deny themselves in a greater matter than things strangled and blood rather than give offence to their weak Brethren without troubling the Church to make any Decree about them And when this Canon was in its greatest force and vigor the Gentile Believers might have eaten the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately yea in company where no offence would be given or taken for what was the Jewish Convert concern'd what another should eat at home either of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fragments of heathenish Sacrifices presented to him by his Relations or of those things killed by suffocation But alas the Case is otherwise with us for such is the necessity of the Cross the white Garment kneeling at the Supper c. That the omission of them shall silence and suspend a learned faithful laborious Minister of Jesus Christ ab officio beneficio from his work and wages 7. The Apostles add no penalty neither pecuniary corporal or spiritual to afright men into compliance with it but contented themselves to have commanded in the Name of Christ and of his true Church they made not those necessary things the conditions of ministerial or lay-communion Significavits Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo were not then invented nor till a long time after that the Lady Churches having lost the true spiritual Sword began to arm themselves with secular power to back and set an edge upon their Dictates 8. This Decree was onely negative not positive a restraint from the use of some but not an imposition of any It was onely This you shall not Do not This you shall Do which kind of Canons are much easier than the other Conscience may better be tyed up from acting in a hundred than forced to act in one particular A negative precept restrains us from acting at any time in any Case an affirmative always obliges but obliges not always to act in every Case But things at home are much otherwise where we are commanded both what to do and what not to do and are still constrain'd to act even in those things we apprehend against the command of God either in general or special 9. Lastly It appears from the Apostle Paul's After-writings that when this Decree had a little gratified the Jewish Converts weaned them a little from their old customs and usages whereof they were so tenacious mollified their morose and rugged tempers sweeten'd and endear'd them towards the Gentiles it expired of course as to what obligation it received from man and lay among those obsolete Canons which were not regarded because antiquated for when the reason of an humane Ecclesiastical Law ceases the Law itself ceases without any formal Repeal which because some expected should have been more solemn they will not be beaten out on 't but it 's still in force Thus have we seen the Vanity of the Doctor 's Supposition which he would persuade us is the Apostles viz. That there was a necessity of one fixed and certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians Which I am not afraid to call vain being so dark that we neither know whether the Rule must be of Divine or Humane Institution what the matter of it must be nor is it proved by Reason or any Scripture argument but what is ultimately resolved into that Decree made at Jerusalem which I have now fully shewn will do him nor his Cause any service SECT III. The Dissenters Plea from Rom. 14. and whether the Doctor hath spoken Reason to invalidate their Reasonings from hence THe Reverend Dr. having toiled hard to prove the necessity of a fixed standing Rule notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians about unnecessary matters and caught nothing to reward his pains bethinks himself of an objection that Dissenters might possibly make which he thus words for them Doth not the Apostle in the 14th Chapter of his Epistle to the Rom. lay down quite another Rule viz. only of mutual forbearance in such Cases where men are unsatisfied in Conscience Yes he doth so and the same Rule he lays down in the verse before the Drs. Text That if any were otherwise minded they should wait and not Act the Church should wait and not impose but leave them to the instruction of God To which the Dr. gives an intimation of a general answer That there was a vast difference between the case as it stood then at Rome and the case as it stood at Philippi For sayes he The Church of Rome consisted most of Jews where they did not impose the necessity of keeping the Law on the gentile Christians And therefore in this case he perswades both parties to forbearance and charity But now in those Churches suppose at Philippi for one where the false Apostles made use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches there the Apostle bids them beware of them and their practices as being of a dangerous and pernicious consequence So that the preserving the peace of the Church and preventing separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his Directions and that makes him insist so much on this advise to the Philippians that whatever their attainments were they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things I have often observed that when men are pinch't with plain Scripture they use to twist and twine and turn themselves into all shapes to get out of their streights and they have no more ordinary way of evasion than to fancy some imaginary various Cases upon which a various judgment must be made and a various Rule laid down to serve the present turn which is most notorious in this answer The Apostle acted like a prudent governour says he and in such a manner as he thought did tend most to the propagation of the Gospel and good of particular Churches To which some would reply that then there are a great many in the world that have acted like fools But my general answer is that the Apostle acted upon higher Reasons than those dictated to humane prudence even the infallible guidance and immediate direction of the Holy Ghost Divine directions and the supernatural counsels of the H. Spirit are well consistent and had he only gone upon thinking as the Dr. fancies I had rather have built my faith and practice upon one of his thinkings than upon one of the Drs. full perswasions 1 Cor. 7.40 I think also that I have the Spirit of God And he was not deceived in so thinking But for a particular answer § 1. The Doctors Reason why the Jewish professors at Rome did not impose on the gentile Christians the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses is this Because we do not find they did so And is not this an ingenious course for a person of his learning to suppose the main foundation upon which he builds the variety of the case with no other proof but that he does not find it so I do not find a
