concerning the constitutive Regent part of a National church whose existence must be acknowledged if a National church as such be a Governed church or a Body Politick but yet this cannot be found out For which reason they distinguish between a Governed Society and a Body Politick between a Governing and a Regent part and assert That the National church is a Govern'd Society but not a Body Politick that it hath a Governing but not a Regent part the like of an Universal church This is the true state of our Author's Judgment wherein we have an admirable account of the Gentleman 's acute distinguishing the excellency of which I 'll leave to the entertainment of his Admirers and if he please consider the Notion according to his own stating it that is to gratifie him I won't insist on the word Policy nor Regent nor constitutive Regent part but only on government Governours and Governed and so our Enquiry being about the Government of the Universal Church we must consider what is necessary thereunto and see whether what our Author asserts be agreeable unto such a constitution for if not so 't is far from Truth To consider what it is that is necessary to the constitution of any Governed Body that is what is so necessary that the absence thereof is destructive to the Constitution To this I Answer That a Governing and a Governed part is so necessary unto Goverement that where either one of these be absent there can be no Government A Governed Body cannot be without a Governing part neither can this be without a part Governed Government doth necessarily infer both these remove either one the Government is destroyed Government is a Relation resulting from that mutual respect the Governing and Governed parts have to each other whence as Sublato uno Relatorum tollitur alterum and where there is nor Subject nor Term i. e. nor Relate nor Correlate there can be no Relation Remove the Governing part from the Universal or National Church and the Government ceases Paternity may be where there is no Father assoon as Government without a Governing part Whence I infer That where there is a Fixed Government there must be a fixed Governing part This premised Let us next enquire whether or no what our Author asserts be suitable to this undoubted Rule Doth he shew us such a Governing part The Government is a constant fixed Government but where is the constant fixed Governing part 'T is a General Council saith he i. e. the universal Bishops in their Colledge assembled But is this a fixed Governing part Is it not evident to an ordinary capacity that the assembling such a Council of all the Bishops in the World is a difficulty insuperable and that without such an Assembly 't is impossible they should by joynt consent govern the Universal Church The astembling of the Catholick Bishops is as easie as the gathering together their consent per literas format as and much more conducive to the desired End because when assembled they can debate the matters before 'em and with the greater judgment give their determinations But 't is well known that had such an Assembly been possible yet the Church of God for the first 300 years had no such Assembly excepting that in the Apostles days i. e. it had no such Governing part which is as if it had been said There was no Government in the Universal Church the first 300 years To gratifie our Author Let us suppose that the Universal Church is as such a Governed Society and that it hath its Governours But though this be so yet it must be still acknowedged that a Governour cannot be without Power to Govern I would therefore beseech my Author to shew me What is that Power with which this Colledge of Bishops are invested Is it Legislative only or also Executive Whether the one or the other is it in the Colledge Subjectively and Formally or only in 'em as in fine seu regulante or supplente or How 'T would be necessary that our Author consult the Parisian Doctors if he will speak to the purpose when he espouses their Notion Let our Author assert as it pleaseth him at an adventure it matters not for his Notion is such as necessarily directs us to conclude what he must if he will be consistent with himself assert and that is this All Church-Government is Universal and as such it must be exercised no one being a Governour in the Church but he that is a Catholick Officer That the due course of exercising this Power is when it flows originally from the Head unto all its Members That it flows from the Invisible or rather unseen Head in Heaven immediately unto the visible Head on Earth is granted by all those who assert an Universal Church-Government though there is a Dispute among the Papists whether this Head be the Council or the Pope As it flows immediately from Christ to the visible Head so it proceeds from this visible Head unto the Patriarchs from thence to the Metropolitans from thence to the Diocesans For which Reason if any are injur'd by their Diocesan they may Appeal to their Metropolitan from thence to their Patriarch from thence to the Pope or Council This our Author must hold That there may be no wrong done the Little Ones of Christ if any be grieved by One he may Appeal unto an Higher till he comes unto the Highest Power on Earth from whence if he find not relief he must acquiesce leaving the whole to him who is in Heaven But if there be no constant visible Head actually existing where shall the grieved lodge his last Appeal The Dean's Substitute supposes an equality of Power in Patriarchs Metropolitans and Diocesans whence if his Diocesan doth abuse his Power he is