such thing in all the Cities of Creet in his time And if we look over the antient Canons of the Church we shall find two things very plain in them 1. That the notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocese or such a number of Christians as were under the inspection of a Bishop 2. That those Presbyters who rejected the Authority of their Bishop or affected separate meetings where no fault could be found with the Doctrine of a Church were condemned of Schism So the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus who withdrew from the publick Congregations on pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia were condemned by the Council at Gangrae so were those who separated from their Bishops though otherwise never so orthodox by the Council at Constantinople and the Council at Carthage wherein before St. Cyprian had so justly complained of the Schism of Felicissimus and his Brethren who on pretence of some disorders in the Church of Carthage had withdrawn to the Mountains and there laid the Foundation of the Novatian Schism But when false Doctrine was imposed on Churches as by the Arian Bishops at Antioch then the people were excused in their separation so at Rome when Felix was made Bishop and at Sirmium when Photinus published his Heresie but I do not remember one instance in Antiquity wherein separation from Orthodox Bishops and setting up Meetings without their Authority and against their consent was acquitted from the sin of Schism Indeed some Bishops have sometimes refused Communion with others upon great misdemeanors as Theognostus and St. Martin with the Ithacian party on the account of the death of Priscillian but this doth not at all reach to the case of Presbyters separating from Bishops with whom they agree in the same Faith The followers of St. Chrysostom did I confess continue their separate Meetings after his banishment and the coming in of Arsacius but although they withdrew in his time being unsatisfied in the manner of his choice yet when Atticus restored the name of St. Chrysostom to the Diptychs of the Church they returned to communion with their Bishop as St. Chrysostom himself advised them as appears by Palladius which is far from justifying the wilfull separation of Presbyters and People from the Communion of their Bishops when they do agree in the same Faith 2. But suppose the first Churches were barely congregational by reason of the small number of Believers at that time yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the Peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant-infant-state They do not think it necessary to reduce the first Community of Goods which was far more certainly practised than Congregational Churches they do not think it necessary to wash one anothers feet although Christ did it and bad his Disciples do as he did they believe that the first civil Government was appointed by God himself over 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-Civil-state It is very uncertain whether the Primitive form were such as they fancy if it were it is more uncertain whether it were not so from the circumstances of the times than from any institution of Christ but it is most certainly our duty to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians and it is impossible so to do if men break all Orders in pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform It is a great fault among some who pretend to great niceness in some positive Duties that they have so little regard to comparative Duties For that which may be a duty in one case when it comes to thwart a greater Duty may be none This Doctrine we learn from our blessed Saviour in the case of the obligation of the Sabbath which he makes to yield to duties of Mercy And can we think that a Duty lying upon us which in our circumstances makes a far greater Duty impracticable Is there any thing Christ and his Apostles have charged more upon the Consciences of all Christians than studying to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians This is that we must follow after even when it seems to fly from us this is that we must apply our minds to and think it our honour to promote this is that which the most perfect Christians are the most zealous for this is that for the sake of which we are commanded to practise meekness humility patience self-denial and submission to Governours And after all this can we imagine the attaining of such an end should depend upon mens conjectures whether five thousand Christians in times of persecution could make one Assembly for Worship Or whether all the Christians in Ephesus or Corinth made but one Congregation On what terms can we ever hope for Peace in the Church if such Notions as these be ground enough to disturb it What stop can be put to Schisms and Separations if such pretences as these be sufficient to justifie them Men may please themselves in talking of preserving Peace and Love under separate Communions but our own sad experience shews the contrary for as nothing tends more to unite mens hearts than joyning together in the same Prayers and Sacraments so nothing doth more alienate mens affections than withdrawing from each other into separate Congregations Which tempts some to spiritual Pride and scorn and contempt of others as of a more carnal and worldly Church than themselves and provokes others to lay open the follies and indiscretions and immoralities of those who pretend to so much Purity and Spirituality above their Brethren 2. Others confess that to live in a state of separation from such Churches as many at least of ours are were a sin for they say that causeless renouncing Communion with true Churches is Schism especially if it be joyned with setting up Anti-Churches unwarrantably against them but this they deny that they do 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 This is not dealing with us with that fairness and ingenuity which our former Brethren used for they avow the fact of separation but deny it to be sinful these owning it to be sinful have no other refuge left but to deny the fact which is evident to all Persons For do they not do the very same things and in the same manner that the others do how comes it then to be separation in some and not in others They are very unwilling to confess a separation because they have formerly condemned it with great severity and yet they do the same things for which they charged others as guilty of a