means for if they be true Churches of Christ his ill meaning will not deprive them if they be not so his good meaning will not give them a power to reform themselves 2. It may be quaeried how those Churches of the nations which separated from the Roman Empire came by this great priviledge to reform and govern themselves more than others for if it be an inherent power and right all Churches have it if not who could give it to some more than others 3. We should be glad to see what right to govern and reform themselves was given by the Scripture to national Churches which yet the Doctor affirms It had been very convenient to have proved their Being from Scripture before he asserted their right and power And it will make men admire that the Scripture should give a right to such Churches as it never knew 4. And if the Churches of those nations that were incorporated into national Churches upon the decay of the Roman Empire did by consent embody for their own preservation it can hardly be believed that they design'd their own destruction that is that those particular Churches should grant a power to National Ecclesiastical Governours that would deprive them of that power that they had within themselves For as it cannot be imagined that ever any number of families would embody to set a civil Governour over them and entrust him with a power that would destroy propriety or take away paternal authority or the just power of Masters over Servants so neither can we suppose in a dream that particular Churches should agree to unite in such a national frame as should destroy the power of the Pastors and Elders of the particular assemblies so as they should be but the Curates and their Churches but Chappels of to the Cathedrals and Bishops which were prudential Creatures erected meerly by their own consent 5. To say that the Church of Macedonia would have been National if from being a Roman province it had become a Christian Kingdom is to say thus much and no more That there would have been a national Church in Macedonia but for a small inconvenience that there was none 6. And to say that the several Churches of the Lydian or proconsular Asia would have been a National Church if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same authority under the same Rules is to say just as much that is nothing or nothing to the purpose for the uniting of several Churches under one Prince who governs them by the same Authority and Rules will not make one Church 7. And what strange kind of Churches were they who having assumed their just right of Government did then own Christianity and then incorporate into one Church where had they their just right of Government before their owning of Christianity 8. And if these particular Churches of Nations had power to incorporate into one National Church then the particular Churches are of Christs institution and these National Churches only prudential contrivances for common security and then it will follow that the National could have no power but what was freely given them by the particular Churches which cannot be imagined was ever given to their own Annihilation or rendring them meerly titular and perhaps they may resume their right when as weighty reasons do appear for the resumption as ever there were for their resignation 9. And if these particular Churches have so far devolved all the intrinsick power which Christ vested them with upon the National frame and constitution that they cannot now govern themselves reform themselves or exert the power which they sometimes had and enjoyed then have they unchurched themselves and remain only so much matter without form and then it can be no schism to separate from them since all corruptions among them must be immortal when they have foolishly quitted the power of reforming themselves except the National Church pleases This word Church has made a great noise in the world and we hear every moment what wonders what miracles the Church can do Now there 's a natural curiosity in all men to see that person or thing that boasts of this wonder-working power and accordingly we would gladly be acquainted with this body called Church To satisfie our Humour the Doctor tells us That the true Notion of a Church is no more than a society of men united together for their order and government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which description I perceive marvelously edifies all that hear it For a Parliament is a society of men and of men united and united for their order and government and truly I believe according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Quare now whether the Parliament of England be not the Church of England I humbly conceive the Doctor fell asleep in the next words It 's a great mistake says he to make a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that the true Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship For never certainly was any so bereaved of common sense as to assert that this is the adaequate Notion of a Church It had been civil to have quoted some one obscure Nonconformist that in some Book which none ever read but the Doctor has asserted such an Absurdity We say that the Publick Worship of God is one of the Ends of uniting into a Church Society but not the onely End and to exclude Worship as the Doctor seems to do in his description is as bad if not worse than to exclude Discipline and Government But we agree that Worship is not the onely End there must be Government Discipline exercised in every Church what will the Doctor gain by all this but that our Parochial Churches are not true Churches And when the Doctor says further There must be some other Bond to unite Churches some other besides Worship I cannot enough admire at the absurdity of the expression seeing Worship is not the Bond but the End of Union It has been familiar with this Reverend and Learned Person having been employ'd in more important Controversies either to mistake or misrepresent the Notions and Principles of the Dissenters for so I find him Answ to several Treatises p. 180 181. laying this down as a fundamental Principle of those who separate from the Church of England as to Worship wherein the difference lies that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he has expresly commanded And at the bottom of the same Page he repeats the same thing with the same confidence wherein the Doctor treads in the steps of Archbishop Whitgift and he must tread in his steps if ever he reach Lambeth who in his answer to the Admonition does charge the Puritans to hold That nothing was lawful in Worship but what was expresly commanded in the Word of God upon no better ground than that the Admonition had said nothing is lawful in Worship but what God has
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