not accountable to any Metropolitan nor Patriarch but only unto the Catholick Colledge The which being so 't will follow That Executive Power must be lodg'd in some Supreme Head Subjectively who can receive Appeals I say Subjectively or Formally and not only Virtually for 't is an Executive Power only that can relieve in this case which cannot Actually be where 't is only Virtually For which Reason 't is evident that according to our Author there must be a fixed Governing part invested with an Executive Power from whom relief is to be expected if at any time the Diocesan doth abuse his Power which Governing part must be either a Colledge of Bishops or one single Person And if the obtaining the former be as indeed 't is impossible the acknowledging the latter is necessary Thus we see how fairly this Gentleman at length leads us to Rome or some other Pope as the only necessary way of governing the Church In doing which he doth but carry on the Project of which Sir Francis Winnington takes notice at the Trial of the Lord Stafford when he assured the Lords That as an encouragement to the POPISH PLOTTERS there did appear in some men too easie
out a Constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christs Institution and to say that all this is true without one is to me a perfect contradiction When he goes on then p. 566. to prove that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church One by two Arguments I answer If there be so much as this indeed required his two Arguments must prove it not onely to be One but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it The Bishops he says have equal power by Christs appointment and rule not by Superiority but by Consent that is not by Superiority over one another but they do rule by a Superiority I hope over the people and that is an Aristocratical Government and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them this makes them Members he says of that Political body And these are his two reasons p. 566 and 567. which need no other Animadversion but this notice of them The great questions onely are whether this indeed be the will of Christ that the Catholick and so every National Church as he states the matter should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues that is by a Government as he calls it by consent and if it be how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the Colledg without a Superiority but by a Superiority or a Supremacy of the King who is the Head of these Bishops themselves as well as the Nation This I make not my Province P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthning the Government of his Mintage and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part he will think farther of it To which I answer and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part the reason is because it is a Body Politick Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part and so he need think no farther of it And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page p. 569. I need say nothing to that nor the next p. 570. but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way as he says to justify the Doctor Well where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter there must be a Constitutive Head The Doctor answers there may be the true notion of a Church without one I Reply This is a coming off but the question indeed at the bottome is whether it be the true notion of the Church of England The Doctor argues If it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Church Catholick Visible This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable But we reply the Argument is such as needs no Answer and it may easily be Answered In the first place it needs no Answer because the thing it would prove is but what we can grant him that is a Visible Head to the Catholick Church Christ is that Head we say and he is Visible When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church and Commissionated Officers which are Rights of a Head He after appeared to Paul and Commissionated him and is now Visible in Heaven This is plain proof in Reason Sense and Scripture and not to be jeered off and therefore in the first place the Doctors Argument needs no Answer In the next place we say farther it is easily Answered for we deny the Argument If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head it follows that the Catholick Church must have a Constitutive one but it follows not that it must have a Catholick Visible Head or that that Constitutive Head must be Visible This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogisme it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical But the Doctor says he puts more strength in it The question is about the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible I Answer though here be more words here is no more strength put into the Argument I still deny the Consequence For though the Catholick Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible Christs Body is but one Body whereof part is in Heaven and part on Earth and while the Head is in Heaven it follows not that because part of the Body is Visible therefore the Head must be Visible It is all one as if he should argue thus Particular Churches are on Earth and if Christ be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts he must not be in Heaven And when indeed this is one and the same Argument and we know it to be false we do justly deny the Doctors Argument Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds will you argue