such cases and bind Christians to observe them as we find in that famous decree made upon great deliberation in a Council of the Apostles at Ierusalem wherein they determined those things which they knew were then scrupled and continued so to be afterwards whereever the Judaizing Christians prevailed But notwithstanding all their dissatisfaction the Apostles continued the same Rule and S. Paul here requires the most forward Christians to mind their Rule and to preserve Peace and Unity among themselves But doth not S. Paul in the 14th Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans lay down quite another Rule viz. only of mutual forbearance in such cases where men are unsatisfied in conscience I answer that the Apostle did act like a prudent Governour and in such a manner as he thought did most tend to the propagation of the Gospel and the good of particular Churches In some Churches that consisted most of Iews as the Church of Rome at this time did and where they did not impose the necessity of keeping the Law on the Gentile Christians as we do not find they did at Rome the Apostle was willing to have the Law buried as decently and with as little noise as might be and therefore in this case he perswades both parties to Forbearance and Charity in avoiding the judging and censuring one another since they had an equal regard to the honour of God in what they did But in those Churches where the false Apostles made use of this pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches and to separate the Communion of Christians 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 so much insist on this advice to the Philippians that whatever their attainments in Christianity were they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things II. We take notice of the Duty and obligation that lies upon the best Christians to walk by the same Rule to mind the same things From whence arise two very considerable Enquiries 1. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an established Rule and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in 2. What is to be done if men cannot come up to that Rule For the Apostle speaks only of such as have attained so far Whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule 1. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an established Rule and to preserve the Peace of the Church we live in This I think the more necessary to be spoken to because I cannot perswade my self that so many scrupulous and conscientious men as are at this day among us would live so many years in a known sin i. e. in a state of Separation from the Communion of a Church which in Conscience they thought themselves obliged to communicate with It must be certainly some great mistake in their judgements must lead them to this for I am by no means willing to impute it to passion and evil designs and out of the hearty desire I have if possible to give satisfaction in this matter I shall endeavour to search to the bottom of this dangerous mistake to which we owe so much of our present distractions and fears But for the better preventing all mis-understanding the design of my Discourse I desire it may be considered 1. That I speak not of the Separation or distinct Communion of whole Churches from each other which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to Govern and Reform themselves By whole Churches I mean 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 Order and Government Such as the Church of Macedonia would have been if from being a Roman Province it had become a Christian Kingdom and the Churches of Thessalonica Philippi and the rest had united together And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and Governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Just as several Families uniting make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent Power but it would make strange confusion in the world to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and rules of Worship For the true notion of a Church is no more than of a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion And it is a great mistake to make the notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that the adequate notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the name of Churches to particular Congregations Whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved assoon as the Congregation is broken up but if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other bond that unites them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church And if there be one Catholick Church consisting of multitudes of particular Churches consenting in one Faith then why may there not be one National Church from the consent in the same Articles of Religion and the same Rules of Government and Order of Worship Nay If it be mutual consent and agreement which makes a Church then why may not National Societies agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation For is not the Kingdom of France as truly a Kingdom consisting of so many Provinces as the Kingdom of Ivetot once was in Normandy which consisted of a very small territory Among the Athenians from whom the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into the Christian Church it was taken for such an Assembly which had the Power of Governing and determining matters of Religion as well as the affairs of State For the Senate of 500 being distributed into fifties according to the number of the Tribes which succeeded by course through the year and was then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one of these had 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regular Assemblies in the last of which an account of the Sacrifices was taken and of other matters which concerned Religion as in the Comitia Calata at Rome From whence we may observe that it was not the meeting of one of
