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
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
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
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 latter and do not much fear a dissolution from the former Secondly Let us a little enquire what truth there may be in the other branch of the Doctors Proposition That the Separation is carried on by such principles as will overthrow the present constitution of the Church of England I shall not assume the confidence to say That then its present constitution is none of the best and strongest but this I may with modesty assert That the principles upon which the Dissenters proceed will pluck down nothing that Christ ever built nor pluck up any thing that Christ ever planted and if they should pluck up a few weeds which the envious one threw over the hedg whilest men slept the good corn would thrive the better for such weeding if they should pluck down a few Imaginations which curiosity has carved and set up in the Nitches on the outside of the Church-wall the main of the Fabrick would stand more firm discharg'd of a needless cumber without prejudice to the foundation Some few Traditions some few unscriptural Additions some supernumerary Ceremonies or some few Encroachments upon Christs Regal and Prophetical Offices their principles might overthrow but what are these all these to the being the well-being the flourishing being of the Church of England Is it true that no Ceremony no Episcopacy Was ever a Church built upon such Woolsacks Such discourses as these tempt us to suspect there 's nothing substantial in that Constitution which cannot subsist without these accidents Are Ceremonies grown such Inseparable Adjuncts that they cannot Abesse sine subjecti Interitu We may as well fancy that to scowr off the rust will destroy the Iron or that it 's impossible to wash the face without fleying of the skin as that a Reformation according to Gods word will draw along with it the inevitable ruine of that Church which is founded on it and reformed by it And if it rest upon any other Basis it needs the principles of none but it self to undo it I can allow the Doctor to see much farther into these matters than I and yet I cannot be perswaded that I am stark blind and with the best eyes I have or can borrow cannot yet discern what prejudice it can be to them that worship God in a more spruce splendid gentile mode than we do to suffer us to worship our God in his own old Scripture-fashion It cannot be denied that the Protestant Churches in France are really separated from the Papal Gallican Polity It must be acknowledged that their principles carry a direct opposition to those of their Adversaries that their separation from and opposition to the National frame is much greater than that of Dissenters from and to the constitution of the Church of England and yet the Roman Polity lives and thrives and prospers and no one of all the Popish Kingdoms bears a greater port or glories more in its exteriour splendor and grandeur than that does Why then cannot Conformists secure themselves against the Dissenters principles as well as the Gallican Church against those of the Hugonots And why may not Dissenters plead for the same freedom especially as to the immediate worship of God and ordering their own particular Societies since they plead for less here than they there enjoy and yet upon much stronger arguments for the Dissenters at home plead for no power to set up Classes and Synods Provincial or National which yet are there indulged them and they think they might expect a little more respect as being of one and the same Protestant Religion and not guilty of any principles which have any tendency as they that own them have no design to overthrow the present constitution of the Church so that the Doctors Reasonings are herein so unlike himself so defective of that evidence and cogency wherewith he attacques the Papal Idolatry that had I not known his Discourse to have been Concio ad Magistratum I might have suspected it to be nothing but Ad Populum phalerae The principles upon which the present Separation such a one as it is is carried on are such as fear not to appear before any Bar where Scripture and Reason not Interest and Prejudice have the Chair which though it be not here pertinent to dispute but nakedly to assert leaving their Justification to those larger Volumes which are in every mans hand concerned to arrive at satisfaction in these matters yet shall I direct the Reader to some few of them 1. That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to chuse its own Pastor and every particular Christian the same power to chuse his own Church I say not they have a power to mischuse but a power to chuse not to chuse any but one that may best advance their own edification at least that no Pastor be forced upon a Church no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent A principle so highly rational so clearly scriptural and of such venerable Antiquity as ought not upon some imaginary or pretended evil consequences to be exploded seeing the contrary principle is clogg'd with more real than this can be with surmised Inconveniencies I will thank my friends that will recommend to my choice an able Physician a faithful Lawyer but I am sure I love my health my life my estate so well as not to put the Election out of my own hands into theirs who are not likely to love me better than my self and if I chuse amiss the greatest wrong will be my own Now what Church this principle would overthrow I am yet ignorant If indeed such tyranny should prevail in the world that men must be driven to Heaven like silly sheep to the Market and this principle should a little cross the humour on 't the Churches of Christ would stand where they do and I believe carry a clearer Counterpart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ It is pretended that upon this principle men would chuse one Pastor to day another to morrow and a third the next and so turn round till they are giddy or run themselves out of breath in a wild-goose chase till they sit down and rest in Atheism and Irreligion And is this all The Apostle commands us to prove all things must we needs therefore never hold fast that which is good We ought upon great deliberation advice and counsel chuse our own Pastor and when we have so chosen sit down under Gods Ordinance and wait for his presence in and blessing upon his own way And in the purest Primitive times when the Churches exercised this power most then were they most firmly united and Divisions Schisms and Separations the greatest rarities among them but suppose the worst on 't That some malecontent should now and then desert the Communion of England for that of Rome Cruelties will never remedy the evil or the Remedy would be worse than the disease and what if some odd Maggot-pate should drop
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-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
