Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	catholic_n	church_n	communion_n	1,107	5	9.3710	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25216	A reply to the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls's reflections on the Rector of Sutton, &c. wherein the principles and practices of the non-conformists are not only vindicated by Scripture, but by Dr. Stillingsfleet's Rational account, as well as his Irenicum : as also by the writings of the Lord Faulkland, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth, &c. / by the same hand ; to which is added, St. Paul's work promoted, or, Proper materials drawn from The true and only way of concord, and, Pleas for peace and other late writings of Mr. Richard Baxter ...	Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.; Barret, John, 1631-1713.	1681 (1681)	Wing A2919; ESTC R6809	123,967	128

whether are any bound to obey them at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions Way of Concord p. 111. § 15. And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority and impose them on the World in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks be not a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies ibid. § 16. Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship be not a Church Form of Divine Institution First Plea c. p. 8. And whether any Proof hath ever been produced that many Churches of this first Rank must of Duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association as Diocesan National c. and that God hath instituted any such Form Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions ib. p. 12 13. Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a political Sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the Power of teaching them ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-keys and leading them in publick Worship ibid. p. 13. And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less of many scores or hundreds such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or Bishop of Bishops had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion and mutual Assistance at due Seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes whose Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their Conversation and as a single Congregation may prudently in Persecution or foul Weather meet oft-times in several Houses so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses when they had no Temples and yet be capable of personal Communion as before described ibid. p. 13 14. And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith The Church of the Living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ c. doth he not here suppose as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino when they become but parts of a Bishops Church And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church ibid. p. 5 6. And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it as certain that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place ibid. p. 17. And see Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 75. or 69. Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved that God hath instituted any other than Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion whether must it not follow that none of the rest instituted by Man have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit or disoblige them from any of this Duty by just Authority Way of Concord p. 111. § 13. Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province into one only Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys or all essential to their Office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince First Plea c. p. 52. Or whether hath God made such proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws or whether God should be worshipped and Souls saved or his own Institution of Churches be observed Ibid. p. 53. Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches and Inferiour Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or Consent of the People or inferiour Pastors and these Bishops shall by Laws or Mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws or Mandates as such ibid. p. 80. Bishop Bilson of Subject p. 399. grants The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor ibid. p. 79. And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence and so a Duty to consent yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches till they do consent ibid. p. 80. Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God And doth not Dr. Blondel de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl. beyond Exception prove it with more ib. p. 81. Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command as such Or whether is it Schism to disobey it ibid. p. 82. Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses That he who separateth from a Parish-Church separates from no Church Sacril Desert p. 24. Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks if we renounced Communion with all other Churches except Parochial and Conformists And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism Whether ou●s that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us that