the single Tribes was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the General Meeting of the Magistrates of the whole City and the People together And in this sense I shall shew afterwards the word was used in the first Ages of the Christian Church as it comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and the People of whole Cities and why many of these Cities being united under one Civil Government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one National Church I cannot understand Which makes me wonder at those who say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England in short we mean that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and rules of Divine Worship And every Church thus constituted we do assert to have a just Right of Governing it self and of reforming Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship On which Ground we are acquitted from the imputation of Schism in the separation from the Roman Church for we only resume our just Rights as the Brittish Nation did as to Civil Government upon the Ruine of the Roman Empire 2. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the Function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-communion i. e. those which are necessary for all Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship I will not say there hath been a great deal of Art used to confound these two and it is easie to discern to what purpose it is but I dare say the Peoples not understanding the difference of these two Cases hath been a great occasion of the present Separation For in the Judgement of some of the most impartial men of the Dissenters at this day although they think the case of the Ministers very hard on the account of Subscriptions and Declarations required of them yet they confess very little is to be said on the behalf of the People from whom none of those things are required So that the People are condemned in their Separation by their own Teachers but how they can preach lawfully to a People who commit a fault in hearing them I do not understand 3. I do not confound bare suspending Communion in some particular Rites which persons do modestly scruple and using it in what they judge to be lawful with either total or at least ordinary forbearance of Communion in what they judge to be lawful and proceeding to the forming of Separate Congregations i. e. under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the established Religion allows And this is the present case of Separation which I intend to consider and to make the sinfulness and mischief of it appear But that I may do it more convincingly I will not make the difference wider than it is but lay down impartially the state of the present Controversie between us and our dissenting Brethren about Communion with our Churches 1. They unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of our Church and can freely subscribe to all the Doctrinal Articles nay they profess greater zeal for many of them than say they some of our own Preachers do Well then The case is vastly different as to their separation from us and our separation from the Church of Rome for we declare if there were nothing else amiss among them their Doctrines are such as we can never give our assent to 2. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these their Communion is required They do not deny that we have all the essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments and an implicite Covenant between Pastors and People And some of the most eminent of the Congregational way have declared that they look upon it as an unjust calumny cast upon them that they look on our Churches as no true Churches 3. Many of them declare that they hold communion with our Churches to be lawful Yea we are told in Print by one then present that A. D. 1663. divers of their Preachers in London met to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish-Churches where they lived in the Liturgy and Sacraments and that the Relator brought in twenty Reasons to prove that it is a duty to some to join with some Parish-Churches three times a year in the Lords Supper after he had not only proved it lawful to use a form of Prayer and to join in the use of our Liturgy but in the participation of the Sacrament with us and no one of the Brethren he adds seemed to dissent but to take the Reasons to be valid Such another meeting we are told they had after the Plague and Fire at which they agreed that Communion with our Churches was in it self lawful and good Who could have imagined otherwise than that after the weight of so many Reasons and such a general consent among them they should have all joyned with us in what themselves judged to be lawful and in many cases a duty But instead of this we have rather since that time found them more inclinable to courses of separation filling the people with greater prejudices against our Communion and gathering them into fixed and separate Congregations which have proceeded to the choice of new Pastors upon the death of old ones and except some very few scarce any either of their Preachers or People here come ordinarily to the publick Congregations And this is that which at present we lament as a thing which unavoidably tends to our common ruine if not in time prevented for by this means the hearts of the People are alienated from each other who apprehend the differences to be much greater than their Teachers will allow when they are put to declare their minds and our common enemies take as much advantage from our differences as if they were really far greater than they are But you may ask what then are the grounds of the present Separation for that there is such a thing is discernible by all but what the reasons of it are is hard to understand after these concessions yet it is not conceivable that conscientious men can in such a juncture of affairs persist in so obstinate and destructive a course of separation unless they had something at last fit to answer the twenty Reasons of their own Brethren against it I have endeavoured to give my self satisfaction in a matter of so great moment to the Peace and Preservation of this Church and consequently of the Protestant Religion among us which I never expect to see survive the destruction of the Church of England And the utmost I can find in the best Writers of the several Parties amounts to these two things 1. That although they are in a state of separation from our Church yet this separation