omission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it I would gladly hear a fair Reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another why the Rule of Charity should take place in bowing towards the Altar and yet the Rule of severity in the sign of the Cross and kneeling at the Lords Supper what solid Reason can they give why they make fish of one and flesh of another The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when where and in what cases they please and in others where 't is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons Is it because we are bound to walk according to the Rule prescribed by the Church why are not they bound to walk according to the Rule prescribed by the Apostle Are we more bound to obey them than they the Lord Christ speaking in and by his immediately inspired servants why could they not have relaxed the other Canons to the moderation of this or why not have screwed up this to the inflexible rigour of the others was it for peace-sake that we were indulged in this one Let the same Motive prevail for the same Indulgence in the rest was it to shew their Authority that they may bind and loose command what they please and leave what they see good at liberty without rendring a Reason but that of their Wills Such arbitrary power is too great an encroachment upon the freehold of Conscience and Soveraignty of Christ and will justifie any Christian to assert that liberty against it wherein Christ has instated him Was it because the people had been broken by long use and custom to the others and therefore they would struggle hard to keep the ground they had got when this latter was but a Novice a Candidate a Probationer for Acceptation which if the people would tamely bow their necks unto they might be cramped with a more peremptory Canon when time should serve but if they proved restiff and cross-grain'd the next Convocation might make an honourable retreat And what if now we are stumbling ere we are aware upon the true Reason of the diversity between the tempers of this and some other Canons However whether these things be commanded or merely recommended or barely permitted all is a case as to my Argument for I find these things practised by all our leading Church-men All the Fathers of the Church all the Mother-Churches are agreed all that pretend to any hopes of comfortable Importance are agreed to outrun the Constable and though herein they outrun one another and all of them outrun the Dissenters and this is a difference in something more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of worship yet must we be supposed to be agreed This last mention'd Canon of the Church I hear is repealed by Act of Parliament which plainly proves that the Civil Magistrate has more authority even in matters of worship than the whole Church as a Church when most solemnly met together in the Representative Church as they call it of a Convocation and yet the practise runs with a full stream towards their own old Canon as if they secretly gave great Deference to the Authority of the Church against the Parliament for the leading-practise of the grand Ecclesiasticks is tantamount to a Canon nay to a Law to those whose hopes and expectancies teach them a dependance on them so that this now obsolete Canon has past into the nature of a Commandment much like the old Statute Ne Rectores prosternant Arbores in Goemeterio the Tenor whereof runs thus Which thing we will not command to be done but we will commend it when it is done Secondly The Doctor having prudently supposed one half comes to prove the other half and it 's wisely done to lose nothing for asking He argues thus If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity suppose as before supposed than a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and set up new Churches To which I answer 1. by denying the consequence strange what deny the consequence what can be plainer Where there 's an agreement a confessed agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of worship what can you pretend to divide in to separate upon but some sorry circumstances unless you will make a Schism about Goats Wool or Moon-shine in the water But if you please Sir to have a little patience I 'le tell you substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances are not so immediately opposed but there lies a certain thing in the middle between them upon which middle thing though otherwise we were agreed in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship it will be lawful to divide I say it again there is a Medium between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances A bare circumstance is that which adheres to every action as it is an action to every natural body as 't is a natural body every action whether civil or sacred must be performed in some time every body must be circumscribed in some place A substantial part of worship is a Term of the Doctors and his Friends making and we may expect it should be of their explaining As far as I can understand they mean by it either 1. that which God has expresly commanded or 2. some notable parts of worship as the Sacraments or 3. that which God mainly requires as the directing our hearts to himself as the object and end of our worship or 4. I cannot tell what till they tell me but besides these two extremes there are some intermediate things which are neither natural circumstances cleaving to the person that worshippeth nor to the Religious action it self on the one hand nor yet on the other hand are they commanded by God either in genere or in specie i. e. God has neither commanded the things themselves nor are the things necessary to the performing those things that he has commanded nor any of their kind nor are they included in any general rule or precept of the Gospel And yet it has pleased the Church that is the Episcopal party to exalt these things to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them that is to lay them as Conditions in the way of our enjoying the Sacraments which they say God has made necessary to salvation and lay the stress and weight of the Churches peace safety and unity upon these things translated out of their proper places and that these things so used so applied so cloathed with their present circumstances are sinful is