teach not Heresy nor preach down Holiness c. and deny us not their Communion unless we will sin or a Conformists that will hold Communion with none but his own Party but separates from all other Churches in the Land Ib. p. 41. Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church and their Communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies as unlawful to be communicated with when it is not so If the former then will it not follow that condemning them as no Church is a Diminution or no Aggravation of Separation and the local presence of an Infidel or Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of their Friends If the latter which is certain then will it not follow that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn they are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them declaring it unlawful Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47 or 49. Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church when it is upon unwarrantable Cause or Reasons Ib. p. 31. Now how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them while they generally refuse shun and condemn our Assemblies Are there no true Churches to be found in the World that have no Bishops of a superior order over Pastors And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism and Separation from those true Churches which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers and Invaders of other Mens Rights Vid. Sacril Desert p. 60. Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species whether have any Authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts change Christ's Laws or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches Way of Concord p. 111. § 14. Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons which causlessly silence Ministers scatter Flocks and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful or unnecessary ill-made Terms of Communion ibid. third Part p. 13. § 43. And if any proud passionate or erroneous Person do as Diothrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications whether this be not tyrannical Schism First Plea c p. 41. And as we say of the Papists that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication may we not say so of any others especially if either for that which is a Duty or for some small mistake which is not in the Persons power to rectify no greater than most good Christians are guilty of their Church-Law says he shall be excommunicate ipso facto ibid. p. 104. See also Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47. or 49. § 8. Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin whether this be not heinous Schism First Plea c. p. 41 42. Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justify and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Ib. Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible or shall make Churches so great or Pastors so few as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight Teaching and publick Worship and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other that would be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances true Church-Communion and Pastoral Help whether this would not be Schismatical and much worse Ib. p. 44. Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully s●t over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causlessly and without Right silence them and command the People to desert them and to take to others for their Pastors in their stead o● whom they have no such knowledg as may encourage them to such a change Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no Bishop because another was rightful Bishop before ● Ib. p. 49 50. Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not 1. To approve the best 2. To tolerate the tolerable 3. To have Sacraments free and not forced 4. To restrain the Intolerable 5. This to be the Test of Toleration Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt in true impartial Judgment 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace Way of Concord third Part p. 144. Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest to divide his Subjects and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them and to keep them in such Divisions seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love and willing Obedience and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused Party which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest who are as wise and just and loyal as they Second Plea c. p. 76. § 24. Si in necessariis sit Vnitas In Non-necessariis Libertas In u●risque Charitas Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae To make a rounder number I may add from Mr. M. Godwyn his Negro's and Indians Advocate pleading for the Instructing of them and so admitting them into the Church a Book lately Printed and Dedicated to the Arch Bisho● of Canterbury Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it as he says in the Title-Page no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion as he says p. 91. Are all professed Christians absolutely boun● in their Places to endeavour the same by their Vow in Baptism and their very Profession Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion as well at home as abroad And do they not owe as much Service herein for Christ's sake towards their own Country-men as towards Strangers Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men as for Indians And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England Atheism Ignorance Error Profaneness Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us is he for any great Advancement of Religion that would send away all Non-conformists if there be thousands of them to his Negro's and Indians for this wise Reason that There is no want of their Labours at home FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London by the Author on the latter end of February or beginning of March last but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets they could not get through the Press sooner The Ingenuous Reader is ●●so desired to pass by the Errata the Author being remote from the Press these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen viz. ERRATA PAge 5. l. 6 r. above P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele down P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater P. 63. l. 24. r. Church P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia P. 72. l. 19 20. r. betray P. 81. l. 35. r. for P. 83. l. 36 r. did he at all

