upon the people has divided and destroyed hundreds The generality of Dissenters in this Nation at this day may be reduced to two Heads First Such who having been formerly sixt with and under their faithful Pastors by their deliberate choice after good experience of their Ministerial abilities to teach them the mind and will of God of their wisdom to advise them in their spiritual cases of their skill to conduct them through their emergent difficulties of their meekness sobriety heavenly-mindedness and whatever might recommend to and inforce upon their consciences their sound Doctrine do still judg it their unquestionable duty to abide in that Relation and by no terrours to be driven by no blandishments to be withdrawn from their oversight and guidance according to the word of God judging that such withdrawing such separation would be that real Schism which hears so badly in and is loaded with such guilt by the holy Scriptures A second sort is of those who having been sometime hearers at large in their respective Parish-Churches and coming at last to have more concernment for their souls and the important business of another world and finding that their Parochial Teacher was either so overlaid with a numerous throng of people which he commonly but unadvisely calls his Flock and Charge that he cannot personally take care of the hundredth part of them or so engaged in secular affairs of more weight to him than his Pastoral Charge that he has neither heart nor leisure to attend so troublesome an employment or so unskilful in the word of Righteousness that he cannot tolerably declare the Counsel of God for edification or so unsound in his judgment that he 's more likely to poyson than feed his people or so debauched in his life that he plucks down more in an hour than he builds up in a year or such a Bigot for humane Inventions and Superstitions that the naked simplicity of divine Worship is either clouded to render it useless or clogged to render it burdensome this person seeks and finds out some other Pastor qualified as before described to whose Ministerial conduct under Christ the only chief shepherd he commits himself and there peaceably and patiently continues notwithstanding the barbarick clamours of Schism and Separation And all this without more prejudice to the Church he forsakes then it 's an injury to a Tradesman to leave his shop who has left it himself or has his hands full of better customers 2. That it is the duty of every Christian to worship God not only in purity of the heart but according to the purity of Gospel-administrations The true measure of which Purity is to be taken from its consonancy and harmony with the word of God which has sufficiently either in general special or particular instructed us in the acceptable service of our God Purity of worship is no such idle and contemptible thing to be flam'd off with an impertinent story that we must not separate from a true Church upon pretence of greater purity Nor can I imagine upon what pretence except that of greater purity the Church of England separated from Rome if it be true what we read in Rat. Account p. 293. That the Church of Rome is a true Church and what he further owns Defence against T. G. p. 785. I allow says the Doctor the Church of Rome to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of the Christian faith and what the Archbishop Laud confessed to that Lady who would needs go before to Rome alone because she could not bear a crowd that she might be saved in Communion with the Roman Church Now if Rome be a true Church if she holds all the essential points of Christianity If salvation may be attained in that Communion why was there such a stir about reforming of Accidents when the Essentials were secured Why such a Contest about a little easier way when the other way was passable Why all this a-do about a purer Church when the other is confessed a true Church These things then will follow in the lump from the Archbishops and Doctors Concessions 1. That a person or party may separate from some true Church which holds all the essential points of the Christian faith without the Imputation of a Schismatick 2. That a person or party may separate from some Church where salvation is attainable without peril of the guilt of Schism 3. That the only Reason that yet appears to justifie the Church of Englands departure from Rome is that it is lawful in some cases to withdraw from the Communion of a true Church wherein all the essential points of faith are owned and wherein salvation may be attained for the sake of greater purity of worship greater clearness of Doctrine and greater security of salvation Is it then lawful for England to separate from Italy for greater purity It may be lawful for others to separate from England for greater purity 'T is readily acknowledged that the Impurity of the Roman Synagogue is much more unconceivably more than that of the Church of England and therefore there was not so great cause to leave the latter as the former upon that account but in aspiring after Conformity to the Institutions of Christ we are not to consider so much what is behind as what is before not so much what we have left as what we have yet to reach nor so much the Terminus aquo from what state of Impurity we have emerged as the Terminus ad quem to what state of purity we would arrive for if it be true that there is such a state of Purity to be obtained and such a state of Impurity to be avoided as will justifie our forsaking of this for that and such a measure of both these as will not It must be exactly stated what is the lowest degree of corruption that will and what is the highest that will not warrant a separation The Dissenters being judges there are enow at home to excuse their secession The Romanists being judges there are not enow abroad to vindicate the Church of Englands separation and the former are more confirm'd in their judgment since the Doctors Epistle Dedicatory to the now B. of London prefixt to his Defence against T. G. where he openly avows on the behalf of the English Church that it has reformed those abuses only which have crept in since the times of the first four general Councils Now the last of these four first being held at Chalcedon An. 451. there were such Corruptions crept into the Church before that time which if imposed upon any as the condition of enjoying
the means of their salvation will justifie a separation but I shall the less insist upon this because I am confident the Church of England never gave the Doctor a Commission to declare so much in her name and I believe will give him as little thanks for his labour 3. That every Christian is obliged at least necessitate praecepti to live in the use of all Gods Ordinances and Commandments and therefore it will follow 1. That where all Christs Institutions are not to be had a Christian may peaceably withdraw from that society and seek them where he can find them Now they say the case is this That though we ought not to commit one sin to enjoy all Christs Ordinances yet there are some wanting in this Church which if you would commit a thousand sins to purchase you cannot have them The preamble to the Office of Commination intimates some such matter Brethren in the Primitive Church there was a godly Discipline that at the beginning of Lent such persons as were notorious sinners were put to open penance and punishment in this world that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord and that others admonished by their example might be more afraid to offend Instead whereof until the said discipline may be restored again which thing is much to be desired it is thought good that at this time in your presence should-be read the general sentences of Gods curse against impenitent sinners Now view this paragraph well in its parts 1. There was a godly discipline in the Primitive times if we could have kept it 2. That this discipline was of unspeakable benefit to the people notorious sinners were put to open shame others warned by their censures and the end of all was the salvation of their souls 3. That this Ordinance is not to be found in the Church at this day which is a great loss 4. That it is a thing to be much desired and therefore it cannot but be worth the while to step over two thresholds for it it 's worth a wish if wishing would do it with the most ordinary Christian on earth 5. That there 's something set up instead of it but quo warranto we are not informed nor who has power to chop and change any Institution of his for a new trick a Quid pro Quo contrived by men And therefore we may fairly hope we shall not be condemned for Schismaticks for practising what they desire to practise but alas we can and they cannot because none hinders them 2. It will follow also that where the Institutions of Christ may be found yet if they be fetter'd and chain'd to or mixed with sinful Conditions 't is the same case as if they were not at all to be had for we can do nothing but what we can lawfully do To name no more at present we cannot have our Infants baptized without the Aerial sign of the Cross as a Medium whereby it is dedicated to Christ What then shall we do Here we may have a part or two of worship with innocency and peace of conscience but if we will walk in all Christs institutions we must seek elsewhere What shall we do then must we spend our Lords days in an undecent trotting up and down the Town for one scrap here a snap there or shall we sit down under a well-fixed order of Worship and Discipline and joyn with other Congregations occasionally in what they have This is the general course of Dissenters and will deliver us from that argument wherein they so much triumph That though we cannot joyn with them in all parts of worship yet are we bound to it so far as we are perswaded it is lawful so to do for we are fully perswaded 'tis our duty to partake of and communicate in every Ordinance of Christ and therefore statedly and fixedly to adhere to that Church where to that Pastor by whom they are all administred not neglecting other Congregations as Providence shall invite to participate of what they afford and what without sin we may have 4. That it is sinful to submit subscribe assent to dubious and obscure terms of Communion How far this principle will be allow'd us I know not but this I know the Reverend Doctor once allow'd himself the benefit of it when he justified the Separation of the Church of England from Rome Dialogue p. 165. We think says he the requiring of doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable is ground enough for us not to embrace communion with that Church unless it may be had on better terms And we think that this is ground enough for us as well as himself not to embrace the Communion of this Church seeing there are imposed upon us doubtful things for certain new for old and we think too false for true I say we think so and it was but the Doctors we think that he opposed to T. G. And we think further that this will vindicate us from those loud but empty outcrys of Schism and Schismaticks for so the Doctor asserts Ibid. We have often proved that the imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism I have told the Doctor what we think I will tell him now why we so think that doubtful things are imposed on us for certain false for true and among many others I assign this one instance That in the Catechism of the Church wherein the Laity are concern'd this Doctrine is contained That Infants perform faith and repentance by their sureties and such repentance too whereby they forsake sin and such faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament You see Sir how the Importunity of the Doctor has drawn us out of our reservedness Dissenters have been modest to their great prejudice and had rather dispute the matter upon other Arguments than those drawn from the sinfulness and unlawfulness of the things required out of that great veneration they have ever had for the Church of England and yet we hope that they that call and invite nay provoke and force us to this task will not be so disingenuous to trapan us into the ambush of a penal Statute it being unworthy of Gentlemen and persons of Honour first to be our Tempters and then our Accusers 5. That every Christian is obliged to walk with and in all the ways of God so far as they have attained so far as they have the knowledg of Gods Will they are to live up to it so far as they see their freedom from bondage they are to stand fast in it so far as they are advanced towards a perfect reformation they are to persevere All retrograde motions are dangerous for who knows but that the least declension from the ways of God may terminate in Apostacy Foreseeing Christians therefore will not dare to tread back those steps they have taken towards perfection but rather will