is no sin 2. That a State of Separation would be a sin but notwithstanding their meeting in different places yet they are not in a state of Separation And herein lies the whole strength of the several Pleas at this day made use of to justifie the Separate Congregations both which I shall now examine 1. Some plead that it is true they have distinct and separate Communions from us but it is no sin or culpable separation so to have For say they Our Lord Christ instituted only Congregational Churches or particular Assemblies 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 to this doctrine others of late approach so near that they tell us that to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without Gods 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 or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which must suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawful and insupportable Which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert But to clear the practice of Separation from being a sin on this account two things are necessary to be done 1. To prove that a Christian hath no obligation to external Communion beyond a Congregational Church 2. That it is lawful to break off Communion with other Churches to set up a particular independent Church 1. That a Christian hath no obligation to external Communion beyond a particular Congregational Church They do not deny that men by Baptism are admitted into the Catholick visible Church as Members of it and that there ought to be a sort of Communion by mutual Love among all that belong to this Body and to do them Right they declare that they look upon the Church of England or the Generality of the Nation professing Christianity to be as sound and healthful a part of the Catholick Church as any in the World But then they say Communion in ordinances must be only in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were only particular and Congregational Churches Granting this to be true how doth it hence appear not to be a sin to separate from our Parochial Churches which according to their own concessions have all the Essentials of true Churches And what Ground can they have to separate and divide those Churches which for all that we can see are of the same nature with the Churches planted by the Apostles at Corinth Philippi or Thessalonica But I must needs say further I have never yet seen any tolerable proof that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a Separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that assoon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an independent Authority It is very strange that those who contend so much for the Scriptures being a perfect Rule of all things pertaining to Worship and Discipline should be able to produce nothing in so necessary a Point If that of which we read the clearest instances in Scripture must be the Standard of all future Ages much more might be said for limiting Churches to private families than to particular Congregations For do we not read of the Church that was in the House of Priscilla and Aquila at Rome of the Church that was in the House of Nymphas at Colosse and in the House of Philemon at Laodicea Why then should not Churches be reduced to particular Families when by that means they may fully enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences and avoid the scandal of breaking the Laws But if notwithstanding such plain examples men will extend Churches to Congregations of many Families why may not others extend Churches to those Societies which consist of many Congregations Especially considering that the Apostles when they instituted Churches did appoint such Officers in them as had not barely a respect to those already converted but to as many as by their means should be added to the Church as Clemens affirms in his Epistle The Apostles saith he went about in Cities and Countries preaching the Gospel and appointed their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them for Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those who were to believe From hence the number of Converts were looked on as an accession to the Original Church and were under the care and Government of the Bishop and Presbyters who were first settled there For although when the Churches increased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptistry and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a great stranger to the History of the Church can ever call it in question I am sure Calvin a person of great and deserved reputation among our Brethren looks upon this as a matter out of dispute among learned men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a whole City but of the adjacent Country too and the contrary opinion is a very novel and late fancy of some among us and hath not age enough to plead a Prescription It is true after some time in the greater Cities they had distinct places allotted and Presbyters fixed among them and such allotments were called Titles at Rome and Laurae at Alexandria and Parishes in other places but these were never thought then to be new Churches or to have any independent Government in themselves but were all in subjection to the Bishop and his College of Presbyters of which multitudes of examples might be brought from most authentick Testimonies of Antiquity if a thing so evident needed any proof at all And yet this distribution even in Cities was so uncommon in those elder times that Epiphanius takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria and therefore it is probably supposed there was no