abroad how did it shake the Heavens and darken the Skies O Lord my Heart trembleth to think upon it how many godly and worthy learned Preachers were silenced deprived and greatly disgraced How were the holy Ministers divided and distracted How were the Christian Subjects grieved and offended and the Papists and wicked Men encouraged and emboldened What a damp brought it to all Godliness and Religion and since that time what horrible Wickedness Whoredom Drunkenness and all shameless Filthiness and what grievous Plagues of God one succeeding another have followed evey good Christian Subject must needs see and lament So he who was no Separatist And I hope Sir you and I are agreed that these things last spoken of were no part of England ' s Reformation And now Sir give me leave to tell you in some of your own Words Preface p. 47. We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had no more to plead for it than we have indeed to plead for such mischievous Impositions And this seems to have been the sence of the Queen's Council in that Letter which the modest Enquiry p. 16 17. lays before you Therefore Sir I beseech you as you would not blast the Credit and Honour of the Reformation place it not in such things as rather brought a Deformation on us Here I know not well how to reconcile you to your self For p. 365. You say It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine And Preface p. 53 Although the Arguments are very plausible one way yet the Objections are very strong another The Union of Protestants the Ease of scrupulous Consciences the providing for so many poor Families of ejected Ministers but not a word of providing for so many poor Congregations and dark corners of the Land that have need of them Are great Motives on one side But the weighty Considerations on the other side pag. 54. And double in number too as you reckon So here I see your Mind as you hold the Scales you might and would determine that there is no sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion which in the great Wisdom of our Church were setled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless For certainly those Arguments that are only plausible with you would not weigh down such as are strong and cogent nor a few Motives weigh down more weighty Consid●rations But then what did you think of when you put that Question Preface p. 81. Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies and some late Declarations and doubtful Expressions beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences and the Peace and Stability of this Church And how happy had England been if such things had not been so over-valued As to this material Question you deliver your Opinion you say freely and impartially How Sir what Are you for altering what was setled in so great Wisdom by Men of so great Integrity such indefatigable Industry such profound Iudgment Is this for the Honour of our Reformation Is not this to blast the Credit of the Reformation I shall not take upon me to animadvert upon the whole of your Answer to this material Question presuming it will be scann'd by some of better Judgment Only one or two things I cannot but take notice of So I heartily thank you for that P. 82. 3. Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all Exceptions and they ought to be so administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension only here I would say Duty in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a Freedom in joyning in a full Communion Now thanks for thus much and hold to it Sir Tho I have two great and learned Men of the Church of England worthy of Note with you just at hand that grant as much of other parts of God's Worship as you do of Sacraments scil that they should be free from all Exceptions See Hales of Schism in Miscel. p. 216 217 218. And you were once of his Mind Irenic p. 120. And Chillingworth p. 180. If all Men would believe the Scripture and freeing themselves from Prejudice and Passion would sincerely endeavour to find the true Sence of it and live according to it and require no more of others but to do so nor denying their Communion to any that do so would so order their publick Service of God that all which do so may without Scruple or Hypocrisy or protetestation against any part of it joyn with them in it who does not see that c. Again I cast my Eye on that p. 87. where you would have indulged Persons to pay Twelve pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which you say cannot be complained of as any heavy Burthen Which such will not thank you for You would have them indulged and not indulged And is Twelve Pence a Week no burden to those that with hard Labour have much ado to maintain their Families can scarce clear Twelve Pence per Week See what it is to be rich in this World that makes some insensible of the low Estate others live in And would you have Servants th● pol●●d too tho their Wages may not amount to so much But now at last I come to that which I said makes you hardly reconcileable to your 〈◊〉 Preface p. 92. Such a Review made by wise and pe●●●able M●n not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far fro● being a Dis●on●ur to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it And the lik● you 〈◊〉 say of removing those Bars to Communion in Sa●●●ments bec●●● it would be a pa●t of Christian Wisdom Now lay things together Dr. Stilling says Preface p. 53 54. T●ere are strong Objections and weighty Considerati●●● against the Alteration of the established Laws And p. 364. would not take upon him to determine Whether there be sufficient Reason to 〈…〉 terms of Communi●● settled And yet Dr. S●lling says Preface p 82 92. That an Alteration would be a part of Christian Wisdom and so far from being a 〈◊〉 to this Church that it would add to the Glo●● of it And 〈◊〉 on I put this Query Whether Man are justly charged as bl●sting the Honour of the Reformation for dissenting in such things which it would be the Churches Glory to alter 3. Are you Imp●rtial in the Account you give of the old-Non-Conformists as if it was their general Sence that Ministers were to forbear all