the same things When all the Apostle commands amounts to no more than this That we should do as he did walk as far as we have attained and press toward the mark the same mark he aimed at and leave others to him who delights in mercy more than sacrifice of his own appointment much more than in Ceremony of mans appointment and infinitely more than in Cruelty which men have invented to shew their wickedness but he has forbidden to demonstrate his holiness Now what pretty sport would this make the Reader if the Doctors Answerer were in the humor Let us all do the same things Very good Will then they do as we do not for a world Must we do as they do By what authority Ne audiantur haec verba ego dico aut tu dicis sed quid dicit Dominus No more then of this what they or we say or do but what has God the impartial Umpire determin'd between us Is what they do nearer the Rule we will do it with them If our practice come nearer the Rule are they willing to become conformable to that Rule though they be Nonconformists to that Rule which is more remote Now all the fat is in the fire and that will make a terrible flame These Reasonings the Doctor thinks to blow away with the breath of his mouth and would persuade us that we have attained already to a satisfaction of the things prescribed by their Rule and therefore ought in pursuance of the Apostle's Rule to walk up to what is so prescribed I dare say so he goes on if most of the Preachers at this day in the Separate Meetings were soberly ask'd their judgments Whether it were lawful for the People to join with us in our Publick Assemblies they would not deny it But there 's more cunning in these words than every one is aware of 1. I cannot tell what the Preachers at this day would answer if they were soberly askt the Question but I doubt they never intend to do that who put the Question A sober Question deserves a sober Answer and I have heard of a sober and compassionate Enquiry that has been answer'd with more sobriety and compassion than it deserved But the Question now is Snick or Snee Turn or Starve Conform or Hang Use the Cross or bear the Cross And so we once heard the Doctrine at a Visitation Sermon That in vain had the Parliament made Laws to turn the Presbyterians out of their Livings if men did entertain them in their Houses and at their Tables 2. If the Preachers in the Separate Meetings would thus answer the Question I should much question their wisdom for no wise man will answer a Question before he understands it But is it lawful to join in the Parochial Assemblies It may be lawful and it may not be lawful It may be so to join with some Assemblies and yet not with all In some parts of Worship not in others It may be lawful to some persons who judge it lawful supposing it so to be when yet 't is not so to others who have not attained to such a judgment 3. I have a confidence contrary to his That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were asked their judgments whether soberly or madly about the lawfulness of joining with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship or in any Exclusive to their joining with other Assemblies where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed they would flatly deny it and let these Men be brought to the Poll I question not but they will carry it and I suppose that though the Doctor preacht in the Chappel he never took the Poll of the Nonconformists in Guildhall 4. Let the Question be put Whether the People may lawfully separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members and from those Pastors under whose Ministerial conduct their own free Election has placed them to join ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches and they according to Reason and Scripture will answer in the Negative And now the Doctor has supposed what he pleases let him but now infer and surmise what he pleases too and the day is his own 1 He infers If the Ministers judge it lawful why do they not preach it in their Congregations Answ 1. They do not preach it because they do preach it that is so far as they judge it lawful they either preach it or print it or partly preach and partly print as the Doctor did by his own Discourse or Sermon 2. Some do not preach at all because Christ has found them other and better work to do than to preach up Ceremonies wherein they themselves not being satisfied are very unfit to give satisfaction to their people And if we should tell the people how far they are bound to comply with an establisht Rule at that rate the Doctor has answer'd the Question we should leave the people as wise as we found them 2 The Doctor falls a guessing what should be the Reason they do not preach this Doctrine to their people why they keep it such a secret in their breasts 1. He conjectures it may be for fear they should have none to preach to a vain conjecture since they that preach most often and open how far it 's lawful to Conform have the most numerous Congregations 2. He conjectures it may be lest they should seem to condemn themselves whil'st they preach against Separation in a Separate Congregation that cannot be it for they that are locally separated from all Congregations may consistently preach against Schismatical Separation from any 3. He conjectures it may be They fear the reproaches of the People Nor that neither for they that judge their duty so to preach so to write do it without reproach of the more temperate and fear not the reproach of them that are otherwise But why do not our Diviners and guessers at other mens corrupt intentions preach against the Notorious Crimes of those that are their hearers are there none but Dissenters there to be railed at have they none that live in open Adultery none that are Common Drunkards that for time of need could piss out a scare-fire Is it for fear they should have none to preach to or for fear they should have no Pulpit to preach in or be silenced and not permitted a Tongue to preach or is it lest they should Condemn themselves whilst they preach against the crimes of others or do they fear the reproaches of the people that they are half presbyterians semi-fanaticks parboyled puritans I think its time for men to have done with these evil surmisings we have somthing more concerns us to judge of than other mens hearts when the Doctor Preacht to his auditory in Gods Name yet he should not have stept into Gods throne but have left the thoughts and intents of the heart to him before whom they are open and Naked I shall not here call over the Doctors
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
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
Is it enough not to contradict them and that we are not obliged to believe them then an Atheist is agreed in the Article of the Godhead if he has but wit enough to keep a good tongue in his head And the Socinian is agreed in the Article of the Trinity the Papist agreed too in the Article against Transubstantiation provided always they can but bite in their sentiments nay the Protestants at Rome are agreed in the Articles of Trent the Christians in Constantinople are agreed in the Alchoran for I think they do not believe them and yet have so much wit as not to contradict them Here they torment us with new-coyned Distinctions of primary and secondary affirmative and negative Articles some more refined others of an inferiour Alloy Well then let us suppose that the negative secondary the Articles of the lower Classis are not necessary to be believed in order to salvation Are we agreed in the primary affirmative and those of the highest form I doubt not for granting that the Dissenters assent to them and the Assenters dissent or suppose on the other side the Conformists agree to them and the Nonconformists disagree 't is all a case they are in the same degree of distance from each other Now the plain truth is this The Dissenters generally agree with that book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a hundred years ago and this book some men call the Church of England but then they are far from Agreement with the leading Clergy-men of this generation who as near as we can ghess do constitute the Church And this is certain that the Rulers and Teachers of the Church do really differ from one another and therefore Dissenters must needs differ from some of them but which of them is the Church we know not If both parties the Church must necessarily be of two Religions and so this pretended agreement is not real and sincere but notional speculative and imaginary 2. 