that this person hath no head because his head is not visible I deny the Argument There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument but to understand why his Defender whom I value for his Parts should come to think it unanswerable It may be the Doctors confident word at first it undenyably follows drew on this apprehension and he hath fetcht the Argument over so long till he hath put enough in it to make himself believe it We are far says he from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible because Particular Churches or the Members are so but this we assert that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head then the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Visible Head p. 574 575 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue Is it not against Mr. Bexter and did Mr. Baxter ever say this that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onely Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope but the Colledge of Bishops I desire Doctor Stillingfleet
and renders sincere Obedience to the known Will of God he shall be saved All which may be even with those who being verily perswaded that their compliances with the present Impositions are sinful durst not Conform that is The Promise of Salvation is made by Christ to many who do not conform to the Impâ—sitions of the Church of England But Salvation by our Author is denied unto such their Non-compliance is enough to make 'em Schismatical to cut them off from Christ and the hopes of Salvation which being no ways justifiable in the Conscience of any sober man the Dissenters are unjustly Excommunicated and he that so Excommunicates is Schismatical 'T is most certain That many good Christians cannot conform to the imposed terms of Communion with the Church and that for this single Reason they are Excommunicable if not actually Excommunicated from the Church that is put out of a state of Salvation The which being so 't will unavoidably follow That either the Excommunication is unjust or That the Church hath greater Power than he that is the Lord of it to open and shut the gates of Heaven If the latter then the Church sets itself up above all that is called God in this world and Christ in the other For whereas Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for our Salvation these add somwhat more to wit an Obedience to new Impositions threatning the neglect with Damnation But if the former if the Excommunication is unjust then according to Dr. Gunning with the addition of our Author Our Ecclesiastical Governours are the Schismaticks The Argument here in short is this He that doth unjustly Excommunicate any out of the Catholick Church is a Schismatick This is Dr. Gunning's But the Church of England shutting those out of Salvation to whom Christ hath promised it Excommunicates unjustly This is our Authors Therefore the Church of England according to the Position of our Author is the Schismatick Hereby we may easily perceive what an admirable Defender the Church of England hath in the Defender of the Dean and how little the true Protestant Clergy of the Church are beholding to this man who insists on such Notions as do necessarily lead judicious men to conclude the Church of England Schismatical But to return to our Author who leaping over all the difficulties though but hinted in the Enquiry runs unto another Question viz. From Ceremonies to Circumstances form the Parts of their Religion to the external Appendages thereunto confounding the one with the other and then runs triumphantly assuring his Reader That 't is impossible to worship God or exercise any act of Religion but it must be in some time or in some place it must be done in some circumstances therefore we may make some things a part of our Religion which God has not At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter Insisting on nothing but what had its answer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute Therefore if I should say no more than what I have in giving the true state of the Controversie it would be sufficient For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction that We may without sin comply with their Impositions i. e. He must so far effectually enlighten our Conscience as to help us to see that the Impositions are not sinful and that we may lawfully Conform or shew That we must Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Consciences and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands Believing as the Church believes or they ought to remove the Impositions or acknowledge that our Compliances are not sinful One of these must be done Let him do either and the Controversie will be ended and the Dissenters freed from Schisme But if he cannot enlighten us to see the Lawfulness of their Impositions nor perswade us to render a blind Obedience nor remove the Impositions but plead for their continuance 't will appear That they by imposing what in their Judgments is but Indifferent as things necessary to our Salvation are the Schismaticks This might suffice as a full Answer But that nothing may escape consideration that our Author may think deserves it I le reflect a little on his main strength If there be any force in this Argument says he it consists in these two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with And secondly That the Opinion of Dissenters That indifferent things are unlawful in the worship of God is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of some indifferent things cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks and if the opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful be not a sufficient reason for parting with them then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot p. 9. First saith he If there be any force in this Argument it consists in two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with This is his mistake he should have said That if there be any strength in the Enquiry it lyes in this viz. No one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion 'T is this he should have considered For you sin by insisting on any one or more indifferent things so zealously as to make 'em terms of Communion with your Church and consequently with the Church Catholick so as to deny us a right to Christ and Salvation for a mere non-compliance You can part with your indifferent Ceremonies without sin and open the door of Salvation to the wretched Dissenter if you will even when they cannot without sin comply with your intolerable Impositions The indifferent things you impose you impose as terms of our Communion with you which you make to be the same with Catholick Communion that is of Salvation 2. You add the second thing viz. That the Opinion of Dissenters That Indifferent things are unlawful is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not say you lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of Indifferent things cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks c. You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and Intrinsecal thereunto and what is Extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in Thesi which is off from the point in hand You run from what is Indifferent to what is Necessary as if we called you to part with any necessary thing whereas there is never any indifferent Ceremony that is grievous to our Consciences but you may part with or cease to impose 'em and yet
worship God But to divide necessary circumstances of Action from the Action is impossible A thing we no way desire 'T is true as you assert A man who is to remove from London to York is not bound either to go thither on foot or on horseback or in a Coach or in a Waggon each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or ether of those ways of Motion not one in particular is necessary yet one or other is But what is this to our purpose What though the Partition-wall between Ceremonies and Circumstances be broken down and they all mingled together and all must be consider'd alike but as Circumstances What will this help you To keep to your pretty Allusion with one necessary Addition viz. One hath not strength to walk on foot from London to York another cannot bear the riding in Coach yet to York they must go If you 'll keep to the point before us you must say to the person that cann't walk to York Some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither And to the other that can't ride in a Coach if you 'll not go thither in a Coach you shall not go at all and yet give him the Strapadâ— for not going thither This is the Case and how easily may they reply unto you on your calling them to hasten to York on these impossible terms or to the Bisliâ—ps Colehouse We would go to York with all our heart on Horseback or in a Waggon but to walk or to ride in a Coach we cannot You can give us leave to go thither on horsback if you will but you will not we would go but go in Coach or walk we cannot Here is a division your will not and our cannot who now is in fault That they cannot is evident because of weakness and Infirmity of body That you can permit 'em to go on Horseback is as unquestionable but yet you will not Thus we have the strength of our Author's Reply You must get into the visible Catholich Church or to prison and you cannot get in but you must either use some external circumstances in some time or in some place c. therefore this time or no time this place or no place Sir by your good favour as you acknowledg this or the other particular circumstance to be indifferent and that other circumstances may be chosen if not this to make either of these indifferent circumstances a necessary tâ—rm of communion is sinful and schismatical To make of a little thing so great a bar to shut thousands out of heaven is what you will never be able to answer when you shall appear before the Tribunal of a righteous God But as to the true state of the Controversie 't is another thing you make that a part of Religion which God hath not made you impose uninstituted ceremonies and in many things recede from the Apostolical Institution and call on us on pain of damnation to comply with you We must comply or be cut off from the Catholick Church even from the body of Christ from all hopes of salvation These things being thus plain I 'le gratisie our Authors desire in considering his Logick If the Dissenters can without sin says he obey their Governours in indifferent that is in lawful things but will not and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for union but cannot who is the Divider What must be done for Union Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin or must the Episcopal sin and lose their peace with God fot Union p. 29. This is called by our Author an Argument but why I cannot imagine however let it be so wherein lies its strength or how comes it to pass that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be where 't is not If there be any force in this Argument it must be either in this viz. That the Impositions are in the judgment of the Dissenters Lawful or Indifferent which may be submitted unto without sin Had