and yet think themselves bound in Conscience to do them I do not hence infer that the pretence of Conscience is not to be regarded because it may be abused to so ill purposes for no man that hath any Conscience will speak against the Power of it and he that declares against it hath no reason to be regarded in what he saith But that which ought to be inferred from hence is that men ought not to rest satisfied with the present dictates of their Consciences for notwithstanding them they may commit very great sins I am afraid the common mistating the Case of an Erroneous Conscience hath done a great deal of Mischief to conscientious men and betray'd them into great security while they are assured they do act according to their Consciences For the question is generally put How far an Erroneous Conscience doth oblige And when men hear that they must not act against their Consciences though they be mistaken they think themselves safe enough and enquire no further But if they would consider that no mans Conscience alters the nature of Good and Evil in things that what God hath made a Duty or a Sin remains so whatever a mans Conscience doth judge concerning them that no mans Conscience can strictly oblige him either to omit a Duty or to commit a sin the utmost Resolution of the Case comes to this That a man may be so perplexed and entangled by an erroneous Conscience that he may be under a necessity of sinning if he acts either with or against it Not that God ever puts a man under the necessity of sinning for then it would be no sin to him if it were unavoidable but that by their own neglect and carelesness without looking after due information and running on with violent Prejudices which was the case of S. Paul and the Iews and I wish it were not of many Christians they may make false and rash judgements of things and so sin either in doing or not doing what their Consciences tell them they are bound to do The most material Question then in the case of an erroneous Conscience is What Error of Conscience doth excuse a man from Sin in following the Dictates of it For if the Error be wholly involuntary i. e. if it be caused by invincible Ignorance or after using the best means for due information of his Conscience though the Act may be a fault in it self yet it shall not be imputed to him as a Sin because it wanted the consent of the Mind by which the Will is determined but if men fall into Wilful Errors of Conscience i. e. if they form their Iudgements rather by Prejudice and Passion and Interest than from the Laws of God or just Rules of Conscience if they do not examine things fairly on both sides praying for divine direction if they have not patience to hear any thing against their opinion but run on blindly and furiously they may in so doing Act according to their Consciences and yet they may be in as great danger of committing heinous sins as S. Paul and the Iews were Thus if men through the Power of an Erroneous Conscience may think themselves bound to make Schisms and Divisions in the Church to disobey Laws and to break in pieces the Communion of that Church which they are or ought to be members of they may satisfie themselves that they pursue their Consciences and yet for want of due care of informing themselves and judging aright those very Actions may be Wilful and Damnable Sins Nothing now remains but to make Application of what hath been said to our own Case And that shall be to two sorts of Persons 1. to those who continue in the Communion of our Church 2. to those who dissent from it I. To those who continue in the Communion of our Church Let us walk by the same Rule and mind the same things Let us study the Unity and Peace and thereby the Honour and Safety of it While we keep to one Rule all People know what it is to be of our Church if men set up their own fancies above the Rule they charge it with imperfection if they do not obey the Rule they make themselves wiser than those that made it It hath not been either the Doctrine or Rules of our Church which have ever given advantage to the Enemies of it but the indiscretion of some in going beyond them and the inconstancy of others in not holding to them Such is the Purity of its Doctrine such the Loyalty of its Principles such the Wisdom and Order and Piety of its Devotions that none who are true Friends to any of these can be enemies to it Let us take heed we do not give too much occasion to our enemies to think the worse of our Church for our sakes It is easie to observe that most quarrels relating to Constitutions and Frames of Government are more against Person than things when they are unsatisfied with their management then they blame the Government but if themselves were in place or those they love and esteem then the Government is a good thing if it be in good mens hands Thus do mens judgements vary as their interests do And so as to Churches we find Uniformity and Order condemned as Tyrannical till men come into Power themselves and then the very same things and arguments are used and thought very good and substantial which before were weak and sophistical Those who speak now most against the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion had ten substantial Reasons for it when they thought the Magistrate on their own side Those who now plead for Toleration did once think it the Mother of Confusion the Nurse of Atheism the inlet of Popery the common Sink of all Errors and Heresies But if there be not much to be said against the Churches Constitution then they are ready to lay load upon the Persons of the Governours and Members of it and thence pretend to a necessity of Separation for a purer Communion Let us endeavour to remove this objection not by recrimination which is too easie in such cases but by living suitably to our holy Religion by reforming our own lives and redressing what in us lies the Scandals and Disorders of others Let us by the innocency and unblameableness of our lives the life and constancy of our devotions the meekness and gentleness of our behaviour in our own Cause our Zeal and Courage in Gods add a lustre to our Religion and bring others to a Love of our Church II. To those who dissent from our Communion Whether they hear or whether they will forbear I cannot dismiss this subject without offering some things to them 1. By way of Consideration 2. By way of Advice 1. I shall offer these things to their Consideration 1. Let them consider How many things must be born with in the Constitution of a Church which cannot be expected in this World to be without Spot or