'T is further supposed that the disagreeing parties are yet agreed in the substantial parts of worship To which I must answer 1. That we know of no Commission no Charter granted by Christ to any Church to institute any parts of worship at all whether substantial integral or circumstantial or by what other devised terms they be distinguished or confounded 2. Nor have we heard of any Rule assigned by Christ to warrant them how to disterminate the substantial parts of worship from the Integral or the integral parts from the circumstantial How easie a thing were it to demolish a substantial part of worship pretending it to be only a circumstantial part or to magnifie something of their own which they have drest up like worship and then exact Conformity to it and Union in it in the Name of Christ for it 's a common observation That when they would wheadle us into Compliance then every thing is but Circumstance but when they proceed to chastise us for Nonconformity then the same things are nick-named substantials matters of moment such as without which no Church no Government no Worship can possibly breathe or subsist And yet if the matter were well searcht into perhaps we are not so clearly agreed in the substantial parts of worship An outward visible sign of an inward and invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of worship If it be instituted by Christ 't is a divine lawful part of worship and he will bless it If only appointed by man out of his great tenderness to supply the defects of Christs Institution this is also a part of worship but humane it has the matter and outward form only wanting the right efficient cause it wants that which should give it the stamp of Authentical and warrantable worship Again we see with our eyes worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Jesus and these things are made the Motive of worship if not something else perhaps no Canon enforce these but yet they are generally practised by all that hope to make earnings and good wages out of the Churches preferments Now whether the Conformists exceed the Canons or the Nonconformists fall short of them 't is still the same case and there will be the same or greater difference than if the former kept level with the Rule and the other came short of it or the latter came up to the Rule and the other transcended it The Doctor will tell us That to bow at the Name of Jesus is no more than going to Church at the Tolling of a Bell Defence p. 864. and is very facetious and pleasant with his adversary T. G. drolling about Whittingtons Bells and Meg of Westminster p. 867. nor ought any man dare to check the excellent wit of these Repartees only it had been wisht he had bestow'd a little fancy on Whittingtons Cat but I assure the Doctor in many indifferent mens judgment the Objection is not so easily dofft off for why may not an Image give warning to the eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear 'T is true indeed the Papists have preferred an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs but the question is Whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated Motive to worship If they do how shall we excuse our own Adorations if not why do we not introduce Images into our Churches as well as these other of bowing towards the Altar c which if once our Church-men shall venture upon as with equal reason they may do they 'l find them not a Bell to Toll Dissenters into the Church but thousands of Assenters out of it Besides his Illustration is very lame though witty enough for the Bell tolls out of worship to Convene the people to the worship of God but the sound of the word Jesus is used in the midst in the height in the heat of worship when the soul should be most firmly ardently intent upon its Devotion and not sit listning and watching as Whittingtons Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But if it be a duty to give external reverence to God when ever the word Jesus is named there 's more need of it in our ordinary Converses and the secular affairs of this world when those divertisements distract our minds from the actual thoughts of God which might be retrieved by this Doctrine and so that word might do the service of another Bell I mean that which in Popish Countries goes Ting tang ting tang before the Hoste when carried to the sick or dying from which all that meet it are obliged to take the hint and fall down and worship The moderation of that Canon 1640 which recommends bowing towards the East or Altar is very commendable In the practise or
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-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
which none ever yet denied is pleas'd to command our Attendance to the Word of God written in Philip. 3.16 Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things SECT II. The Text propounded The Doctor 's manner of raising his Doctrines considered his Suppositions Positions modestly examined and proved vain in themselves and useless to his present purpose THE Reverend Author having set himself this great Task to prove Conformity lawful the present Separation sinful has chosen the words of the Apostle Philip. 3.16 a little varied from the Original and something from our own Version that by that disguise it might better comply with and subserve his great design Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things A Text from which of all in the whole Bible Dissenters least expected their Conviction for who could have believed that the Apostle who in ver 15. leaves the otherwise minded to God's instruction should in the next verse assert the Churches power to make Impositions to their destruction that he should blow cold and hot with one and the same breath and mount an Ecclesiastical Canon upon a Platform of Moderation Some wonder'd where such a killing Text should be kept secret all this while that the world should never dream of never dread the least danger from it But it seems there was a necessity for it for being resolv'd not to bring down their Principles to Scripture they would try if perhaps Scripture might be brought up to their Principles so easie will it be to convert Dissenters if once they can pervert the Scriptures I cannot conjecture what should ever flatter them that this Text would become their Proselyte except it be one of