this suggestion been true we would grant him the whole he desires viz. That the Dissenters refusing to do what is Lawful in their own judgment to be done for Union they are Faulty But 't is notirious That the imposed terms are of such a nature that they cannot be submitted unto by the Dissenter but he must grievously offend the most high God to the wounding his own conscience If its strength lyes not there it must in this That the Episâ—â—pal would be content to part with indifferent things but cannot And why can they not What is the matter that they cannot part with toys and trifles to take many a thousand within the pale of the Church and thereby help 'em to Heaven The things are still supposed indifferent by our Author and therefore a parting with 'em is not contrary to any Law nor sinful Why then can they not without sin part with what they can part with without sin This is surely mysterious They cannot part with that without sin which they can part with without sin and Yet will not part with it though according to their own judgment their not parting with their indifferent things tends to the unavoidable destruction of souls They know the Dissenters unless these indifferent things be past by must be kept out of the Church of England that is out of the Catholick Church say they and remain to the last hour of their life in a state of damnation Whence then did I say What must must be done for Union I may now say What must be done to save the thousands of Souls for whom Christ died Must the Episcopal part with what they can without sin and take the Dissenters into the Catholique Church and thereby save their Souls or must the Dissenters sin that they may be saved What Is there no way to Heaven for English Dissenters but their complying with sinful Impositions T was said in the Apostles days that We must not do evil that good may come thereof Then surely if we will be of the Apostles judgment We must not sin to save our Souls Our Unrighteousness doth not cannot commend the Righteousness of God But Before I dismiss this Point that the Reader may be fully satisfied that I abuse not our Author I must beseech him to consider 1. That our Author hath in a way different from the greatest or rather the better part of the Clergy asserted That our not holding external communion with the Church of England is a cutting our selves off from the Catholick Church a putting our selves out of the Way of Salvation This is the main scope of his discourse A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet's thoughts are desired 2. That notwithstanding the absolute necessity there is of the Dissenters returning to the Church of England that they may become members
as a proof of what he affirmed produces some few passages from a Book written tho' not printed by Mr. H. in the year 1675. and reprinted with some alterations 1680. Mr. Humfrey gives the reasons of those alterations but withal affirms that he altered not his opinion At which our Author makes some exceptions pag. 26. of his Preface and seems to suspect the truth of what Mr. H. had said concerning the alteration of some lines in his Book without altering his judgment in that case These are his words He will not own that he hath altered his judgment in the second Impression of his book from what it was in the first but people know not mens judgments but by their words and the words of his first and second Edition contain a very different and contrary sense which should suppose some alteration What a spiteful malignant insinuation were this if Mr. H. were not known to be one that does not lye He persists upon the words like toleration which after Mr. H. hath explained is nothing but cavil and I need no more than to repeat Mr. H's own words for the reproof of this Gentleman who would not have omitted these when he cites others if he had dealt honestly by him The Dr. thinks or speaks as if the Author in reprinting the Book had changed his opinion wherein I account he is most of all out and most to blame He who drew up the Book is not one of that humour as to turn with the times but rather against them The opinion he offered in the year 75. is the same that he holds now in the year 80. Here is an alteration indeed as to more words or some other words but the same opinion or solution with the difference only of a further explication of it and nothing therein besides avoiding offence intended The Author had been wary in declaring the Toleration he proposed to be a limited one and provided against the Jesuit upon reason of State and shewed his dread of Popery in dominion but had omitted the distinction of a toleration in regard to publick Assemblies and the private exercise of a mans Religion He explains himself therefore by way of supply signifying that what he said at first should be taken in regard to the tolerating the Papist only privately as his meaning really was then and is now but fuller expressed This is the opinion he recedes not from whether peculiar to himself or not that no man should be persecuted meerly for his conscience if there be no other reason Whether he be a Dissenter of one kind or other the common rule of Christianity must be remembred he says still that we do by all men as we would be done by and that with what measure we mete to others it shall be measured to us again These words are in all the Impressions And to this purpose I cannot but note what I find in Mr. B's 2 l Def. p. 16 who after he hath spoken of Mr. H. upon this account as a man of known Latitude and Universal Charity and discountenancing Cruelty