ours 'T is impossible for you to assign any Reason for the Cross in Baptism c. à natura rei now but what would have been as pleadable even in the Apostles times and at all times since Then is it not most probable that Christ would have made an universal Law for them that should equally respect all Churches had it been his Mind to have such things in his Church Indeed we find Christ hath instituted what religious Rites and Ceremonies he would have observed in the Sacraments of the New Testament And where he hath determined the matter himself what have Men to do more than to submit to his Determination What can Men do that come after the King None are like to do his work better or know his Mind better than himself 6. If the exerting such a Power be found contrary to many express Commands in the Word how can we imagine such a Power conveyed to Church-Governours in any general Command there The Scripture is no where contrary to it self Consult Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 v. 17 to the end of the Chapter And Chap. 15. 1 2. Are there such plain Commands in Scripture for mutual Forbearance and against judging and despising one another for such things as God hath not commanded and against offending the weak or casting a stumbling-Block in others way and for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church and can we think it probable or a thing credible that Christ would have all such Commands set aside meerly for the sake of things called indifferent Ceremonies Or that the Commands or Determinations of Church-Governours about such Matters should be of Force against the standing Rules and Laws of Christ who is King of his Church Matters of Order and Decency are things of another Nature necessary in genere as I have said before and yet Men cannot oblige us to this or that particular Order when it is repugnant to that whereunto it should be subservient Then much less is it the Will of Christ that meer indifferent things if no worse should take place of great and necessary Duties Such indifferent things must either be made necessary or else you must say it cannot be avoided That the Churches Peace may be broken sound Ministers and Christians that scruple the lawfulness of them may be ejected and cast out of Communion or their Consciences may be ens●●red unnecessarily And yet one that ever read his Bible might know so much that the Governours of the Church have other work to do And as the second Book of Homilies says p. 3. Better it were that the Arts of Painting Plaistering Carving Graving and Founding had never been found nor used than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious should by occasion of Image or Picture perish and be lost So indeed better it were that no such Ceremonies had ever been appointed by Men than one Soul should be ensnared by them ●r one Minister or Member of Christ suffer 7. I query If Christ had not appointed the Sacraments of the New-Testament whether it had been in the power of Church-Governours to have appointed washing with Water in token and to put us in mind of our being washed and cleansed by the Blood of Christ and by the sanctifying influence and operation of his Spirit and so likewise to have appointed the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine as signifying that our Souls are to feed upon Christ whose Body was broken and whose Blood was shed for us Had not these been of the same Nature and as lawful as the significant Ceremonies which the Church hath taken on her to appoint Then let the People understand the Power of the Church that if Christ had never instituted Baptism and the Lord's Supper she could yet have in part supplied that want with those significant Ceremonies that would have been something like them 8. If Church-Governours have power to appoint such a Ceremony as the Cross in Baptism for Instance then they have power to add to the thing which God hath commanded and to make new parts of Worship But Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. forbids that You grant p. 337. That for Men to make new parts of Divine Worship is unlawful For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no Fault c. The Cross in Baptism is an Addition Tho you seem to understand the prohibition of adding to the Word of things directly repugnant yet that is not so properly an Addition as an Abolition As one says Prohibetur hîc additio non tantùm contrarii quae non tam additio est quàm abolitio sed etiam diversi v. M. Poli. Synops. Crit. in Deut. 4. 2. Methinks we may know what it is to add if we understand what it is to diminish then as they might not diminish or take away from God's Worship one significant Ceremony which the Lord had instituted by a Parity of Reason it would seem to follow that they might not introduce or add one significant Ceremony to the Worship God had instituted The Cross in Baptism is made a new part of Worship For that which is used in God's Worship in such a manner and to such an end that there needeth nothing but Divine Institution or God's appointing it to be used in that manner and to that end to make it a part of the true Worship of God that is made a part of God's Worship tho falsly for want of Divine Institution Had Christ appointed the Cross in Baptism as the Church hath appointed it to be used in token that we should not be ashamed c. had Christ appointed it by that Badg to dedicate us to the Service of him that died upon the Cross no doubt it had thus become a part of God's true Worship Here you speak short p. 348. The Canon says It is an honourable Badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of c. And what is that but a Sign from Men to God to testify their Subjection Which by your own Confession there is an Act of Worship and yet you will have it no such thing P. 355. you say If Christ had instituted it with such Promises then no doubt c. And I say If Christ had instituted it only in token that we ought not to be ashamed to confess him which is less than that hereafter we shall not be ashamed had he appointed it only to signify our Duty it would yet no doubt have been made a part of Worship And I hope upon second thoughts you will say the same Some other Passages relating to this Matter I would have glanced at but it is time to hasten to an end of this Conclusion I have been so long upon Yet methinks your slighty Exposition of the second C●mmandment p. 141. calls for one glance here Can you find no more in the Affirmative part of it than a Command to worship God without