Wrinkle And if men will set themselves only to find faults it is impossible in this state of things they should ever be pleased And if they separate where they see any thing amiss they must follow his example who pursued this Principle so far till he withdrew from all Society lest he should communicate with them in their Sin in which condition he continued till his Children lay dead in the house and he became utterly unable to help himself and because no humane inventions were to be allowed about the worship of God he had cut out of his Bible the Contents of the Chapters and Titles of the Leaves and so left the bare Text without Binding or Covers This is the Case the rigid and impracticable principles of some would bring our Churches to by cutting off all Rules of Order and Decency as encroachments on the Institutions of Christ. 2. I desire them to consider how impossible it is to give satisfaction to all and how many things must be allowed a favourable interpretation in publick Constitutions and General Laws which it is hardly possible so to frame but there will be room left for Cavils and Exceptions Yea when the wisest and best men have done their utmost some of themselves confess there may be dissatisfaction still and if Christian Humility Charity and Discretion will then advise persons to acquiesce in their private security and freedom and not to unsettle the publick Order for their private satisfaction Why should not men practise the same vertues themselves which they do confess will be necessary for some at last Wise and Good men will consider the difficulties that always attend publick Establishments and have that esteem for Peace and Order that they will bear with anything tolerable for the sake of it It is a very hard case with a Church when men shall set their Wits to strain every thing to the worst sense to stretch Laws beyond the intention and design of them to gather together all the doubtful and obscure passages in Calendars Translations c. and will not distinguish between their approbation of the Use and of the Choice of things for upon such terms as these men think to justifie the present Divisions I much question whether if they proceed in such a manner they can hold Communion with any Church in the Christian world If men be disposed to find faults no Church can be pure enough for something will be amiss either in Doctrine or Discipline or Ceremonies or Manners but if they be disposed to Peace and Union then Charity will cover a multitude of failing and then according to S. Paul's advice with all lowliness and meekness with long-suffering forbearing one another in Love they will be endeavouring to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace And without the practice of the former Vertues no Metaphysical Discourses of Unity will signifie any thing to the Churches Peace 3. They would do well to consider How Separation of the People from our Churches comes to be more lawful now than in the days of our Fathers It hath been often and evidently proved that the most sober and learned Non-conformists of former times notwithstanding their scruples in some points yet utterly condemned Separation from our Churches as unlawful And they looked upon this not as a meer common sin of humane infirmity but as a wilful and dangerous sin in that it is so far from tending to the overthrow of Antichrist that it upholds and maintains him calling it a renting the Church the disgrace of Religion the advancement of Pride Schism and Contention the Offence of the Weak the grief of the Godly who be better settled the hardening of the Wicked and the recovery or rising again of Antichristianism nay even persecuting the Lord Iesus in his Hoast which they revile in his ordinances which they dishonour and in his Servants whose footsteps they slander whose Graces they despise whose Office they trample upon with disdain These are the very words of one of the most learned and judicious Nonconformists before the Wars And surely the mischiefs that followed after could not make Separation to appear less odious Was it a sin was it such a sin then And is it none now Either our Brethren at this day do believe it to be a Sin for the People to separate or they do not If not it must either be that there are new and harder terms of Communion which were not then which is so far from being true that they confess them to be rather easier for the People or it must be that they are gone off from the peaceable principles of their Predecessors which they are unwilling to own If they do believe it to be a Sin why do they suffer the People to live in a known Sin Why do they encourage them by Preaching in Separate Congregations For their Predecessor did not think it lawful much less a Duty to preach when forbidden by a Law neither did they understand what warrant any ordinary Minister hath in such a case by Gods word so to draw any Church or People to his private Ministery in opposition to the Laws and Government he lived under They understood the difference between the Apostles cases and theirs and never thought the Apostles Woe be unto me if I preach not the Gospel did extend to them but thought that silenced Ministers ought to live as private Members of the Church till they were restored and the People bound to learn Of which there can be far less ground to dispute when themselves acknowledge the Doctrine by Law established to be true and found 4. Lastly Let me beseech them to consider the common danger that threatens us all by means of our Divisions We have Adversaries subtile and Industrious enough to make use of all advantages to serve their own ends and there is scarce any other they promise themselves more from than the continuance of these breaches among our selves This some of our Brethren themselves have been aware of and on that account have told the People of the danger of the Principles of Separation as to the interest of Religion in general and the Protestant Religion in particular among us Certainly Nothing would tend more to our common security than for all true and sincere Protestants to lay aside their prejudices and mistakes and to joyn heartily in Communion with us which many of their Teachers at this day allow to be lawful And how can they satisfie themselves in hazarding our Religion by not doing that which themselves confess lawful to be done 2. But if we are not yet ripe for so great a mercy as a perfect Union yet I would intreat our Brethren to make way for it by hearkning to these following Advices 1. Not to give encouragement to rash and intemperate zeal which rends all in pieces and makes reconciliation impossible Those who see least into things are usually the