be pressing forward to whatsoever degree of exactness in this life is attainable We question whether we ought not to aspire and endeavour after greater purity but it 's past all question with us that we ought not to retreat to greater Impurity Dissenters are so far from divding that they would be growing up into greater Union they would walk as they have attained to know and would know more that they may walk farther know clearer that they may walk holier and for what they cannot attain by study prayer and the due use of all good means they would humbly wait upon God till he shall and that he may reveal even that thing also unto them But some are so hasty and impatient that they will neither stay Gods leisure nor theirs but drive knowledg into their heads and their brains out of their heads with the great Churchbeetle 6. Lastly I have heard some of them own this principle That where the Church has no power to command there it cannot be the peoples duty to obey for power to command and obligation to obedience being Relatives must be affirmed or denied equally and reciprocally if then the Church has no power from Christ and whence she should derive it but from him I cannot divine to impose these things in Controversie it can never be proved their duty to obey in the premises 'T is a sad sight to see how Dissenters have been teazed with that Text Let all things be done decently and in order but the clamour grows very weak from that Quarter and now a new Text has been found out which they hope will kill and slay all before it As we have already attained let 's walk by the same rule from whence they argue with singular acuteness we must walk as we have attained and therefore we must walk as we have not attained if we be otherwise minded we must wait till God reveal it to us therefore though we be otherwise minded we must act as if like-minded and though there be various degrees of light and knowledg yet we must come up to an uniformity of practise as if there were no variety of degrees which makes a man a certain creature about six pence better than a horse though some think upon that principle he 's a shilling worse But these Doctrines of the Doctors are collected and raised from the Text just as our Collectors raise a Tax upon indigent non-solvent people who come armed with a Law and a Constable to distrain for that which is not to be had rather than the King should lose his Right and certainly never was Text so strained and distrained to pay what it never owed never man so Rack't to confess what he never thought never was a Pumice-stone so squeez'd for water which it never held nor ever a good Cause so miserably put to its shifts as to press those innocent Texts against their wills which refuse to come in as Volunteers to the service Notwithstanding what has been said it shall stand for not-spoken if the Doctor can prove his assertion That the present Separation is carried on by such principles as will overthrow any Church whatever Thus then he proceeds If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and set up new Churches Now because this dead weight always hangs lugging on one side give me leave to put a Counterpoise on the other side to make it hang more even If it be lawful to impose the Ceremonies upon pretence of decency and order and to exact submission to them upon pretence of Peace and Vnion then may bare will and pleasure be a sufficient reason to raise the severest persecution to force Communion against conscience or to destroy all the Churches of Christ on earth for a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstances Let us however with all tenderness examine this way of Reasoning always protesting 1. That we will not be cheated with that expression of pretence of greater Purity for we do not allow hypocrisie to be a sufficient ground of Separation 2. Nor with that other expression a bare difference in opinion which we would explain both here and hereafter if we understood the meaning of it These things premised I observe in his Argument some things prudently supposed and those supposals as wisely improved First then here are some things very prudently supposed As 1. that there is a confessed agreement between the differing parties in Doctrine But where shall we find that system of Doctrine in which the Agreement is supposed to lye shall we seek it in the Holy Scriptures In vain one party can find a Church-power there to make Canons in which the other party shall be bound to acquiesce upon pain and peril of the guilt of Schism but the Dissenting-party can see no such matter Those again have found a Doctrine there that the Addition of any thing in specie to Gods word or worship which he has not commanded in genere is culpable but the other party wonder where they pickt up this ungrateful Doctrine shall we then go search for this supposed or confessed agreement in the 39 Articles there or no where we may expect to meet with it but here also are we miserably disappointed for the Doctor himself has satisfied us in his Rational Account p. 54 55. That the learned Primate of Ireland understand not B. Vsher but Bramhall tells us the sense of the 39 Articles of this Church Neither doth the Church of England define any of these Questions necessarily to be believed either necessitate praecepti or Medii but only bindeth her sons for peace-sake not to oppose them And more fully in another place We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of Vnity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but not to contradict them Now if this be true I would fain learn how the Doctor can be so confident that we are agreed in Doctrine when we are at a loss and wholly to seek in what Doctrine to agree You are surprized Sir I doubt not at this discovery Has not the Church of England defined in her 39 Articles any thing necessarily to be believed then it seems the essence and existence of a God is not defined to be necessary Are these Articles no essentials of saving faith then it 's no essential point of faith to believe that Christ is the eternal Son of God Are these but pious Opinions then it 's a pious Opinion that we are justified by faith without our own merits
omission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it I would gladly hear a fair Reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another why the Rule of Charity should take place in bowing towards the Altar and yet the Rule of severity in the sign of the Cross and kneeling at the Lords Supper what solid Reason can they give why they make fish of one and flesh of another The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when where and in what cases they please and in others where 't is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons Is it because we are bound to walk according to the Rule prescribed by the Church why are not they bound to walk according to the Rule prescribed by the Apostle Are we more bound to obey them than they the Lord Christ speaking in and by his immediately inspired servants why could they not have relaxed the other Canons to the moderation of this or why not have screwed up this to the inflexible rigour of the others was it for peace-sake that we were indulged in this one Let the same Motive prevail for the same Indulgence in the rest was it to shew their Authority that they may bind and loose command what they please and leave what they see good at liberty without rendring a Reason but that of their Wills Such arbitrary power is too great an encroachment upon the freehold of Conscience and Soveraignty of Christ and will justifie any Christian to assert that liberty against it wherein Christ has instated him Was it because the people had been broken by long use and custom to the others and therefore they would struggle hard to keep the ground they had got when this latter was but a Novice a Candidate a Probationer for Acceptation which if the people would tamely bow their necks unto they might be cramped with a more peremptory Canon when time should serve but if they proved restiff and cross-grain'd the next Convocation might make an honourable retreat And what if now we are stumbling ere we are aware upon the true Reason of the diversity between the tempers of this and some other Canons However whether these things be commanded or merely recommended or barely permitted all is a case as to my Argument for I find these things practised by all our leading Church-men All the Fathers of the Church all the Mother-Churches are agreed all that pretend to any hopes of comfortable Importance are agreed to outrun the Constable and though herein they outrun one another and all of them outrun the Dissenters and this is a difference in something more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of worship yet must we be supposed to be agreed This last mention'd Canon of the Church I hear is repealed by Act of Parliament which plainly proves that the Civil Magistrate has more authority even in matters of worship than the whole Church as a Church when most solemnly met together in the Representative Church as they call it of a Convocation and yet the practise runs with a full stream towards their own old Canon as if they secretly gave great Deference to the Authority of the Church against the Parliament for the leading-practise of the grand Ecclesiasticks is tantamount to a Canon nay to a Law to those whose hopes and expectancies teach them a dependance on them so that this now obsolete Canon has past into the nature of a Commandment much like the old Statute Ne Rectores prosternant Arbores in Goemeterio the Tenor whereof runs thus Which thing we will not command to be done but we will commend it when it is done Secondly The Doctor having prudently supposed one half comes to prove the other half and it 's wisely done to lose nothing for asking He argues thus If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity suppose as before supposed than a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and set up new Churches To which I answer 1. by denying the consequence strange what deny the consequence what can be plainer Where there 's an agreement a confessed agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of worship what can you pretend to divide in to separate upon but some sorry circumstances unless you will make a Schism about Goats Wool or Moon-shine in the water But if you please Sir to have a little patience I 'le tell you substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances are not so immediately opposed but there lies a certain thing in the middle between them upon which middle thing though otherwise we were agreed in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship it will be lawful to divide I say it again there is a Medium between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances A bare circumstance is that which adheres to every action as it is an action to every natural body as 't is a natural body every action whether civil or sacred must be performed in some time every body must be circumscribed in some place A substantial part of worship is a Term of the Doctors and his Friends making and we may expect it should be of their explaining As far as I can understand they mean by it either 1. that which God has expresly commanded or 2. some notable parts of worship as the Sacraments or 3. that which God mainly requires as the directing our hearts to himself as the object and end of our worship or 4. I cannot tell what till they tell me but besides these two extremes there are some intermediate things which are neither natural circumstances cleaving to the person that worshippeth nor to the Religious action it self on the one hand nor yet on the other hand are they commanded by God either in genere or in specie i. e. God has neither commanded the things themselves nor are the things necessary to the performing those things that he has commanded nor any of their kind nor are they included in any general rule or precept of the Gospel And yet it has pleased the Church that is the Episcopal party to exalt these things to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them that is to lay them as Conditions in the way of our enjoying the Sacraments which they say God has made necessary to salvation and lay the stress and weight of the Churches peace safety and unity upon these things translated out of their proper places and that these things so used so applied so cloathed with their present circumstances are sinful is
not our bare opinion as the Doctor wisely phraseth it but our setled judgment which we have do and shall maintain against them when they have once leisure to understand the Question We have therefore something to divide upon besides substantial parts of worship and circumstances And now where is this consequence which to an intelligent and observing Reader is the only strength of his Sermon But we need never fear it the Clergy will be sure to find us matter for quarrel and contention or it shall go hard besides a parcel of inconsiderable circumstances which may be determined but very sorrily by those that pretend most to the power for he that worst may commonly holds the Candle But 2. for further answer let him go back to the former Discourse where I have proved that the foundation upon which his discourse is built is weak and therefore the whole superstructure must tumble upon his own head for he supposes there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship which we either deny or cannot grant till we are taught what he means by them The Controversie therefore stands upon the same bottom on which it has stood these hundred years and more like that famous stone in the West which they say a child may shake but a hundred men cannot overturn Every wrangler can jostle our principles but the United force of the world cannot overthrow them True men may be killed but Truth will out-live all enmity This argument of the Doctors has been frequently answered and exposed but now like an old Livery new turn'd and fresh trim'd up with a new Lace it passes for a spruce piece of Gallantry a brisk sally of Ratiocination so considerable it is who it is that speaks and writes more than what is spoken or written So have I known a sorry Jade which in the hands of the poor Countrey-man would not give five Marks when in the hands of a Gentleman a little curried up well managed by a nimble Jockey and stoutly voucht for by one that was no slave to his word fetch roundly Twenty Guineys at the hands of a youngster that had more money than wit What has hitherto engrost the whole strength of the Doctors Reason he now comes to set a fine edg and gloss upon with his Rhetorick To separate says he considering the variety of mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to further Separation Which is nothing but the Eccho of that Charge which from their Roman Adversaries has so long and loudly rung about their own Ears I shall only say That the power which he ascribes to National Churches considering the great variety of the fancies and humours in finding out and imposing their own Inventions will but make burdens innumerable and intolerable