no such Matters but in Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost 14. Because Christ is pleased in this without the other and God accepteth such 15. Because such are approved of Men i. e. This Righteousness Peace and holy Joy without Agreement in such Ceremonies and By-matters beareth its own Testimony for Approbation to the Judgment of all impartial Men Humanity and Christianity teach us to love and honour such 16. From our common Obligation to live in Peace with all 17. From our Obligation to do all to the edifying of one another 18. Because God's Work else is destroyed by us 19. Because our own lawful Acts are turned into Sin when they hurt another and from the Obligation that lieth on us to deny our own Liberty in Meat c. to avoid the hurting of another that is weak 20. From the Damnation of such as are driven or drawn to act doubtingly 21. From the special Duty and Mercy of the Strong that should bear the Infirmities of the Weak 22. From the Example of Christ himself that pleased not himself and our great Obligation to imitate Christ. 23. From God's Patience to us 24. Because indeed this is the true way to Love and Vnity that with one Mind and one Mouth we may glorify God while we lay not our Concord on impossible Terms 25. Because Christ receiveth us and it is to God's Glory c. Whether do all these moral Arguments signify no more than this receive and tolerate such only till you make Laws against them ibid. p. 150 151 152. Query 2. Whether Men have any Authority to make Laws about God's Worship but what Christ hath given them Second Plea for Peace p. 28. § 36. And whether it be not against the Mind and Law of Christ declared Act. 15. 28. that unnecessary Laws and Burthens in Religion should be made for and laid upon the Churches ibid. p. 29. § 40. So whether that Determination and Decree of the holy Ghost by the Apostles be not obligatory to all Rulers and Churches upon Earth even to this day And whether all that think not themselves wiser should not confess that at least it is safe to follow it ibid. p. 169. § 74. If therefore the Pastors shall contrary to that Decree impose unnecessary things on the Church not only under the Obligation of Duty but as a necessary Condition of church-Church-Communion whether this be not a tyrannizing over God's Heritage and usurping a Power never given them ibid. p. 155. § 33. Q. 3. Whether what God hath left to human Prudence to determine concerning Churches and Church-affairs be not thus limited by his general Laws viz. That all things be done to Edification the Circumstances fitted to the end the Glory of God and the publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in order and decently and as may avoid Offence or Scandal to all both those without and those within First Plea for Peace p. 19. Then query 1. Whether they do well that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a Strait by needless Laws for Additions in Religion that the Consciences of Men fearing God must unavoidably be perplexed between a Fear of Treason and Disobedience against Christ and of Disobedience to their Prince or Pastors Second Plea c. p. 28. § 38. 2. Whether it be not more inexcusable to rack and divide the Church by unnecessary Additions in Religion ibid. § 39. 3. Whether it be not against the Will and Law of Christ to use things otherwise indifferent scandalously or temptingly to the ensnaring and endangering of Men's Souls and the Dishonour of Religion Rom. 14 15. 1 Cor. 8. And whether Men may make Laws about Religion enjoyning such an evil use of such things ibid. p. 29. § 41. 4. Whether to invent and command new publick-Worship-Ordinances either in God's Name or their own co-ordinate or of the same kind with God's own Worship-Ordinances which have no peculiar usefulness to one Age or People more than to another nor any new Reason for them but what was extant at the making of God's Laws whether this seemeth not to be an Accusation of Christ's Laws of Omission and Defectiveness and an Usurpation of his Legislative Power ibid. § 42. 5. Whether to forbid Baptism or to alter it or make a new Sacrament of Admission or a new consecrating or dedicating Symbol for the Solemnization of our Covenant with God and a new Symbol of the Christian Church or visible Badge of Christianity seem not an Usurpation and Accusation of God's Law as insufficient ibid. p. 30. § 46. 6. Whether to forbid Preaching or Prayer or Praise ordaining Homogeneal Means of our own seem not an Usurpation and unlawful ibid. p. 31. § 47. 7. Whether to add more Doctrines or Articles of Faith which God hath not revealed in Nature or Scripture and to require Belief or Pro●●●●● of Belief of the same 〈…〉 religious End seem not an Usurpation and unjust Accusation of God's Word as insufficient ibid. p. 29. § 43. 8. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Church-members either forbidding those that Christ requires us to receive or receiving such as Christ forbiddeth us to receive be not to contradict his Laws by Usurpation whether Magistrates or Pastors do it ibid. p. 30. § 45. 9. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Christ's Ministers or the nature of their Office and invent new co-ordinate Officers seemeth not Usurpation ibid. p. 31. § 48. 10. Whether to overthrow or prohibit Christ's Church-Discipline or to set up another that is not meerly subordinate to it modally to promote it seem not an Usurpation ibid. § 51. 