adds concerning himself And I so little fear the noise of the Censorious that even now while tht Plot doth render them most odious I freely say 1. That I would have Papists used like men and no worse than our own Defence requireth 2. That I would have no man put to death for being a Priest 3. I would not have them by any Law compelled to our Communion and Sacraments Nor can a man think but the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls himself had also some Compassion Pity and Kindness for them when he condemns such Heats as transport men beyond the just bounds of Prudence Decency and Humanity towards their greatest Enemies Pref. pag. 34. And whereas this Gentleman objects That the alteration was not made in Mr. H's Book till five years after I hope there is a good reason for it because it was so many years before the second Impression and I know not by what means it could be altered till the Book was Printed a second time I return now to the Countrey Conformist The Doctor had said in his Pref. pag. 78. upon the Principles of some of our Dissenting Brethren Let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves yet others may make use of their grounds and carry on their differences as high as ever To which the Conformist had said There was no doubt but insufferable Hereticks might pretend Conscience and many other things for Indulgence as well as modest and tolerable Dissenters but that he thought there was no reason that they should have the same Concessions and that he hoped our Governours would be able to distinguish between those that erre in small things and those that subvert the Christian Religion This Answer doth not satisfie our Author who enquires pag. 8. But in the mean time how doth he answer the Deans Argument that it is not the way to Peace and Union and to silence Differences If I should reply to this Gentleman in other words and give him another Answer peradventure he may be unsatisfied and ask the same Question again However I 'll venture this once Many of the Dissenters from the Church of England are sound in their Judgments and agree with us in all the great Essentials of the Christian Religion and in most of the Integrals also these would gladly incorporate with us but that there are some Impositions that they cannot submit unto now certainly if these things which are the reason and cause of the Difference between them and their Brethren were removed the difference were at an end Others there are that are men of sound Judgments in the main Articles of the Christian Religion but cannot incorporate with us in the National Church if these were Legally indulged they would be free from fear their minds would be at rest amidst variety of Judgments and Practices we might live together in Love and Peace And thus I think I have told this Gentleman how many of our differences may be ended and how those that cannot be ended may yet be laid to sleep and persons made amicable and friendly As for intolerable Hereticks I shall not be their Patron only I would have them used like men and that nothing be done to them that is unworthy of the Christian Religion which is made up in great part of Love Kindness and Compassion And if thus much Union and Peace will not satisfie this Author I suppose he may look for it in Heaven but I doubt that he will hardly find it in this world I am of opinion that a cessation of Differences among Christians and Churches and a total cessation of sin will appear at the same instant I do somtimes admire that those that never expect to see the one upon Earth but are very calm and patient without it should so passionately desire the other that they can be content to move Heaven and Earth for the obtaining of it What Seneca
said of particular persons I say of Churches Optimus est qui minimis urgetur vitiis He is the best man that hath least faults and there are none without them Those are the best Churches which have the least of defects and imperfections such as are without fault are not to be found out of Heaven And as among men the strong must bear the Infirmities of the weak so among Churches the strongest and most perfect must bear the Weakness and Infirmities of those that are more defective and imperfect If our Author should say that those that I plead for and call Churches are no Churches but acompany of Schismatical Conventicles I answer I am of opinion that they are as truly Churches and parts of this National Church or may be easily so made as the Churches of France Holland Geneva Switzerland c. are of the Universal But if our Author shall please to cut them off from the Catholique as I think according to his own Doctrine he must do I shall permit him the liberty for I know not how to hinder it to cut off these from the National Church having no mind at this time to debate the Justice of his Sentence Only I will beg leave to tell him that I can by no means believe that what he doth on Earth will be ratified in Heaven or that God will damn all that he gives up to the Devil If what hath been said doth not satisfie our Gentleman give me leave to suppose him a Minister of the Reformed Church in France be it at Charenton Caen Saumur or where you please and let me suppose that some Gentlemen of the Roman Catholick Religion address themselves to him after this manner Sir We pity your state and condition and have a kindness for you for though you be an Heretick you are one of human race the King our Master will have but one Religion in his Kingdom and you must comply with him or else you are undone your Estate your Liberty and