without any possible stop to further and greater vexations only let him not always miscall Conscience by the scandalous name of Fancy The very truth is we have no Mathematical Certainty in these matters no such Demonstration Cui non potest subesse falsum which Archbishop Laud and by consequence the Doctor requires of all Dissenters when yet he could find no such Demonstration for the being of a God as I shall evince ere long But some will scruple where they need not and others to cry quit with them will impose where they ought not and thus between weakness and wilfulness between little knowledg and great pride humble peaceable Christians are like to have a fine time on 't But from some inconsiderable and petty inconveniences some little trouble that arises to a Church from the levity and volubility of mens minds to bring in that enormous monstrous principle of enslaving all mens judgments and consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked will and pleasure and put all that 's worth owning in their Beings into the hands of those of whose fidelity and tenderness to keep and dispose of them they have had no better experience and can have no good security is a Medicine worse than that Poyson even as much as 't is better to have a Rational Soul though subject to mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong Bit and Bridle Honoured Sir you see how I have wearied my self to tire you with the prolixty of this Letter and now to refresh you in the close I 'le tell you a piece of News The Doctor tells us That if once the people be brought to understand and practise their duty as to Communion with our Churches other difficulties which obstruct our Vnion will be more easily removed It 's incredible what the various Votes of the Coffee-houses are about those words some say Ay! If there were no Nonconformists there would be no Nonconformity if there were no disagreement we should all be agreed others again deny it and say That though the people were brought to understand and practise all their duty which they owe to God and man yet the same difference the same distance would continue except it be first proved which they are always coming towards but can never find a time to come to that it is their duty to hold entire Communion with the parish-Parish-Churches others again of the more warm tempers assert That if the people could be brought to understand and practise their duty in these matters those Assemblies would be thinner than they are and some protest it 's a most Meridian Truth that if men could be brought to conform in practise but there lies the cunning on 't though against the shins and conscience all other difficulties would be easily removed for they that are once engaged in a practise whether by slavish fears or worldly hopes it makes no matter must study Arguments to defend their practise as well as they can and they vouch infallible experience to justifie their opinion for say they throw a Dog into a River over head and ears and if he will not take care to swim out let him be drown'd It 's mighty pleasing to me to hear the Doctor profess he has endeavoured to pursue his design without sharp and provoking reflexions on the persons of any for though you Sir have noted several passages as inconsistent with the sincerity of this expression yet I doubt not to clear up his Integrity You mention Page 38. where I confess the Doctor does say The most godly among them Dissenters can least endure to be told of their faults This did a little startle me but not stumble me into a disbelief of his Honesty for though he tells us he has not used provoking reflexions on the persons of any i. e. by name yet he might with a good conscience and without contradicton to his word make sharp provoking reflexions upon the whole generation of the Dissenters and condemn them in the lump And whereas you insist upon 't that the expression is either a scurrilous Sarcasm unbecoming a
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-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
thousand things that they did and must be presumed to have done and may I thence conclude they never did 'em and thence make what inferences collections and conclusions I think good § 2. He asserts that because the Apostle was willing to have the law buried with as little noise as might be that therefore in this case he perswades both parties to forbearance and charity And what is that other case or those other cases wherein the Apostle would dispense with forbearance and charity Are there any select and reserved cases wherein he would have Christians fall together by the ears was it a duty at Rome not to judge and despise one another and will these be such Cardinal Virtues at Philippi or were they at Rome only to stand or fall to their own Master and must the poor wretches at Philippi be sold for Galley-slaves was it good Doctrine in one Church that every man should be fully perswaded in his own mind before he adventured upon acting and was it Heterodox in the other that they might debauch and prostitute conscience to all pretenders and set their souls for every dog to piss on If the Doctor presumed upon his Auditors had he the same confidence to impose upon his Readers § 3. The Church of England in her Canons of 1640. tells us she followed the Rule prescribed by the Apostle in this chapter to the Romans and has 40. years more so altered the case If the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle to Rome does reach us here in England it 's less matter whether it obliged them at Philippi or no and yet that it obliged them also has been made clear from the Text. § 4. The Dr. manifestly prevaricates when he tells us The Apostle does so much insist upon this advice to the Phillippians that whatever their attainments were they should walk by the same Rule when the innocent Apostle insists upon no such thing He commands as I have oft observed the clear contrary that different attainments should have different walkings and practices that they are to walk as they have attained and not a◠they have not attained And that Rule to which the Apostle refers that which he injoyns is a Rule that may be equally observed under different attainments as under the same namely that evangelical Rule of charity which neither infringes christian liberty nor violates conscience but teaches us to exercise forbearance of one another notwithstanding our different attaintments which is that Royal Law commanded by the Apostle James Jam. 2.8 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Not to be repealed by all the authority on earth nor ever will by that of Heaven § 5. If the Apostle bids the Churches beware of those who make use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches He does also by parity of Reason bid us beware too of those who upon pretence of any other Ceremonies old Customs and apocryphal usages divide the Church and render Communion with it grievous and burdensom and I hope we shall hearken to his advice to beware of them and trust them no further than needs must especially when those old customs have been found of such dangerous and pernicious consequences that they have divided and almost ruined a most flourishing Church and madeway for a common Enemy to break in with utmost fury upon us § 6. If the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his Directions Then those directions or whatever they are called that disturb the Churches Peace and give just cause for separation proceed by other measures and it 's time to look about us when we meet with such as hazard that precious blessing of Peace upon such Rules Canons and Institutions as have almost and if not seasonably prevented will certainly destroy us SECT IV. Of the Obligation that lies upon Christians to walk by the same Rule The Doctor 's two questions propounded The former considered but no answer to it given by him Several preliminaries examined THe Reverend Doctor having at length got over the flats and bars that lay at the mouth of the channel is now hoising up his main Sail to the wind And can we expect his discourse should run more naturally and smoothly for having begg'd one half of the controversie he may more easily borrow the rest of it And therefore from the obligation that lies upon Christians to walk by the same Rule that is such a Rule as he has made for the Apostle and us There will arise saies he two very considerable Questions that is to say where one absurditie is granted two more nay twenty will follow 1. Question How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an establisht Rule and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in This Question I confess is considerable very considerable had he told us what the Rule establisht is for there are very crooked ones in the World and who must be the Rule maker for there are many pretenders and then proved that we are to comply with it but to enquire how far we are to comply and not make it out that we are to comply at all to such Rules as he has contrived is not so considerable as he would perswade us And yet seeing the hare is started I wish it were caught and since he has propounded the question it had been well if he had answered it which we might demand in Justice but shall take it for a special favour if he will at any time hereafter tell us how far we are to comply with an establisht Rule At present he cannot be at leisure in the mean time for the preventing all misunderstanding the design of his Discourse he desires us to consider 1 That he speaks not of the separation or distinct communion of whole Churches from each other we are glad of that First because if he allow separation by whole sale we shall do the better if the retail trade be denyed And secondly because hereby the Churches of the dissenters will be out of the way his anger for as he adds These whole Churches according to Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just right and power to reform themselves If then the Churches of the dissenters be but true Churches and whole Churches If they have in them all the essentials of Churches If they have pastors rightly qualified duly chosen the word of God purely preached the Sacraments duly administred and all other ordinances of Christ regularly used they have then power to govern and reform themselves But by whole Churches he means the Churches of such nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian society under the same common Ties and Rules of Government To which I answer 1. It 's not material in this Case what Churches he
together in the Church compar'd with ver 20. when ye come together into one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where to meet in the Church and to meet in one place are phrases of equal Latitude and so Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians Edit Voss p. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. If the Prayer of one or two Christians hath such power how much greater efficacy hath that of the Bishop and the whole Church he therefore that cometh not to that place or that Congregation is already proud and hath condemned himself Hitherto the Doctor has endeavor'd to overthrow the Principle which seeing he cannot do he comes to suppose or grant it yet withal denying that from thence any thing can be drawn that will justifie Separation § 1. Suppose says he that the first Churches by reason of the small numbers of Believers at that time were Congregational yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the Peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant state To which I answer none at all we know no such obligation lies upon us and do wish that they supposing the Church to be Metropolitical or National did see no more obligation lying upon them to disturb the Peace of the Churches that we live in to reduce all to their overgrown state we are for our own liberty without infringing theirs but it 's common to complain of other mens unpeaceableness who will have peace with none but themselves § 2. They do not think it necessary says he to introduce the first community of goods which was far more certainly practised than Congregational Churches nor to wash one anothers feet though Christ did it and bad his Disciples do as he did I answer 1. For Community of Goods I dare say I shall convince the Doctor it was no obliging example for he has no temptation to become a Leveller and would lose more than he could hope to gain by putting all the Benefices of the Land into Hotchpot For there was never any such command or practice for the promiscuous use of all outward things without the free consent of individual Christians Propriety was not then destroyed but each Christian was the Proprietor of his Estate the great exigency of the Church did invite to a very liberal and extraordinary measure of charitable contribution to the necessity of the Saints but still it was voluntary and no otherwise forced than by Arguments Acts 5.4 While it remained was it not thy own and after it was sold was it not in thy power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Charity did not destroy Propriety And if the same distress should again overtake any particular Church as that was it would be as much the duty of the Rich to extend their Benevolence to the necessity of their poor Brethren as then it was or could be 2. For his instance of Christ's washing his Disciples Feet and commanding them to do as he did What person that reads the Scripture does not observe that it was not the washing the Feet that was commanded but that mutual deference reciprocal serving of each other avoiding of ambitious encroaching of one over another when Christ had made them Equals this was the great Point Christ would instruct them in by that temporary Ceremony For so it is commanded that we lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting 1 Tim. 2.8 when yet none ever stood so superstitiously upon 't that every man is bound to lift up his hands in Prayer