these two things or both First That they met with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it a Rule or Canon not in a Military Notion for great Guns were not then invented but an Ecclesiastick acceptation for spiritual Artillery which has always done the most dreadful execution And so to walk by the same Rule must be or it 's a thousand pities but it should be to order and govern our selves by the Constitutions of a Convocation which then was not invented but in After-Ages might haply be erected But their own admired Grotius has enter'd a mischievous Caveat against this Notion which may possibly defeat all their hopes from it In MS. deest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referatur ad illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is In his Manuscript Copy the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rule is quite left out so that the expression Let us walk by the same must be referred to the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or To that and then read the words What we have attained let us walk up to the same And now I hope the sense is not so mortal to Dissenters as was threatned and comes to no more but this Unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reach'd let us walk suitably to it which one Note has utterly nay maliciously spoil'd the design of a famous Sermon and render'd the whole Discourse one great Impertinency A second thing that might give them hopes of some good from the Text was a well-sounding expression Let us mind the same things which at a blush seems to favor the great Darling of Uniformity And the Reverend Doctor to render it more plausible has quite through his whole Sermon made bold to render the Command thus Let us mind the same things excepting p. 37. where he had occasion to render it Do the same things And what man dares now question but that we are all bound to nick it to a Tag to a Pin to a Point in an uniform practice in all the minutes all the punctilio's all the nice and capillary circumstances of worship All which fine sport the bare reading of the original Text will spoil which is only this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind or let us mind that very thing Here then we find no things nor same things nor doing the same things but that we mind the very thing which the Apostle mention'd to them and practised himself ver 14. This one thing I do I press towards the mark for the prize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus And the same thing he commands others ver 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect mind that thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what you see me mind that I charge you to mind that very thing but if any of you be short in your attainments let them wait and we will wait till God reveal it to them These things would have continued exceeding plain had not some private Reasons necessitated men to render them perplexed and obscure which how the Author of this Sermon will be able to do we must now attend 1 The first step the Doctor takes to make the words his own is this We are says he to consider that an unhappy Schism or wilful Breach of the Churches Unity had begun in the Apostles times there did so and we have consider'd it and do find two things considerable 1. That a Schism and a wilful Breach are terms equivalent where there is no wilful Breach of Peace there 's no Schism To be turn'd out of the Church against my will and besides my deserts is none of my Schism to be kept out of the Church by the old turn-pikes of sinful conditions is none of my Schism Wilful Obstinacy is the formal reason of Heretical Pravity and Schismatical Levity Errare possum haereticus esse volo Invincible Ignorance may betray me to mistakes but I can chuse whether I will be an Heretick or no so may I possibly separate and judge I have just reason so to do yet will I not be a Schismatick nor shall they with all the skill they have make me one for I will still maintain a Christian frame of spirit towards those from whom I am forced to separate and separate no further than I am forced 2. The Reason of that primitive Schism is more considerable which as the Doctor informs us was upon a difference that arose concerning the necessity of keeping the law of Moses and that which made the Schism more dangerous was that the beginners of it pretended a Commission from the Apostles Let now the Reader believe me I did verily believe it would come to this at last That all the Authors of Divisions and Separations would first be imposing unnecessary doubtful unscriptural terms of Communion and then to set a good face upon a bad matter would pretend Catholick Apostolick Traditions Commissions Decretals Extravagants Canons Constitutions to justifie their own Usurpations and when once they are got into the Saddle and have the whip-hand of the poor Laity all that cannot run like Tumblers through these Hoops shall be rated as Schismaticks Now because the Doctor has
Is it not the duty of those who are not arrived at that firmness and settlement of judgment to preserve Unity and Peace without question only this will handsomly mislead us to a mistake that Unity and Peace among Christians are unattainable till they are all of one scantling in Opinion for this is the fancy that is gotten into mens heads That we must have peace with all that in order to Peace there must be Unity of judgment and uniformity in practice 2. He says the Apostle charges them by all means to preserve Unity which if we understand of Gods means is very true but we are not to use our own means such as a naughty heart would prompt to us not to prostitute our Reasons and Consciences to the lust of men but if it be possible as much as in us lies to live in Unity and Peace The Text I see is exceedingly unwilling to be dragg'd into the Doctor 's service two or three plucks therefore he will try more and if it will not come leave it as incorrigible and untractable for says he the Apostle supposes two things § 1. The necessity of one fixed certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians This the Dr. calls one of the Apostles but 't is certainly one of his own supposals For 1. We are even now told of two Rules one for them that differ from the body of Christians they lived with and here the Rule was to leave them to Gods immediate Care for farther illumination but now there is but one fixed standing Rule notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians 2. And to what end is there a fixed Rule inflexible and untreatable when dissatisfaction of Conscience about these matters will exempt any man from it or to what purpose had we a Rule for Indulgence if now it must be vacated by this certain and fixed Rule 3. If there be such a necessity of a fixed standing Rule notwithstanding mens different attainments It 's a wonder the Scripture that contains all things necessary should not speak of it neither of the matter of this Rule nor the makers of the Rule nor the Rules by which the Rule must be made 4. And if there must be one fixed Rule then perhaps The particular forms of Church-government may in time prove jure Divino 5. And what are we the nearer to satisfaction to be told of a Rule and not to be told also what that Rule is If a Scripture Rule we agree but that will not serve his turn if a Rule sent down by Tradition that would do his work but that we want evidence it was intended by the Apostle If Christ or his Apostles had made the Rule with what security of Conscience with what satisfaction of mind could we acquiesce in it but if it be a rule made by the Church governours of after times to hamper and snickle all that they can get within their clutches it will alter the case and we see no reason to give that subjection to it 6. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule about things in their own natures indifferent then when those things by their particular Circumstances are reduced ad actum exercitum what must the poor Christian do If the Rule commands him to Act and the Circumstances have made the Act sinful in that time place c. where is he now here 's a rule against his acting here 's another made by men for his acting they might as well have made one Rule more and that is to hang 'em out of the way rather than to leave them to be tormented between two contrary Rules 7. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule in circumstantial matters how comes it to pass that the Church of England has determined that she has power to alter and varie these Rules according as she sees cause And 8. Must this Rule be for the Universal Church or a National Church or a Particular Church If for the Universal Church it crosses the judgment of your National Church which says it is not necessary that Rites and Ceremonies be alike If for a National Church it must be proved that ever the Apostle understood any such Creature If for a Particular Church only then what will become of Uniformity in the face of the National Church which is the great thing for which this Rule is pretended useful and necessary 9. If there be a necessity of one fixed standing Rule notwithstanding differing attainments then either this fixed Rule must yield and bend to those weak ones that have not attained to see the lawfulness of it or those weak ones must be stretch'd and screw'd up to the fixed Rule If the former how is it fixed that in thousands of Cases every day must bend If the latter what is become of the other Rule that allows those that have not attained to stand or fall to their own Master and appoints them to be left to God's gracious instruction For 10. The Rule prescribed by the Apostle If any man be otherwise minded is the only fixed Rule in matters of indifferent nature which Rule is plain Nonsense if there must be another Rule to which all Christians must come up notwithstanding their dissatisfactions about it 11. That which exceedingly prejudices the Doctor 's Rule is that the universal current and stream of all Expositors run against him Grotius thus glosses it Etiam qui de Ritibus aliter sentiunt interim sciant Evangelii praecepta quae Divina esse persuasi sunt sibi esse sequenda i. e. They that differ in their judgments about Rituals must yet know that they are obliged to walk according to the Precepts of the Gospel which they are persuaded to be of Divine Authority So that the Rule of Scripture was that alone to which they were obliged who were not satisfied about Rites and Ceremonies So Tirinus Regulam hic intelligit à Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam He understands the Rule prescribed by Christ and his Apostles Zanchy takes it for the Rule of Brotherly Love and Holiness and in a word all conspire against the Doctor 's interpretation 12. And why could not the Apostle have spoken intelligibly had he pretended any such thing it had been easie to have said Notwithstanding what I said just now of leaving those that have not attained so far as you and I to God's instruction yet my will is that you all walk by one fixed and standing Rule whether you have attained or no 't is no great matter I 'll not indulge these peevish tender Consciences Let 'em Conform or the Prelates and their Chancellors shall admonish them admonish them admonish them thrice with one breath and then Excommunicate and deliver them up to the Devil To conclude the Doctor had much better have employed his Talents in demonstrating 1. That by a Rule is meant a fixed Rule about things indifferent or dubious 2. That the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy in Convocation Synod or
Council must be the fixers of this Rule 3. That all are bound notwithstanding their various measures of light to conform to this Rule 4. That the Governors of one Church or many Churches may make Rules for other Churches and force them upon their Consciences to be observed by Divine Right instead of which and much more he has to do he has supposed what he can never demonstrate But that we shall soon see for now he draws apace towards Argument 1. He tells us That the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be a continuation of the former allusion to a Race for the first thing the Greeks were wont to do as to their Exercises was to circumscribe the bounds wherein they were to be performed now that which fixed and determined those limits was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks c. Had it not been for these Olympic and other Games and Exercises I cannot tell what our modern Criticks would have done for work but what does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 allude to is that term also applied to a Race No! it 's borrowed from the grave marching of an Army not the furious running of a Foot-match 'T is verbum militare a term of Art in the Tactics sayes Zanchy But grant that also for I 'll yield as much as reasonably he can desire for peace-sake still the Question will recur what that Rule is by which we must either soberly walk or swiftly run And there are two things that chiefly stand in competition 1. A Rule of Charity and mutual forbearance under different practices suitable to their different judgments 2. A Rule of Severity which determines to one uniform practice notwithstanding the diversity of judgment so that all must be drawn hang'd and quarter'd that come not up to this Rule 'T is the latter the Doctor now so stifly contends for and none can blame him if he be for that Rule because such a Rule would be for him if he could get it which is the best Reason he can produce for this Rule II. He pleads therefore it cannot be the Rule of Charity because the Apostle had spoken to that just before but rather think I it must be that same Rule because the Apostle had spoken of it just before and therefore he calls it the same Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that very Rule he had just before mention'd for they that have attained to the highest measure of knowledge are not exempted from the Rule of Charity towards those that have less knowledge and it 's new Grammar as well as new Divinity that a Relative cannot agree with his Antecedent because the Antecedent went before and will destroy the surest way of interpreting