peradventure your Life must all be sacrificed to him for he is resolved and peremptory in that resolution all must serve God the same way or they must bear the punishment of refusing it Here are the Subscriptions that are made by the Catholick Clergy do but set your hand to them and you 're safe and may share with them in the Preferments of the Church To this our Author answers Gentlemen I bear an honour to our Puissant and Invincible Monarch and am very ready to obey all his just commands but in this particular I pray you have me excused God is a King superiour to our Prince and must be obeyed before him I fear His Majesties Displeasure and Vengeance but I am much more afraid of that of God the one may hang or break me upon the wheel but the other will damn me for evermore I beseech you therefore interpose with his Majesty on the behalf of me and my Brethren that we may have the same liberty of worshipping God as for many years past we have enjoyed under him and his Royal Predecessors We vow all Duty and Allegiance to his Person and Government we will defend them with our Lives and Fortunes and we have nothing so dear to us unless it be our Consciences which we are not willing to sacrifice for his just Honour and Advantage The Subscription you propose I cannot make without the offence of God and my Conscience And I must beg his Majesties Pardon if I chuse to obey the God of Heaven before his Vicegerent here on earth The Catholick Gentlemen replies His Majesty is willing and resolved to put an end to all Differences and Controversies in Religion he is weary of those eternal Squabbles that are managed by Divines of different perswasions The Temple of Janus shall be shut he will have no more Religious Wars among his Subjects To grant you the Liberty of serving God after your own Way is not a method of ending Differences but of perpetuating them For when you are pleased others may succeed to you and under pretence of Conscience carry on Differences as high as ever Let our Author answer the Argument of these Catholick Messieurs and I do humbly conceive I may be able from his own words to answer that of the Doctor if it be not sufficiently done already but let him not misunderstand or pervert my words I do not affirm that the Impositions in the Church of England and those of the Church of Rome are equally wicked burdensome and offensive all that I say is they are both unlawful in the judgment of those that do refuse them and the Arguments against relaxing those Impositions or granting Liberty to those that do refuse them are the same and must receive the same Answers Pag. 9. The Conformist had said That he hoped our Governours would distinguish between those that subvert the Christian Faith and those that err in small things Our Gentleman answers Thus our Governours have distinguished already and yet it hath not put an end to our Controversies nor is he the Conformist sure that once more distinguishing will do it To which I reply That when and where our Governours have made this distinction I confess the Countrey Conformist is as ignorant as our Author will needs have him in the Constitution of our Church p. 10. What particular persons may have done I do not enquire but what the Governours of our Church have done They have determined the conditions of Communion and upon what terms the Clergy may minister at the Altar but where by any publick act they have distinguished between the great essentials of the Christian Religion which must be believed and lesser errors that may be tolerated I do not know and cannot find If this Gentleman thinks that all things imposed as conditions of Communion either upon Laity or Clergy in England are of the essence of Christianity and that all who have other apprehensions concerning them are damnable Hereticks let him enjoy his Faith to himself I am not like to become his proselyte nor I think many others P. 10. Our Author proceeds Will not the excluded parties cry as loud for Liberty of Conscience and complain of persecution as they do now Either these are good arguments or they are not If they be they will hold good in all cases that men must not suffer for their consciences but be allowed the free exercise of their Religion according to their own persuasions If they be not let them leave off the pretences of scruples and tender consciences with that liberty and freedom in exercising their Religion which they challenge as their natural birthright and demand no more of that than what the merit of their Cause requires In this discourse there are more strange things than one 1. He declares that if those arguments that are brought for free exercise of Religion from scruple and tenderness of Conscience be good they must be good in all cases The meaning is this One