but the Duty was purity of the whole man Two things therefore there are in this reasoning which would be better cleared 1. That there is no more necessity for the worship of God in particular Assemblies at all times under all conditions of the Church than there was for the Community of Goods in that extraordinary exigence of the Church at that time 2. That Propriety of our Estates and the right of our particular Churches to worship God must give way to National Church Frames in both which we have some cause to be tender and not to part with them till we receive better Arguments § 3. The Doctor reasons thus with us They believe that the first Civil Government was appointed by God himself over all Families do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to their first institution if not why shall the Peace of the Church be in so much worse a condition than that of the Civil State To which the Answer is very plain 1. We look upon our selves under no obligation to disturb much less to destroy Kingdoms or any kind of Government whatever to reduce things to their first institution nor is there any need of it to destroy the Civil Government by reducing the Church to such a posture as will answer the great designs of Religion 2. The same Divine Authority that instituted Civil Government in Families did also institute Government over Families whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and if the Doctor can shew that the same Authority which appointed particular Churches for his own service and glory and the edification of Believers hath also appointed National Churches for the same ends we shall confess that his Instance is parallel his Argument from thence cogent and such as will cut asunder the Nerves of our Answer when the wise God did institute National Civil Government yet be reserved entire to the Masters of Families their authority over Servants and Children and the propriety in their Estates but how will this justifie such a National Church-Government as destroys the inherent power of the Pastors of particular Churches making them only shadows of the primitive Pastoral Authority if shadows and leaving them onely the bare Name if the Name of Pastors without any power inherent in them to govern the Churches over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers § 4. He reasons thus It 's very uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as they fancy If so then 1. It is as uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as he Fancies If it were uncertain whether God would be Worship't in particular Congregations that had a power to Govern and Reform themselves then it must be as uncertain nay more uncertain whether God would have a Frame Erected of such Churches where God could not be Worship't 2. And if it be uncertain what the primitive Form was then it 's very crâ—â—â— to plague and torment men as Schismaticks that are quiet and peaceable 〈◊〉 design nothing but the serving their God and saving their Souls for not complying with such a Form or Frame which it is uncertain whether it were the Primitive one or no. 3. And then it will be very certain that there can be no Obligation upon us to hold Communion with the Parochial Church by Divine right since it 's uncertain whether God ever intended such assemblies of Christians or no. 4. And then it will be uncertain also whether the Parochial
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-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
him that he would not be so morose and humoursome however that he would shave his face that made him look so like satyr and besides she could not tell how to have communion with his lips for the bristles of his chin and the turn-pikes of his overgrown Mustachoes but Monsieur Moroso for so was the gallant called protested he would not lose a hair of his beard as poor an excrement as the ignorant Laity call'd it for the greatest Lady in Europe and so all this hot love evaporated in Complement and Ridicule SECT VII The principle assigned to some others of the Dissenters considered The Arguments from the Papers of Accommodation between a Sub Committee of the Assembly and their Brethren of the Congregational persuasion modestly examined HItherto the Doctor 's reasonings against that principle that there is a separation but yet the separation is no Schism have fallen under consideration He proceeds now to that of some others who confess as he says That to live in a state of separation from such Churches as many at least of ours are is a sin what mystery may there be in the phrase of living in a state of separation I am not well aware of and therefore cannot prevent what mischeif may be design'd against us by it Of a State of Nature and a state of Grace we have read in old Protestant Authors but now adays all the outcry is against this state of separation Now the Doctor informs us that the men of this Plea deny that they live in a state of separation although they preach when and where it is forbidden by law and worship God and administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what our Church requires They own separation to be sinful and have no other Refuge left but to deny the fact which is evident to all persons In the general I shall only say that the principles and pleading of these whom the Doctor would make two parties are really and indeed but one and the same only they have made use of other expressions to declare their minds They that say separation is lawful take the word only for a withdrawing from the Communion of a Church when they have good reasons to justifie their departure They that say separation is sinful take the word in an evil sense as denoting a departure from a Church out of humour Levity or some worse principle as hatred of opposition to those Churches from which they withdraw And this he might have seen in those very words he quoted from the Author of Concord Causeless renouncing Communion with true Churches is Schism especially if it be joyned with setting up Anti-Churches unwarrantably against them Now how many things must concur to make separation culpable according to the tenor of these words I can hardly reckon up 1. It must be separation without cause from a true Church Now the Doctor himself will allow that there may be a just cause of separation from a true Church 2. It must be renouncing communion but though these men suspend or forbear Communion for a while yet when the Church shall return to herself and abate of her rigors they carry in their breasts Animum revertendi a propensity to return again 3. It must be setting up Churches against Churches not one besides another to carry on the common cause of Religion against Atheists Hereticks Infidels prophane persons and all the debauchees both in faith and manners And 4. all this must be done in an unwarrantable manner the circumstances must be such as cross the general rules of the Gospel and if all these be found in any separation let it be doomed and condemned for schism and sinful I wonder therefore with what sincerity the Doctor could say They own the thing to be sinful and yet deny the fact Whereas that which they confess to be sinful in the Rule or Principle that only they deny themselves to have done in fact And what they confess themselves to have done they never confessed to be sinful There is a separation that is sinful this say they we never practised And there is a separation too that is lawful and here they own the fact and deny the sinfulness of it These tricks therefore will never satisfie his Auditors nor his Readers but the Doctor 's great Repute and smoothness of his Style and a notable talent to misrepresent his adversaries have made very mean and ordinary Discourses pass for superexcellent and his name being up he may lie-abed till noon for so have I heard somewhere of a Cutler's boy that was making a knife and unluckily the steel fell off when he had welded it No matter no matter Let it go boy said the Master my name 's up and my Iron will sell though not cut better than other mens Steel And now for a more particular return 1. They confess that they three months ago you must understand that we come not within the statute preach when and where it was forbidden by law and they have a cause for it Because they can preach no where nor time else without such conditions as they judge are and think they have proved unlawful but they say that to preach when forbidden by Law is not always sinful For so did the Ministers of Jesus Christ even when their Commission was not vouched by Miracles till 300 years after Christ And if it be said that it is sinful in our case that must be tryed out by no general Arguments and Reasons but such as are special and proper to the case 2. They confess they do worship God and administer Sacraments by other Rules and in other manner than what the present Church prescribes If the Dissenters do all this by other Rules and in other manner than the Assenters do it will follow unavoidably that the Assenters do them by other Rules and in other manner than the Dissenters do which is the worst that I know will follow unless he can prove that the Rules by which they worship God the manner in which they administer Sacraments are nearer then or as near the Rule and Prescript of the Word as those of the Dissenters So that the Question must come to this at last Whether those Rules by which that manner after which the Church requires to worship God and administer Sacraments be conformable to the Scripture Rule of Worship the Scripture manner of Administration for if they be then these Dissenters flatly affirm That they worship God they administer the Sacraments by no other Rule in no other manner than what the Church prescribes But if they be not then they say If they in all their ways of Worship Conform to the Canonical Rules though they do swerve a little from such as are Apocryphal they hope and believe God will acquit them as their Consciences now do of the guilt of Schism and if others will not 't is not so much material because they shall not receive their final doom from
it been done in our case all differences might have been composed 2 The Dissenting Brethren say p. 15. That they agreed in those things which contained the Substance of the Service and Worship of God in the Directory according to the Preface and were confident they should agree in the Confession of Faith so that here was nothing but a Punctilio of Government about which they differ'd 3 The Committee p. 19. render this Reason why the desire of their Brethren could not in Terminis be granted Because it held out a total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor their Churches be Communicated with in any thing which argued church-Church-Communion and that more could not be done or said against false Churches wherein though they might be mistaken yet it shews upon what Reasons they proceeded but the Persons against whom the Doctor disputes neither plead for nor practice a total Separation nor do any thing that may imply the Parrochial Churches to be false Churches 4. The Committee or Sub-Committee had many things to urge which the Doctor cannot make use of against the Dissenters as 1. That they were now endeavouring a further Reformation according to the Word of God and therefore there was more ground for Hope more reason for Patience to see what the Issue of their Consultations might prove And herein perhaps the Dissenting Brethren might be a little too hasty and nimble with them who knows but matters might have been adjusted to their satisfaction But things are much otherwise with us For 1. they are so far from Reforming according to the Word of God that they own it not for a perfect Rule of Reformation 2. They have taken up their Rest and will not proceed one Step farther not to King Edward's Beginning nor Queen Elizabeths Beginning much less to what Posture things were in at Christ's Beginning 3. When they had power in their hands by His Majesties Commission to have reformed the Liturgy to have eased the People of their Burdens they would not Abate an Ace of their Pretensions but rendred the Terms of Communion more severe and difficult 4. The Parish Churches are meer Minors and under Age they move by the Motions of others cannot Reform themselves but are strictly tyed up to the Rubricks Canons and Constitutions of the Convocation so that we have not the same Reason to hope for their Reforming of Worship according to the Word of God 5. And yet this shall not be any prejudice to them for if they shall do so though it were to morrow or a year or ten years hence we stand ready to fall in with such Reformation And farther 2. the Committee did plead That they had both of them Covenanted to endeavour the nearest Conjunction and therefore for their Oaths sake were bound to part with as much of their Right as with a good Conscience they could foregoe But Dissenters are under no such Obligation that they know of to endeavour such Conjunction with them who obtend their meer Wills to their Edification and some pretend farther That they are under a Solemn Covenant to endeavour a Reformation according to the Word of God in their respective places and stations and therefore ought not to comply with any Declensions and Departures from such Reformation 5 the Committee were willing That some Expedient should be endeavoured how to bear with Dissenters in the Particulars wherein they could not agree But we see no such expedient endeavoured after nor once thought of nay declared against notwithstanding the many Humble Petitions for Peace that have been presented to them notwithstanding His Majesties Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Parliaments Inclinations to shew some favour to tender Consciences nay they have declared against any Condescentions and are daily provoking Magistrates to the utmost Rigour and are like the immovable Bank to which if the Dissenters will not wholly come over the Boat and the Bank must never meet 6 Such was the