Scripture from the Coherence and Context if we must conceive there can be no reference of what follows after to that which immediately went before III. The Doctor yet argues farther That the Philippians understood already what Rules he had given them when a Church was first formed among them and therefore when he mentions a Rule without declaring what it was we have reason to believe it was such a Rule which they well knew he had given them before Well then 't is confessed that the Rule the Apostle exhorts them to walk by was such a Rule as he had before given them we are assured he had given them a Rule concerning all necessary things we are not assured he had given them any Rules for unnecessary things if the Doctor can let him produce the Rule and we are ready to Conform to it Apocryphal Rules about new Rites new Ceremonies new Churches new Government we find none and therefore must be contented with what he had given them before viz. that Rule by which the New Creature is guided and governed Gal. 6.16 As many as walk according to this Rule peace be on them But we have got another Rule and they that walk not according to that Rule though conscientiously and strictly walking by the other no peace shall be on them no peace shall be with them but wrath and vengeance Fire and Fagot but that time is short IV. The Doctor yet further argues from 1 Cor. 11.34 The rest will I set in order when I come And 1 Cor. 7.17 As God hath distributed to every man as the Lord hath called every one so let him walk and so ordain I in all the Churches Here then we have an Order an Act or an Ordinance of the Apostle a fixt standing Rule to which all are bound to Conform themselves but what now if they who call themselves the Apostles Successors will not suffer us to Conform to the Rule The Apostles Rule is Let every one walk as God has distributed to him The modern Rule is Let every one walk farther and faster than God has distributed to him Well there 's no remedy for sayes the Doctor This shews the Apostles did not leave all persons to act as they judg'd fit No I believe they did not but as God by his Apostles thought fit not by Traditions but Scripture Revelations not by the Flesh but by the Spirit not by their own Wills or the Wills of men but by and after the Will of God But the Apostles made Rules determining their practice No doubt of that but was it about Mint Anise and Cummin or the great and weighty things of the Law V. Still he proceeds That although Men might pretend that the things were not in themselves necessary that they were scrupled by some persons and therefore were not fit to be imposed upon any yet he does not find that the Apostles forbore to give Rules in such cases and to oblige Christians to observe them To which I say 1. That I do not find that the Apostles did attempt to give Rules in such Cases other than the Rule of Charity of kindness of mutual forbearing one another the Doctor does not find they did forbear Must we believe they did every thing we do not find they did forbear Really I do not find they did forbear preaching against Liturgies the Sign of the Cross Archbishops and Bishops Archdeacons and Deans will he allow me to conclude that therefore he did preach against them what wild work would an Argument from Authority negatively in matters of Fact make with our Ceremonies And what a Hubbub had it raised if such Reasonings were to be found in the Sermons of the Dissenters 2. Let him therefore shew plainly That the Apostles interposed their Authority to impose upon the Disciples any one thing which was not antecedently some way or other necessary to that Imposition and never stand casting a mist before our eyes by saying the Apostles gave Rules in such Cases when the Cases are vastly different from those that are in debate amongst us VI. He goes on What the Apostle thus imposed was not on the meer authority of Apostles but as Church-Governors whose business it is to take care of their preservation Not as Apostles
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
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-Parish-Churches where they lived in the Liturgy and Sacraments or that 20 Reasons were brought in to prove that it is a duty in some persons to join with some Parish-Churches three times a year in the Lord's Supper For 1. If they consider'd how far it was lawful I hope they spoke something at least to the Question and left it not as they found it a Question forsaken of its Answer which ought to be individual Companions 2. They met to consider what was lawful for or a duty to themselves not for or to others in whose names they had no commission to hear and determine the Question 3. If they inquired how far it was lawful or a duty they supposed that it was not unlimitedly so for to what end should they inquire how far they might go if they had once thought they could go through 4. And the design of the twenty reasons abundantly proves it for it was but some persons whose duty it was adjudged to be to receive the Sacrament thrice a year and it was but in some parishes neither where those some persons might communicate so that there might be some others many others possibly the greatest number whose duty it was not so to joyn and other some parishes many others and and possibly the greatest number with whom it was not lawful or not a duty to hold Communion The Case then is this a Christian may be placed in such circumstances that he may receive the Sacrament from some persons who will indulge him in the questionable Terms in such places where he cannot enjoy that ordinance at all if he do not receive it there and thus with many restrictions limitations distinctions and clauses a Case may be put wherein the twenty reasons may conclude some thing but yet nothing to the Doctors advantage But what effect what operation had these twenty reasons upon the Company Why none of them seemed to dissent that is they did not enter their several protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them They came to consider of the lawfulness of Communion and they would go away and consider of the strength of the Reasons propounded to convince them I see it 's more dangerous than I had thought it to have been to come into the parish Churches lest naked presence and silent appearing in those assemblies should be brought against us as an interpretative approbation of whatsoever is there done or spoken The Doctor adds that they had such another meeting after the plague and fire and if it were but such another there was no great harm in 't at which they agreed that communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good for which he quotes Plea for Peace p. 240. But here the Doctor is tardy by his favour and wrongs his Relator manifestly by nibbling off the last and most considerable words of the sentence viz. when it would do no more harm than good And we believe it lawful in that Case to hold Communion with any Church in the world so that now we must come to another enquiry and start a new question when there are one or two already up before the Dogs viz. whether Communion with the Parish-Churches will do more harm than good which it