summe or substance of the Apostle in his Epistles altogether I say also that this is manifestly here destitute of reason The Apostle requires that all Christians should walk by the same rule in things whereto they have attained Therefore they must walk by the same rule in things whereto they have not attained Such is his force This walking by the same rule I am perswaded is a phrase or expression onely signifying the doing as others doe Now because they that had the knowledg of their liberty might doe as others did and were to use it must those that had not that knowledg do so likewise The contrary is apparent for they shall sin against their consciences if they doe The like case is here The Conformist among us looks upon all and every of those things that are injoyned about Uniformity in the Church to be lawfull and he values himself for perfect in this discerning indifferent things but the Nonconformist thinks these things unlawfull and that he shall sin if he yields to them and what if herein he be weak must the weak and perfect must both these here now walk by the same rule or do as one another do Nay must there be a Rule made on purpose by Authority about these very things wherein the difference lies to force them to act both alike when one of them if they do cannot possibly act in faith and so must needs sin Nothing more contrary to what I have laid down Nothing more contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle I will add if by this Rule there be more meant then a Phrase and some Rule he will account there must be I would fain know why this Rule should be any other then that of the same Apostle otherwhere As many as walk according to this rule peace be upon them and the Israel of God And what is that Rule but Christianity it self the great Rule of the Christian Religion or Doctrine of the Gospel And what then will follow from thence The Doctor I remember reflects upon my Peaceable Design for being called an Answer to his Sermon I will undertake now upon this Supposition that that Title was as fit for my Book as this Text was for his Sermon Because we must walk according to the general rule of the Christian Religion in all things that are required of us as we attain to the knowledg thereof Therefore we must Conform to the Canons and Liturgy of the Church of England This is the Doctors Sermon upon that Text and I will tell you the Inference now of his Defender upon that Sermon Therefore must all that Conform not in the excluding themselves from Communion with the Church of England be excluded also out of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the Kingdome of Heaven By the way since I wrote this I was reading Doctor Owen and I find that he falls in with the last Interpretation of the Rule and he hath these words upon it Let the Apostles rule be produced says he with any probability of proof to be his and we are ready to subscribe and conform to it To which Doctor Stillingfleet Replies This is the Apostles rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down and not to break the peace of the Church Unto this Dr. Owen Answers The Apostles rule is not that we should go as far as we can but that so far as we have attained we must walk by the same rule I interpose here and say to the Doctor This is this must be the rule of the Apostle supposing that rule be meant as he understands it that is of the great rule of faith and love or law of the Gospel For this is part of that Rule It is part of that love we owe the Magistrate and our Conforming Brethren to go as far as we can or to come as near as we can to them But I answer then to the Dean It is part also of the same Rule to go no farther then we can Our duty of love requires the one Our duty of faith requires the other We may not doe any thing which we cannot doe in faith but we break the rule as it is the rule of faith as well as if we do not doe what we can we shall break the rule as it is the rule of love Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Now when the Dean hereupon goes on and teaches us that we must sit down and not break the peace of the Church when we can go no farther I Reply there is a breaking the peace of the Church in his sense or in òurs If we understand breaking the peace of the Church in his sense which is going from the Church to our Meetings I say he is out and that we must break the peace of the Church if this be the breaking it for this is that which is required of us in that branch of the Rule that we must go no farther then we can But when we go to private Meetings and leave the Church in this case where we suppose a man cannot act in faith or with perswasion in his conscience that it is lawful for him to go thither it is no breaking the peace of the Church in our sense but a part of our duty wee say of going no farther then we can We go as far as we can with them in holding the same Doctrine and Sacraments in acknowledging them as true Churches maintaining a Communion in love with them and doing all the good offices we can to them and when we can go no farther in this lyes our duty of going no farther then we can that we meet for worship otherwhere To assemble I say for worship is one part of the rule Not to assemble but to forbear any thing when we cannot act in faith is another part of the rule Put them both together and it comes to this that To go to other meetings when we cannot go to Church must be walking by the rule if this rule be the great rule of faith and of love out of question This I speak in the person of Doctor Owen who can and do go to Church my self but there is one eminent thing said by that eminent great man and very much accomplished Doctor We do and shall abide by this Principle p. 250. that Communion in faith and love with the administration of the same Sacraments is sufficient to preserve all Christians from the guilt of Schism though they cannot communicate together in some rites and rules of Worship and Order If the Doctor makes good this he does our work and till the Dean debates this he says nothing To return I observe in the fourth place for the Digression it self does but lead me hither that this Authour does industriously endeavour to bring the Controversie between Conformist and Nonconformist to this issue If the Church requires of us any things as necessary to her Communion which are sinful the schism is