tenderness of that Committee that we find not so much in a dozen Convocations For first they offer That such as through scruple or error of Conscience cannot joyn to partake of the Lords Supper shall repair to the Minister and Elders for satisfaction which if they cannot receive they shall not be compel'd to Communicate in the Lords Supper provided that in all other parts of Worship wherein there was an agreement they joyned with the Congregation 2. They offer p. 22. That such as are under the Government of the Congregation where they live not being Officers shall seek satisfaction as before which if they cannot receive they shall not be compel'd to be under the power of Censures from Classes or Synods provided they continued under the Government of that Congregation How joyful at how thankful for such Moderation would thousands of poor English-men be if they might enjoy the Benefit of such a Canon to save their Persons from a Prison their Estates from Ruine and their Families from Desolation 7 The Sub-Committee do readily acknowledge That Schism consists not in every diversity of Opinion and Practice but in an open Breach of Love and that no Uniformity is necessary to prevent Schism p. 47. But the Doctor would make us believe p. 32. That men may please themselves in talking of Peace and Love under separate Communions but sad Experience shews the contrary 8 The Committee p. 48. think the Dissenting Brethren wrong them in saying That they make those Impositions upon the people as qualifications for receiving Sacraments whenas they desired no more than that the people appeared to be Orthodox But certainly here 's something more than Orthodoxy required of us even in the judgment of their own Test of Orthodoxy as a qualification for receiving Sacraments and we must Submit to the Sign of the Cross in the one Sacrament for our Infants and Kneeling in the other as necessary to our own receiving them when neither the one nor the other were mentioned by the Assembly 9 The Committee expresly declare they would not have the Dissenting Brethren walk by their Rule farther than as they had attained But the Doctor is for the Rule of Severity waving the great Rule of Charity notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians 10 The Committee profess their Wonder p. 49. That their Brethren should impute it to them as if they arrogated to themselves a power in Ecclesiastical Assemblies to determine and impose circumstantial matters Seeing say they our Proposition doth mention nothing but Agreement in Substance But the Doctor supposing that we are agreed in the Substantials of Worship with him yet presses us to come to the Churches Rules in those things which they themselves call Circumstantials 11 The Committee p. 49. desires That the matters of Offence may be particularly expressed professing their earnest desire as much as in them lay to remove whatever may hinder comfortable Communion that there may be no just cause of Separation But the
from God to do it lest while they do what they ought not to have done and leave undone those things they ought to have done they make their sins of Commission greater than their sins of Omission And 3. They may do well among all their doings to consider whether Conscience be not Gods peculiar and so not within their precincts out of their jurisdiction and not liable to their citations processes summons and visitations if they will judge let 'em be sure they be competent judges if they will be busie let 'em beware it be not in Alieno foro 4. If they would know what they must do to others let 'em first put the case what they would have done to themselves let them do no more at home than they would have done to them supposing they were Protestants in Italy or Spain It 's very useful now and then for great men to put themselves into poor mens circumstances I do not persuade 'em to change places with them but to put cases suppose our Bishops had been in Bishop Ridley's case when his nearer approach to the fire had thawed his Episcopal Rigor what would they have done would they have magnified the mercy of their own merciless enemies for compelling them to walk farther than they had attained or would they have called the Martyrs fools who upon their ordinary call preached the Gospel notwithstanding that the laws had silenced them III. It had been much in answer to our expectation and the Question if he had pleased to have revealed the great secret what this prescribed Rule is and this would have been more pertinent than a discussion of the principle of individuation is to the sixth commandement As 1. Whether this Rule be one prescribed by God it which case no mans ignorance will vacate the rule though it incapacitate him at present to obey it or by man without direction and warrant from God in which case we need no ignorance to excuse us seeing power to command and obligation to obey are Twins both are born live and die together 2. Whether this prescribed Rule be such as is subservient to some other Rule prescribed by God or no way useful to that purpose We freely grant that whatever is necessary to reduce any Command of God into Act and Exercise may be must be the matter of such prescribed Rules whatever serves true decency and order whatever tends to edification to peace or the glory of God may be fit matter for a Rule but rules about things no ways necessary to these ends come not under humane determination These things or somewhat like these might have offer'd at an Answer to the Question but let us hear the Doctor who the Reader must observe is not answering to the Question but to the Objection which he would persuade us will give a full Answer to the 2d Question but no man believes it § 1. Then This says he can never justifie men in not doing what they lawfully may do This What why that men are to be pressed to go no farther than they have attained This will not justifie men I believe it will not it was never intended to justifie them but to restrain their acting to excuse 'em in suspending their own Act till farther satisfaction but it will not justifie them Before what Judge before whose Tribunal will it not justifie them It will not justifie them before God if through supine negligence in searching into the Will of God about Sin and Duty lawful and unlawful they understand not the Bounds of their Christian liberty and yet even here the same God who condemns their sinful ignorance will not have them to give ignorant obedience But what is this to mans judgment who knows nothing more or less of mens negligence than they shall tell him But what if he has used all due means to obtain satisfaction in the matters prescribed and yet cannot be satisfied but that either the things are sinful that are commanded or the Authority incompetent by which they are commanded will not this justifie him neither Then he must be condemned by men but God will so far justifie him that he shall not be condemned for acting no farther than his own light directs him This Proposition of the Doctors he confirms by a Reason For says he the Apostle makes Communion necessary as far as 't is lawful and that upon the general obligation that lies upon all Christians to do what in them lies for preservation of the Peace of the Church This Rule of the Apostle I find indeed he lays down a Rule that we should walk as far as we have attained but no Rule that we should walk up to the lawfulness of the things but to what we have attained of their lawfulness lawfulness is not the measure of our walking in this case but knowledge Things may be in themselves lawful but it only so and no more and a Christian has not attained to satisfaction of their lawfulness if he walks so far as he has attained he fulfils the Apostles Rule and pleads the benefit of the other to be left to God's instruction But this is the Doctor 's method to confound what is lawful objectivè and what is so subjectivè as if the Apostles Rule had been so far as the things are lawful in themselves so let us all walk when as he only requires us to walk so far as we have attained to see their lawfulness And both the Apostles Rules do suppose that some things are in their own nature lawful which are not so discerned by every Christian in which piteous case he commands them to be left to God But still he judges that the Apostles Rule makes Communion necessary as far as 't is lawful I cannot help that nor do I see that the Apostle intends to speak any thing of the Communion of Christians among themselves for such Communion may be had and maintained under very great variety of apprehensions and practices if Churchmen would once learn to preach up Love instead of Hatred and preach down Persecution instead of Conformity to their own little Niceties Now to make his Reason carry a fairer face of probability the Doctor has cleverly corrupted his Text as he has all along perverted the sense and reads it thus As far as ye have attained walk by the same Rule Do the same things which looks very fairly to and favorably upon our dearly beloved Uniformity but he that rides of a trotting Horse will never spie small faults Do the same things i. e. Let not one Minister preach with an Hour-glass when another has none nor one read Service in his Gown when the other wears the Surplice Let not one Christian stand at Prayer when his Neighbor kneels but let every man do just the same things that another does upon pain and peril that shall fall thereon And all this goodly gear hangs on a Peg that is not worth a Pin viz. the rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do
particular insinuations which are so subtilly laid that they do the mischief and instil all the poyson of a false accusation but yet escape before men the charge of it only I take notice of one thing Is it not saies he as plainly written by St. Paul If I yet please Men I should not be the Servant of Christ as Woe be unto me if I preach not the Gospel It is so with equal plainness by the Apostle and with equal impertinency by the Doctor and with equal justification of the Nonconformists for they dare not please men to the displeasing of Christ both which they would do by sacrilegious Desertion of their Ministry but Christs displeasure is not to be compensated by mens good will nor his love to be forfeited for fear of incurring their ill will And on whose side the temptation to men pleasing most lies the impartial world will judge though we be silent § 2. His second particular is this If the bare dissatisfaction of mens consciences do justifie the lawfulness of separation and breaking an establisht Rule it were to little purpose to make any Rule at all And to speak my mind freely unless the Rules that have been made in some Countries were to better purposes I know not to what purpose they were made at all these Rules have made the world so irregular and unruly What their purposes were that made the Rules I shall not enquire but what we see or may say the event of them for many Centuries has been nothing but either blind obedience in the most or necessary separation in the rest And much better that all these Humane ecclesiastick rules had never been made than to be made of such sinful materials as must divide us such dubious things as will perplex us or by such persons whom God has not authorized to Command us But his proposition I must except against upon these following grounds 1 I shall not say It is no distinct proposition from the former being only a Reason of it nor that he might have found in his own discourse twenty more propositions if this may stand for one but onely make my exceptions 1. This proposition like most of the rest is of an uncertain sound First we know not what mystery there lies in or may lurk under that Term Bare dissatisfaction For this word has haunted us all along through the discourse Barely Congregational p. 30. Bare suspending Communion p. 20. Barely relating to acts of worship p. 17. And now at last Bare dissatisfaction If he means no more than such dissatisfaction as has no fair reason for it that perhaps will not justify any man in any thing he does or does not but there is a dissatisfaction well cloath'd with decent and Comely presumptions that the thing it 's dissatisfied about is unlawful and it may be with probable arguments too though it wants such demonstration cui non potest subesse falsum And this will justifie if not positive separation yet suspension of a mans action in positive Communion 2. If bare dissatisfaction will justifie our not acting which is all we plead bare dissatisfaction for there is another thing that justifies our Communion with other Churches where we may enjoy the Ordinances of Christ without such dissatisfaction and that is the Command of God which has made it our express duty to walk in the ways of Gods appointment So that if dissatisfaction tye us up from joyning in one place peremptory Command will enjoyn us to joyn in some other 3. This establisht Rule that fills up both pages of his Sermon is an equivocal term for such a Rule may be lawful or unlawful according to the matter of it If the matter of it be things unlawful there needs no dissatisfaction of conscience to justifie separation from it or the violation of it the will of God has already determined that point If it be lawful and conscience be dissatisfied about it conscience will tie up from acting according to it though not oblige to act against it 2 His Proposition is tardy too in respect of the Reason he gives to back it Because says he it is impossible to make any Rule which ignorant and injudicious men shall not apprehend to be in something or other against the Dictates of their Consciences But let knowing and judicious men make the Rules and there will be less cause for ignorant and injudicious men to break 'em They that will make Rules about indifferent things had need have more than an indifferent Judgment more than an ordinary Wisdom to accommodate them to the measure of Knowledge of those for whom they are made And in this case Rules should