will certainly do 1. When such Communion shall persuade the 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
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
the Churches mouth nor be tryed by her Rules when they come to be tryed for their All. And by this time we see and so may the Doctor how much better it had been for him to have follow'd his Text and not to gather Doctrines thence which never grew there nor to have so confidently asserted pag. 9. The necessity of one fixed and certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments amongst Christians unless he could have proved it more solidly of such Rules as Churches make not contained in the general Rules of the Scripture 3. Is the Doctor in good earnest On is this Rhetorick pro formâ tantùm Will worshiping God by other Rules and in other modes and manners than a Church requires make such Worship Schismatical then mark the fatal consequences 1. It 's then apparent that most of the Parochial Churches in England are Schismatical Churches for do not they worship by other Rules and in other manner than the Church prescribes where is the prescribed Rule for singing Psalms in Hopkins's and Sternhold's Metre which yet is universally practised in most Parishes that I have heard of The Title Page of the Common-Prayer-Book tells us there are contained in it the Psalms pointed as they are to be said or sung but what Parishes sing according to those Interpunctations The end of the Book tells us Here the Morning Prayer is ended and Here the Evening Prayer is ended And yet when the Church has ended the Parishes begin and set up their Notes in those Metrical Versions Again what Rule have we for bowing towards the Altar the East the Church And yet these modes and manners of worshiping God are commonly practised Are all those Parish-Churches which are got into the garb and equipage of the Cathedrals with Organs Choristers and the like Schismatical or no If not Then to worship God in another mode than what is prescribed by the Church may not be Schismatical Worship but if it be so then are those Churches Schismatical and how then can it be Schism to separate from them 2. It will follow also there 's no remedy for it that either the Parochial Churches or the Cathedral are Schismatical Churches for the former are as much below the splendor of the latter as the latter are above the rusticity of the former If there be two Rules one for the mode of Cathedral Worship another for that of the private Parishes let them but allow half as much diversity to the Dissenters and all the pother and dust and clamor of Schism will be over I would therefore propound one modest Question Why is this practice of singing Hopkins's Metre so universally practised and yet so little or not at all preach'd against in the Pulpits Is it for fear they should have none left to preach to That is not to be imagined of conscientious and mortified men Though it 's true English Men they say are like your Irish Cows that will not give down their milk kindly except their Calves stand by or however to humor them the Calves skin stuft with straw Or is it lest they should seem to condemn themselves that make Dissenters Schismaticks for that very thing which they themselves practise This looks somewhat oddly I confess and the tenderness of a man's mind in such a case may out of meer shame-facedness keep him from declaring a Truth which flies in his face while he speaks it What can it then be Do they fear the reproaches of the People I will not determine but by asking the Doctor his own Question How comes it to be Schismatical in some and lawful in others Have they two weights and measures Are the Dissenters Schismaticks for worshiping God by other Rules and the parish-Parish-Churches pious Sons who do the same thing Or are they resolved that all the World shall be Schismaticks besides themselves But the Doctor has got a Notion in his head that these men are unwilling to confess a Separation and he gives us the reason of it because they have formerly condemned it with great severity and yet they do the same things for which they charg'd others as guilty of a sinful Separation A heavy Charge and wants nothing but the old thing Proof Is it not a wise course to pretend to give a Reason of nothing To assign a cause of a thing before it 's clear that there is such a thing in the World To tell us why they are unwilling before it appears they are unwilling So far as they do Separate they are willing to confess it and would he have them confess more than the Truth against themselves They own that they do not locally hold Communion with all Parishes at all times in all the parts of Worship and this they are ready to prove is not Schism is not sinful They avow that they do hold Communion with some Parishes in some Ordinances at some times and this they say will avoid the charge of a total Separation They say they never condemned that for Separation in others which they practise themselves How will he evince this Why he has ransacked and rumaged all the Papers of Accommodation that past between the Presbyterians and the Independents and there he finds That the Assembly of Divines urged their dissenting Brethren to comply with their Rules of Church-Government and charged them with Schism if they did it not Well what then Were the Rules proposed by the Assembly the same with these that are urged now Were they of the same nature doubtfulness difficulty What if it was not the Assembly but a Committee a Sub-Committee or a Subter-Sub-Committee of the Assembly What if it was not the final judgment of the Assembly but the private opinion of that Sub-Committee And what if we be no ways obliged to abide by their judgments or opinions And what if the Presbyterians were too rigid the other too stiff in their Sentiments must the Church only imitate them in their weaknesses when they had so many excellencies which deserved imitation And lastly what if the Doctor has misreported the matter of Fact as there laid down Any of these much more all these will render the most plausible part of his Sermon preached or his Discourse printed manifestly impertinent All which particulars and many more I shall make out from those very Papers 1 The Order of the Lords and Commons Die Jovis Novemb. 6. 1645 which Ordered the Committee to Act gives them these Instructions That they should take into consideration the differences in Opinions of the Members of the Assembly in point of Church-Government and to endeavour an Union if it be possible And in case that cannot be done to endeavour to find out some way how far tender Consciences who cannot in all things submit to the Common Rule which shall be Established may be born with according to the word Here we see a provision designed for Tender Consciences and that before the Rule was Establisht in case an Union could not be procured which had
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-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
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