11. Whether to forbid Religious Assemblies or alter their Ends and principal Use be not to usurp and to contradict the Laws of Christ ibid. p. 29. § 44. Q. 4. Whether Rulers ought not to prefer Christ's Interest before their own and account that their own lieth in preferring His and should not value conscionable upright Men though Dissenters in tolerable Cases and not encourage their unconscionable Enemies Way of Concord 3d part p. 26. And whether the chief Work of Rulers be not to promote the keeping of God's Laws and the everlasting Good of Men and the temporal Good in order thereunto Second Plea for Peace p. 108. col 1. § 11. And whether Rulers may command any thing which will notably do more Harm than Good or make an unnecessary thing a Means or Occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God or preaching of his Gospel Judgment of Non-conformists in second Plea c. p. 76. § 59. And whether is it more to common Good and the Interest of Honesty and Conscience that all the Persons in a Nation be imprisoned banished or killed that dare not swear say and practise all that is imposed on them than that unnecessary Impositions be altered or forborn Way of Concord 3d Part p. 111 112. Q. 5.

hearing of Sermons c and that frequently too to be lawful Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters pag. 98. No Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in Affront to them and the Laws Here you say in Effect that let Parishes be never so large and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable nor to be encouraged because not under you establish'd Rule But either you must grant it may be lawful to joyn occasionally and that frequently too with the Non-conformists or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers and say that it was better for Men to hear these than such as Mr. B. c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists lest any should thence argue from your own Words that constant Communion with them is a Duty I am thinking however that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship And let them alone to make their best of what you say you are sure will follow p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what Denomination soever the Persons pass Because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily though but in some parts of their Worship at first its possible they would gain far more Proselites by it than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo p. 156. A Man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church Yet you will look upon your self not only as a Member of the Church of England but as a Member of the Catholick Church And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church it may possibly sometimes fall out that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church or a French Church And if Non-conformists with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick as others you can freely have Communion with and while they differ from you in nothing but if the same was removed your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them and then for ought I know you may be obliged thereunto it may be a Duty Because you wholly overlook this I thought fit to take notice of it And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments pag. 157. viz. 1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church And here I ask If there be not as great an Obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace or promote it with all Christians as with all Men And they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donati●● which you cannot in reason suppose yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says Miscel. of Schism p. 208. Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists if occasion so require And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break why may not I be present in them and use Communication with them 2 The particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. And one would think such as have attained so much Knowledg as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of W●●ship might know it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformi●ts 5. Are you not partial when you lay this down p. 157. As one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience when they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority c. yet you tell us not what things those are neither the time when they were pressed thereunto and refused the same And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace that were reasonable made to them which they refused But you never take notice of it as any provoking Sin in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many And might not so much have been expected from them as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace May I not here return your own Words pag. 159. Was ever Schis●● made so light a matter of and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate that for the Prevention of the one and the Preserevation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done Or as I would say that the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own Judgment but things doubtful or unlawful in the Judgment of others might not be forborn Now Sir are you for palliating so great Sin as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church when you know The Obligation which lieth upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church which you give us again p. 209. And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account p 324 Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent Dissenting Protestants say we The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and redress of Abuses And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship That the Church of England is not such a Shre● to h●r Children as to deny her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation c. Where I observe