should not be made as men make Tobacco-Pipes and Glasses on purpose to be broken Tradesmen indeed cannot live if their Wares were Immortal but are Church-men more afraid their Tickney-Rules and China-Canons should be preserved than broken It were better the whole Fry of Apparitors Summoners should starve than live upon the new-made Sins of the people But ignorant men will apprehend these Rules against their Consciences Let then Rules be made for the knowing and wise and leave the poor ignorants to live and grow wiser rather than knock 'em o' th' head because they want Brains But thus it was thus it ever will be whilest men will be establishing their own Rules of Severity and neglect the Rule of Charity given them by the Spirit Rom. 14.3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not nor him that eateth not judge him that eateth which was a Rule made upon as good Advice as any of those made by any Church at any time since Let then the Doctor please himself with his seeming Advantages from the Papers of accommodation we need say no more than 1. That the Case is hugely wide between what the Committee or Sub-Committee there required of their Dissenting Brethren and what the Bishops now require of the people in order to an Union 2. That his Inferences are not fairly drawn from their Expressions 3. The Assembly and their Committees were but men subject to the like Passions with their Brethren and therefore 4. That we are not obliged to vindicate every expression which in heat or haste dropt from their Pens nor to be concluded by their Determinations which with what has been before observed upon this subject is enough to blunt the edge and break the back of the Doctor 's Arguments drawn from their Concessions And yet I cannot forbear a particular examination of some of them for a taste of the rest 1 Though Tenderness of Conscience may justifie Non-Communion in the thing scrupled yet it can never justifie Separation That is he that has the Church-dores lockt upon him must stand there cooling his Toes and never address himself to others that are open for fear of Mr. Hales his Scare-Crow Separation But for Answer 1. We produce Tenderness of Conscience for no other use than to justifie non-Non-Communion in the things that are
scrupled 2. We produce the Authority of God to justifie our Obedience to all his Commands Statutes Judgments and instituted Worship 3. We produce plain reason from those premises to justifie our Churches For if tenderness of Conscience will justifie us in non-Non-Communion and God's Command justifie us to Worship him according to his Revealed Will we must of meer necessity separate from a Church where we cannot have all the Ordinances of Christ to another where we can 4. We say The Doctrine of the Sub-Committee viz. That such tenderness of Conscience as ariseth out of an opinion cui potest subesse falsum which may be false is not a sufficient ground c. to justifie Separation and that of the A. B. Laud's who would have all Dissenters produce such Arguments for their Dissent require more Evidence than our Learned Doctor will allow for the Existence of a Deity This Point by the way I shall a little examine because I find it asserted in some of the Doctors staple-Discourses I shall not cite his Irenicum because he has put that Piece amongst his Tracts that are to be retracted and seems weary of his Weapon-Salve and will now trust only to his Weapon His Rational Account is not yet amongst his prohibited Pieces Now p. 178 179. he thus expresses himself It is a piece of great weakness of Judgment to say there can be no certain assent where there is a meer possibility of being deceived for there is no kind of assent in the human understanding as to the existence of any thing but there is a possibility of Deception in it And p. 206 207. he calls aloud to the Papists to come forth with their infallible Arguments to prove the existence of a Deity before they talk of an infallible way of proving the truth of Religion And surely the Dissenters are not more rigidly obliged to prove the lawfulness of their Separation nor the sinfulness of the Terms imposed on them by Arguments which cannot possibly be false than all Mankind is to produce such infallible Proofs for the existence of the Godhead Nay further by what I can gather from the Doctor he seems to proceed upon such principles as plainly render it impossible by any certain Argument to prove the existence of a Deity Orig. sacr p. 230. where 1. He lays down this for a principle That the foundation of all certainty lies in the necessary existence of a being absolutely perfect so that unless I know that there is a God I cannot be assured that I know any any thing in a certain manner Now then if all certainty doth suppose the existence of a being so absolutely perfect I must before I can know any thing certainly conclude that there is an infinity of knowledge wisdom power and goodness in this God If then God be the first knowable and that it 's impossible to know any thing certainly Except I first know such a being as God how shall we come to prove his existence by such demonstration cui non potest subesse falsum shall we demonstrate a God A priori what cause shall we find of him upon which and from which our demonstration may be formed without a cause we cannot demonstrate à priori And supposing a cause we suppose him to be no God Shall we then proceed à posteriori from the Effects to the Cause The Apostle would have gone this way Rom. 1.20 And from the creation of the world have demonstrated his eternal Power and Godhead but the Doctor has shut the door because we must first know there is an invisible God before we can certainly know there is a visible world 2. How then will the Doctor prove there is a God why he tells us Orig. sacr book 3. cap. 1. p. 367 368 c. We must have recourse to an Idea A settled and consistent Notion of a being that is absolutely perfect not as he says that there is any such connate Idea in the soul but that there is a faculty in the soul whereby upon the free use of Reason it can form within it self a settled Notion of such a being which is as perfect as it is possible for us to conceive a being to be Well then we must form a Notion of God from the Use of Reason But seeing that all the processes of Reason are from things known to unknown or from more known to less known where shall we place our engine where shall we fix the first foot of the compass where must Reason begin must we begin with the perfections of the Creatures to argue our selves into a belief of that God that made them and therefore must need contain all their perfections in himself this is that the Doctor has renounced for we must first be sure there is a God before we can be sure there is any thing else I would begin with a Flie an Ant a Mushrome and from thence I would gradually climb up to the first Cause but the Doctor forbids us for we have no assurance that there is such a Fly Ant or Mushrome till we are first assured of a God Must we then leave this way of reasoning and search for something before God Co-ordinate with God the danger is lest that which is before God should prove the true God or if any thing be Co-ordinate with God there will be two Gods or none Now this being once the judgment of the Reverend Doctor and confirmed by him in his Dialogues p. 269. where he appeals to his Orig. Sacr. for this very thing I hope they will never more expect fuller proof for the warrantableness of our Nonconformity than they require to prove the existence of God and let them beware lest whil'st they trample upon Conscience where God has his Throne they do not fight against him that sits thereon and so bring Heaven and Earth about their ears 2. Another thing collected is That it 's endless to hope to give satisfaction to tender Consciences and therefore they resolve never to begin And is it not as endless to give assent and consent to the Impositions for who knows where they will end By the same Reason they have imposed these they may five hundred but if the Distemper be endless why should nor the Remedy The Apostle Paul gave satisfaction to tender Consciences without ever fearing it would be endless Men are for endless wealth but not for endless trouble Can any man think the primitive Christians had only a Lease of the Rule for Indulgence during the Apostles Lives and that they must Fine for it smartly when the next Generation came up How much better had it been to have been left to restraint and absolute will during the Apostles times with a reversion of liberty after their decease than that the 14th Chapter to the Romans should be like the Ceremonial Law to expire with the Apostles and be buried in their Graâ—es There will be honest mistaken Souls to the worlds end whom Christ thought not
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
signifie humility the sign of the Cross to represent courage and constancy so this circumcision to stir up our dull souls to consider of the circumcision of the heart what greater superstition in this then in those Especially when the Apostle has given our fruitful invention such fair hints how apt it is to be drawn into significativeness 2 Rom. 29. Circumcision is that of the heart Nay when he openly avows that Christians are the circumcision 3 Phil. 3. upon which mystick grounds the Church of Abassia practises this Ceremony to this day It is confest that in the Church of the Jews circumcision had a typical use which is now unlawful to be retained as a denyal that Christs being come in the flesh But as we have or pretend to have scraped and scowered away the Idolatrous and superstitious uses of those ceremonies which we borrowed from the Romish Church why can we not purge away the Judaical use of Circumcision too and borrow one poor Ceremony at least from that Church as well as the other from Rome 3. What reason can be given why we may not together with the Lords Supper use a Roasted Lamb with bitter herbes not to signifie Christ to come which was the typical use but Christ already come and slain which is the Symbolical use since the Apostle has given us a hint for that also 1 Cor. 5.7 Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us The Papists who understand well how far their principles will lead them have not scrupled this use of it for granting them a power to impose outward visible signes of inward and invisible grace mercy and duty what should hinder then from turning the Paschal Lamb into a significant Ceremony Mounsieur Lortie in his Treatise of the Supper part 1. c. 6. b. Informs us that the Greek Church upbraided the Roman that formerly they never used the Supper upon Easter day without a Lamb And he quoteâ— a good Author for his voucher Mr. d' Autenil Who thus informes us Suger reports how that Pope Innocent the 2d being at the Abbey of Saint Dennis upon an Easter day after all things were prepared according to the order of the Roman Church he sacrificed the most Holy victim of the Paschal Lamb and when the Mass was ended they then did eat that material and real Lamb. And why not if the Church may judge what is decent orderly edifiying fit to teach and stir up the mind of man by some notable signification and Impose what it so judges to be as a tearm and condition of Communion with her what should hinder her to proceed and bring in the Paschal Lamb too for the more the Merrier and which seldome holds the better chear also SECTION XI The Application And first To those in Communion with the Church NOthing now remains as the Doctor thinks but application and perhaps it may be so nothing for us to Read because we have read all the rest but upon my word there remains a great deal more for the Doctor to do than he has yet done unless he can satisfie himself to have done just nothing Here are several Propositions to be proved his own Questions to be answered and many things upon the score not wiped off yet let us hear his Application which is alwayes either the best or the worst part of a Sermon He begins with a word of Advice to those That continue in Communion with the Church That they would walk by the same Rule and mind the same things For whilest we keep to one Rule all people know what 't is to be of our Church Here then are two sorts of Persons both supposed to be in Communion with the Church First The super-Conformists who out-run Canon Convocation Rubrick and are got as far as Calice before some of their Brethren can reach Canterbury The second of Subter-Conformists who jogging on their own pace neither the high-trot nor the Tantivey are almost run out of distance the former are for the high Notion of Canon-Prayer the other form their own Conceptions in their own expressions in Prayer both before and after Sermon these again are so stiffe in their Hams they will not bend at the naming the word Jesus but others are so supple in the joynts they are ready to buckle at the name of Judas Some are got into the high strains of the Organ above Canon against Homilies others content themselves with the plain song of the old Metre and from hence 1. Quaere whether super-conformity and subter-conformity overdoeing the Rule and underdoing it excesses and defects in reference to the same Canon be not a real Schism in the bowells of the Church 2. Quaere If so which faction is it that makes Schismatick If the Gallopers why are they not then declared Schismaticks from the press and Pulpit Is it for fear they should lose such zealots from their party or are they ashamed to condemn others for what they practice themselves or is it because these Sinners are too good too bad or too great to be told of their faults But if the halting Conformists be the Schismaticks how comes it to pass that only defects are Sins and yet excesses are such vertues why is it that a man may advance towards Rome and yet be no Schismatick but yet one step towards Geneva makes him a damnable one that it would be no crime to out-run the Constable but to hang back and give him the slip when he would drag him to the Stocks is such a heinous one Quaere 3. Whether if they can relax the Rule of Severity or exercise the Rule of Charity towards their own brethren to save them from being Schismaticks they might not strain a little farther to save the rest of the Nation Quaere 4. If it be true that while all keep to one Rule all people know what it is to be of the Church of England Mr. B. will not be as far to seek as ever he was to understand what the Church of England is when he cannot but see by mens practises they either walk by no Rule or Twenty and when a punctual Conformist neither exceeding nor coming short of the Rule is like that Temperamentum ad pondus which unless in some Philosophical Noddle never yet had any real existence Quaere 5. If as the Doctor says it be Indiscretion only and some peccadillo to go beyond the Rule a good nature might not allow it to be Indiscretion too and no more in those that fall below the Rule It may be demonstrated that ten degrees of Northern Latitude varies no more from the Equinox than as many degrees of Southern Latitude But the misery is Titius shall be a Saint for the same thing for which Sempronius is a Rascal and let him fly never so high above the Canon he 's but indiscreet when-as let him lag never so little behind it he 's a notorious Schismatick Nevertheless Conformists must own it to be wholesome counsel which he gives them
and himself Let us take heed we do not give too much occasion to our enemies to think the worse of our Church for our sakes Most excellent counsel it had been had he defined critically what occasion is too much what too little and what just enough to make men think evil of the Church And his old Questioning method might have here been seasonably revived How far we may or may not give occasion to enemies to think worse of the Church but we never expect an Answer of these hot-scalding questions occasion may be given and much occasion but too much occasion must not for too much is too much and therefore whatever that may be take heed of it This advice was first design'd for those that continue in Communion with the Church but by some unhappy accident or other it 's turn'd into a word of reproof nay of reproach to those that are out of it In times of common infection they say all diseases turn to the Plague and in the universal paroxism of railing at Dissenters even Sermons that should be Remedies turn into the disease of railing But what have the Nonconformists to do with the Exhortation given to the Conformists even as much as the Doctor had to do to preach against them at Guild-Hall Chappel But let us hear their crime however They blame says he the Government but if themselves were in place or those they love or esteem then the Government had been a very good thing thus do mens judgments vary as their interests do As if a Weathercock should preach from the top of the Steeple one day What Charter has Christ given the Church to bind men up to more than he has done Iren. Epis p. 8. And the next day should tell us that what is lawful may be made a duty and then I am sure the Church has power to bind us up to more than Christ ever did yet it seems if the Nonconformists might have been all made Bishops they had liked Episcopacy well enough for my own part I like it so well that where there 's one Bishop I wish there were five hundred and yet I have heard of some that might have worn the Miter but that they would not purchase repentance so dear But he goes on We find uniformity and order condemn'd as tyrannical till men come in place themselves and then the same things are very good Where the Doctor found this except in Panciroll de rebus perditis I cannot imagine I never heard Vniformity condemn'd as tyrannical but the rigorous forcing of Christians to an affected uniformity in humane crotchets an uniformity in practise without uniformity in judgment If all mens feet were of the same size I should never complain if their shooes were made of the same Last but to pinch a foot of the slovens twelves into a shooe of the childrens threeâ— is to put conscience into the shoomakers stocks which next to those of Bishop Bonners Colehole are the word one can sit in Nor do we abhor Order but Innovations introduced under that specious title nor did I ever find that the Nonconformists were in the Bishops Thrones though some odd fellows got into their Lands without which perhaps neither one side nor other would be very ambitious of the places Let the Doctor then take an occasion or no occasion little or great to revile us to misrepresent us I am sure his brethren are beholden to us for by our means they have scaped a fine scowring and the edg of that Reproof which seem'd to bear hard upon the Conformists is turn'd directly against us which the Doctor might have forborn for two Reasons the one that there were none out of Communion with the Church to hear his Juniper-Lecture and the other because he promised to read them their lesson by themselves which they now are expecting SECT XII The Doctors Considerations considered HE that had scarce half a word to those in Communion with the Church who were present has for those that are out of the Churches Communion though at the time absent First a Squadron of Considerations and secondly a Pacquet of Advices His Considerations are now to be considered which are precisely four 1. The first thing we are to consider is How many things must be born in the Constitution of a Church A world no doubt in some Constitutions by those that are ambitious of their Communion Now that we may not be in arrere in civility we humbly desire all those whom it may concern to consider 1. What our consideration will signifie unless we had a Commission of Terminer as well as Oyer If we might bear what we could and forbear what we could not it might be worth the while to consider what must be born but if the Imposers will consider what they please to lay on our shoulders and we have no consideration left us but whether we will bow or break under the burden what place for consideration 2. We desire it may be considered also what may be forborn by them as well as born by us and that in order to Peace and Union but it 's plain they are all for our bearing and nothing for their own forbearing which yet had been more proper to his Text had he considered that it is the will of God that they that have not attained to the same strength should not be charged with the same burden 3. It ought to be considered also how many things may not be born as well as how many must for when the Intolerable are removed we shall the better bear the rest but if we must bear either all or none to what purpose is our Consideration 4. We have considered again and again both the tolerabiles intolerabiles Ineptias which I English the tolerable and intolerable unfitnesses and know not how to bear either of them And 5. it 's more our interest to consider how we may get strength to bear the displeasure of the Imposers than the lâ—ad of the Impositions seeing we could easily avoid the one if we could but escape the other 6. We desire it may be considered a little that there are different degrees of strength in Christians all have not the same Bajulatory backs nor the same Herculean shoulders and therefore it might become Church-Governours to sit down and consider whether it be agreeable to the mind of Christ that the weak should bear the Imperious passions of the strong and not the strong bear the infirmities of the weak Rom. 15.1 2. The Doctor would have us consider how impossible it is to give satisfaction to all We have considered that too and hope he will consider whether there may not be found a Medium between giving satisfaction to all and to none Methinks this might satisfie all if they that are so zealous for Ceremonies might have their belly-fulls of 'em and they that are more indifferent for 'em might not have 'em cram'd down their throats He was reputed a wise Countrey-Justice
in his time who satisfied all his Neighbours contending about the old Ceremony of Chaucers Ale-stake and determined it thus Neighbours you that are for a May-pole shall have a May-pole and you that are for no May-pole shall have no May-pole Christians that have out-grown their Juvenile-vanities can be satisfied with a worship adorned with Gospel-simplicity but if any must have a better let the children be satisfied rather than bawl and disturb the family But the Doctor would have us consider further How many things must be allow'd a favourable Interpretation how many things must be born how many things must be allow'd a favourable construction I fear they are Sans number Now if our Interpretation might stand for Authentick and they would allow us to add our Interpretation to their Text this were something In the mean time let them be pleased to consider whether a more favourable Interpretation ought not to be put upon the principles and practises of Dissenters without wresting vexing torturing them to a sense beyond and against their intentions And further may it please them to consider whether a more favourable Interpretation ought not to be put upon their own Constitutions for it cannot be expected that any should interpret them favourably if they themselves Interpret them rigidly And the execution of Laws and Canons will tell us what construction they put upon them that best understand ' em It cannot be hidden what an Interpretation has been made of the Statute against Popish Recusants to torment poor Protestants who are brought within the lash of it though out of the Reason of it And lastly we humbly desire it may be a little better considered that the Imposed matters are in their judgments indifferent in ours sinful which is like the Quid si to an Atheist that can never be answered And seeing as the Doctor says something will be amiss either in Doctrine Discipline Ceremonies or Manners he might have added or in all that they who have the power in their hands would either rectifie what is amiss or however not compel others to comply with what they themselves confess to be so 3. He would have us consider How Separation of the people from our Churches comes to be more lawful now than in the days of our Fathers But had it not been more becoming a rational Divine first to consider whether it be so or no before it be considered how it came to be so Many men are so hasty they leap over the stile before they come at it 1. Then Separation was as lawful then as 't is now had they seen with our eyes and as unlawful now as then if we saw with their eyes I mean the eyes of Conformists for such are they who are produced against us And what an odd argument is it to quote them for our Fathers who were their own Grandfathers 2. It would be considered whether the Separation of former times was not much greater than that of the present time for they proceeded to set up their Presbyteries their Synods their Provincial and National Assemblies formed themselves into separate bodies for Government and were soundly smok't for it in the high Commission 3. And yet if in any respect the Separation be greater now than it was then it is because there are more severe terms put upon the Pastors of Churches and they being removed from the Benefices the Flock did not judg that a sufficient discharge from nor dissolution of their relation and therefore adhered to their true and only lawful Pastor and by consequence a Separation followed Nor were the Ministers of old haggled off their legs with a quarter of the Oaths Subscriptions Declarations Renunciations that now they are and they that took such care to throw the Pastors out of Churches must be responsible to Christ if the people follow'd them And in those former days there was much connivence and Indulgence exercised towards the Nonconformists in some obscure places where lay no temptation to a quare Impedit but we have mended the matter as sowr Ale does in Summer 4. Lastly He would have us consider The common danger that threatens us all by our divisions which if some late Preachers had well considered they had never blown up the sparks of persecution against Protestant Dissenters we are willing to consider the common danger that threatens us by our Divisions Are they as willing to consider and remove the Causes of the Divisions which heighten the common danger If the danger be common to both why is not the security so too Must the Dissenters only be in danger on all hands Wise men that can foresee a common danger should not destroy one half of their friends that the common enemy may with more ease destroy the other The first Conquest Rome made of Brittain was by this error of the Natives Dum singuli pugnant omnes vincantur and we heartily wish that in their next attempt they proceed not upon the encouragement of the same Maxim In which Devastation though all are like enough to share in the common misery yet their share of the sin will be the greatest that would hazard every thing rather than part with any thing that would lose the Horse to save the Saddle or perhaps one hair of the Horses tail They that are such admirers of Vnity and will yeild nothing to procure it and have such apprehensions of Popery and yet will do nothing to prevent it must presume strangely of the strength of their Rhetorick or think meanly of the weakness of our Reasons if ever they hope to Proselyte us into the faith of it As for Dissenters how vigilant and active they have been against the Designs of Rome how Cordially they have espoused the common English Protestant Interest without regard to their private pretensions how zealous they have been for His Majesties Person Government and Interest let others speak we shall be silent SECT XIII The Doctors Pacquet of Advices Advised upon with some humble Advice to himself and others The Conclusion THE Advice to those in Communion with the Church was short and sweet but the Dissenters shall now have it by Winchester measure § 1. And first we are advised Not to give encouragement to rash and intemperate zeal We thankfully take his advice and humbly return our own Not to give encouragement to rash and intemperate Railing whether he gave or his successor took without his giving any encouragement to let fly at Meroz to vomit up a whole Pulpitful of Gall we must no determine but if the quatuor tempora four times a year or so would serve their turn to revile us we could be content but this intemperate railing grows very tedious That Gregory Nazianzen seldom saw any good end of Councils we easily believe and have therefore the less hope of Convocations for my part I observed nothing more in the Nation than an universal tendency to mutual love and forbearance till that of late some fearing we should
be too happy beat up the Pulpit-drums to awaken drowsie persecution § 2. He advises us not to be always complaining of our hardships and persecutions That 's I confess somewhat a hard chapter to be always forced and never allow'd to complain Let them either take away the cause of Complaint or our sense of the Cause and we shall either not need the advice or quickly take it To vent inward griefs in outward expressions is some little relief to an oppressed heart that must either breath or break but thus passionate Mothers sometimes whip the child till it cryes and then whip it for crying which a blunt great man once exprest in more slovenly phrase To beat a Dog till he stinks and then beat him for stinking which had never offended the Readers ears if the Doctor comparing the Separators to Dogs p. 7 8. had not warranted the Decency of the expression Nor yet do we always complain of our hardships nor with uncivil reflexions nor at all of our Prince in whom we might be compleatly happy if some Insinuators did not intercept his Royal Propensities to Grace and Mercy How easie is it for them that are at ease to read Lectures of patience to those in misery thus we advise the poor sick patient to patience and gravely reprove his sighs and groanings Omnes Consilium facilè aegrotis damus And thus the keepers of the Inquisition pity their wretched prisoners telling them they do ill to complain of their hard fare since a spare diet is more for the health of them that want air and exercise thus did Julian answer the complaints of the Christians That he had taken away nothing from them but what was a hindrance to their spiritual race and now they might more easily thrust in at the narrow gate when he had stript them of the worlds cumber but to pinch us and then command us not to feel is to chew the bullet that the wound may be more incurable the anguish more intolerable We will not say with Job chap. 16. v. 4. If your soul were in our souls stead we could heap up words against you but this we may that seeing he will neither allow us to lay down our burthens nor complain of them we will allow our selves to complain of our sins and when we are discharg'd of those we shall bear other loads the better § 3. We have this Advice Not to condemn others for what we our selves have practised and think to be lawful 'T is good counsel Nor do we remember that ever we persecuted our brethren for non-compliance with our inventions nor that we know of did we ever silence two thousand Ministers at one clap for scrupling our modes of worship The heats and animosities of Brethren ought to be bewailed not imitated and though they have not silenced each other for trifles yet the wise God to take down their stomacks has chosen they should suffer by others hands and not their own But the Doctor turns his Advice into Accusation and draws up a Charge against the several sorts of Dissenters from their own practices 1 And first he must be supposed to begin with the Presbyterians Who contend even at this day for the obligation of a Covenant which binds men to endeavour after uniformity in Doctrine Discipline and Worship I will add the words following according to the word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches And will they condemn the Doctor for such a Covenant Vniformity they plead for and Vniformity they plead against and yet without any shew of contradiction for it 's another Uniformity they plead for than that they plead against If T. G. had advised the Doctor not to condemn the Papists for what he himself practises not to condemn them for worshipping God when he worships the same God his answer had been ready we worship and you worship the same God but not with the same worship And so from his own answer he might have answer'd himself The great rule we own is this In necessariis unitas in Adiaphoris libertas in utrisque charitas Let unity and if you will Vniformity be kept in necessaries in non-necessaries liberty in both charity 2 The Independents must have a touch too for their severity in New England where as he says They made it no les◠than banishment for the Anabaptists to set up other Churches among them That is they banisht them to their own homes in Old England we desire we may suffer no worse banishment here But yet the news is very bad if it be true but we suspect all stories from thence ever since the great Archdeacon licensed the Legend of one Mr. Baxter baptized in his own blood by the Anabaptists there for which his Doctorship came upon the stool of repentance but supposing the information true he must first weigh all the circumstances of it before he can justly condemn them and then show that we have practised the same thing we condemn in others 3 He has a fling at the Quakers too Who notwithstanding the single independency of every mans light within have found it necessary to make rules and orders among themselves to govern their societies to which they expect an uniform obedience and allow no liberty out of the Power and the Truth And let them expect it so long as they do not exact it I am confident those persons will not condemn the Clergy for their highest expectations if they would forbear their rigid exactions I see then plainly some mens dealings are harder than their arguments Vniformity may be good who imposes it is not much considerable all the controversie lyes what the matter of which it must consist what the rules by which it must be enjoined ought to be § 4. His next advice is Not to inflame the peoples heats by making their differences with the Church of England to appear greater than they are They that complain of other mens heats ought to cool their own but thus the Torrid Zone may send a Pacquet of Advice to the Temperate not to inflame the peoples heats They that make the differences not they that make 'em appear are the dividers nor have we made 'em appear greater than they are though some have made 'em greater than they need be If we preach this Doctrine to the people that the parish-Parish-Churches are true Churches they will never believe us so long as they believe the Doctor That one Church one Altar one Baptistry and one Bishop in his sense were of the same extent and latitude and all the rest but Occasional Meetings pag. 27. and if we should preach to them that if Occasional Communion be lawful constant communion will be a duty they would but laugh at us and perhaps we should smile a little at our selves That the Dissenters have as the Doctor says some little interests of their own is very true little very little interests they are but if he will thence conclude they prefer 'em before
the latter and do not much fear a dissolution from the former Secondly Let us a little enquire what truth there may be in the other branch of the Doctors Proposition That the Separation is carried on by such principles as will overthrow the present constitution of the Church of England I shall not assume the confidence to say That then its present constitution is none of the best and strongest but this I may with modesty assert That the principles upon which the Dissenters proceed will pluck down nothing that Christ ever built nor pluck up any thing that Christ ever planted and if they should pluck up a few weeds which the envious one threw over the hedg whilest men slept the good corn would thrive the better for such weeding if they should pluck down a few Imaginations which curiosity has carved and set up in the Nitches on the outside of the Church-wall the main of the Fabrick would stand more firm discharg'd of a needless cumber without prejudice to the foundation Some few Traditions some few unscriptural Additions some supernumerary Ceremonies or some few Encroachments upon Christs Regal and Prophetical Offices their principles might overthrow but what are these all these to the being the well-being the flourishing being of the Church of England Is it true that no Ceremony no Episcopacy Was ever a Church built upon such Woolsacks Such discourses as these tempt us to suspect there 's nothing substantial in that Constitution which cannot subsist without these accidents Are Ceremonies grown such Inseparable Adjuncts that they cannot Abesse sine subjecti Interitu We may as well fancy that to scowr off the rust will destroy the Iron or that it 's impossible to wash the face without fleying of the skin as that a Reformation according to Gods word will draw along with it the inevitable ruine of that Church which is founded on it and reformed by it And if it rest upon any other Basis it needs the principles of none but it self to undo it I can allow the Doctor to see much farther into these matters than I and yet I cannot be perswaded that I am stark blind and with the best eyes I have or can borrow cannot yet discern what prejudice it can be to them that worship God in a more spruce splendid gentile mode than we do to suffer us to worship our God in his own old Scripture-fashion It cannot be denied that the Protestant Churches in France are really separated from the Papal Gallican Polity It must be acknowledged that their principles carry a direct opposition to those of their Adversaries that their separation from and opposition to the National frame is much greater than that of Dissenters from and to the constitution of the Church of England and yet the Roman Polity lives and thrives and prospers and no one of all the Popish Kingdoms bears a greater port or glories more in its exteriour splendor and grandeur than that does Why then cannot Conformists secure themselves against the Dissenters principles as well as the Gallican Church against those of the Hugonots And why may not Dissenters plead for the same freedom especially as to the immediate worship of God and ordering their own particular Societies since they plead for less here than they there enjoy and yet upon much stronger arguments for the Dissenters at home plead for no power to set up Classes and Synods Provincial or National which yet are there indulged them and they think they might expect a little more respect as being of one and the same Protestant Religion and not guilty of any principles which have any tendency as they that own them have no design to overthrow the present constitution of the Church so that the Doctors Reasonings are herein so unlike himself so defective of that evidence and cogency wherewith he attacques the Papal Idolatry that had I not known his Discourse to have been Concio ad Magistratum I might have suspected it to be nothing but Ad Populum phalerae The principles upon which the present Separation such a one as it is is carried on are such as fear not to appear before any Bar where Scripture and Reason not Interest and Prejudice have the Chair which though it be not here pertinent to dispute but nakedly to assert leaving their Justification to those larger Volumes which are in every mans hand concerned to arrive at satisfaction in these matters yet shall I direct the Reader to some few of them 1. That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to chuse its own Pastor and every particular Christian the same power to chuse his own Church I say not they have a power to mischuse but a power to chuse not to chuse any but one that may best advance their own edification at least that no Pastor be forced upon a Church no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent A principle so highly rational so clearly scriptural and of such venerable Antiquity as ought not upon some imaginary or pretended evil consequences to be exploded seeing the contrary principle is clogg'd with more real than this can be with surmised Inconveniencies I will thank my friends that will recommend to my choice an able Physician a faithful Lawyer but I am sure I love my health my life my estate so well as not to put the Election out of my own hands into theirs who are not likely to love me better than my self and if I chuse amiss the greatest wrong will be my own Now what Church this principle would overthrow I am yet ignorant If indeed such tyranny should prevail in the world that men must be driven to Heaven like silly sheep to the Market and this principle should a little cross the humour on 't the Churches of Christ would stand where they do and I believe carry a clearer Counterpart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ It is pretended that upon this principle men would chuse one Pastor to day another to morrow and a third the next and so turn round till they are giddy or run themselves out of breath in a wild-goose chase till they sit down and rest in Atheism and Irreligion And is this all The Apostle commands us to prove all things must we needs therefore never hold fast that which is good We ought upon great deliberation advice and counsel chuse our own Pastor and when we have so chosen sit down under Gods Ordinance and wait for his presence in and blessing upon his own way And in the purest Primitive times when the Churches exercised this power most then were they most firmly united and Divisions Schisms and Separations the greatest rarities among them but suppose the worst on 't That some malecontent should now and then desert the Communion of England for that of Rome Cruelties will never remedy the evil or the Remedy would be worse than the disease and what if some odd Maggot-pate should drop