not our bare opinion as the Doctor wisely phraseth it but our setled judgment which we have do and shall maintain against them when they have once leisure to understand the Question We have therefore something to divide upon besides substantial parts of worship and circumstances And now where is this consequence which to an intelligent and observing Reader is the only strength of his Sermon But we need never fear it the Clergy will be sure to find us matter for quarrel and contention or it shall go hard besides a parcel of inconsiderable circumstances which may be determined but very sorrily by those that pretend most to the power for he that worst may commonly holds the Candle But 2. for further answer let him go back to the former Discourse where I have proved that the foundation upon which his discourse is built is weak and therefore the whole superstructure must tumble upon his own head for he supposes there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship which we either deny or cannot grant till we are taught what he means by them The Controversie therefore stands upon the same bottom on which it has stood these hundred years and more like that famous stone in the West which they say a child may shake but a hundred men cannot overturn Every wrangler can jostle our principles but the United force of the world cannot overthrow them True men may be killed but Truth will out-live all enmity This argument of the Doctors has been frequently answered and exposed but now like an old Livery new turn'd and fresh trim'd up with a new Lace it passes for a spruce piece of Gallantry a brisk sally of Ratiocination so considerable it is who it is that speaks and writes more than what is spoken or written So have I known a sorry Jade which in the hands of the poor Countrey-man would not give five Marks when in the hands of a Gentleman a little curried up well managed by a nimble Jockey and stoutly voucht for by one that was no slave to his word fetch roundly Twenty Guineys at the hands of a youngster that had more money than wit What has hitherto engrost the whole strength of the Doctors Reason he now comes to set a fine edg and gloss upon with his Rhetorick To separate says he considering the variety of mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to further Separation Which is nothing but the Eccho of that Charge which from their Roman Adversaries has so long and loudly rung about their own Ears I shall only say That the power which he ascribes to National Churches considering the great variety of the fancies and humours in finding out and imposing their own Inventions will but make burdens innumerable and intolerable without any possible stop to further and greater vexations only let him not always miscall Conscience by the scandalous name of Fancy The very truth is we have no Mathematical Certainty in these matters no such Demonstration Cui non potest subesse falsum which Archbishop Laud and by consequence the Doctor requires of all Dissenters when yet he could find no such Demonstration for the being of a God as I shall evince ere long But some will scruple where they need not and others to cry quit with them will impose where they ought not and thus between weakness and wilfulness between little knowledg and great pride humble peaceable Christians are like to have a fine time on 't But from some inconsiderable and petty inconveniences some little trouble that arises to a Church from the levity and volubility of mens minds to bring in that enormous monstrous principle of enslaving all mens judgments and consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked will and pleasure and put all that 's worth owning in their Beings into the hands of those of whose fidelity and tenderness to keep and dispose of them they have had no better experience and can have no good security is a Medicine worse than that Poyson even as much as 't is better to have a Rational Soul though subject to mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong Bit and Bridle Honoured Sir you see how I have wearied my self to tire you with the prolixty of this Letter and now to refresh you in the close I 'le tell you a piece of News The Doctor tells us That if once the people be brought to understand and practise their duty as to Communion with our Churches other difficulties which obstruct our Vnion will be more easily removed It 's incredible what the various Votes of the Coffee-houses are about those words some say Ay! If there were no Nonconformists there would be no Nonconformity if there were no disagreement we should all be agreed others again deny it and say That though the people were brought to understand and practise all their duty which they owe to God and man yet the same difference the same distance would continue except it be first proved which they are always coming towards but can never find a time to come to that it is their duty to hold entire Communion with the Parish-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
a little disguis'd the matter in his Discourse to make it smile upon his pretensions I will give the Reader the naked truth of the whole business There were in the Apostles days some Judaizing Christians who being not well weaned from the Mosaic Ceremonies would needs compel the Gentile Converts to their old observances for which they plausibly pretened that those Rites having been once confessedly establish'd by Divine Authority and not yet explicitely repealed by any Countermand of Christ equal to that whereby they had been enjoined were still in full force power strength and virtue and did oblige the gentil world to give their assent and consent to them and in pursuance of this imposing humor they would have obtruded upon them a Canon Acts 15.5 That except they were circumcised and observ'd the law of Moses they could not be saved To this Usurpation the Apostles oppose their authority and taking the Gentile Christians into their protection vindicate their Liberty and command them to stand fast in it and not tamely surrender themselves to the will and pleasures of these imperious Masters And because St. Peter by his compliance had hardened these Judaizers in their Superstitions St. Paul takes him up roundly reproves him to his face and strenuously asserts their Gospel Liberty which had he not done the Doctor thinks all the Gentile Christians had been forced either to a compliance with the Jews or to a perpetual Schism But herein I must beg his pardon for though they had been forced to a Separation it had been no Schism which visibly had lain on the other side for Paul in his admonition to the Church at Rome lays all the blame of the Separation not upon them that separate but on those that gave cause to the Separation Rom. 16.17 I beseech you Brethren mark them which cause divisions and offences among you and avoid them Where he points to us these three things 1. That they who cause divisions are the culpable dividers the Imposers must be responsible for the evil consequences of their Impositions 2. That it 's lawful nay a duty to divide from those that unwarrantably give such cause of division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decline or depart from them 3. That any Condition of Communion imposed besides as well as against the Doctrine received from the Apostles is a sufficient ground to condemn the Imposers to justifie those that reject such conditions for so we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so we find it rendered Gal. 1.8 Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that we have preach'd unto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be accursed Hitherto matters do not work to the Doctor 's mind he does movere but nihil promovere the step he has taken has set his cause a step backward 2 And therefore he will try another Experiment whether the Epistle with the Context may not invite or draw the Text to his Interest 1 His first approach he makes thus The Apostle exhorts the Philippians to an unanimous and constant resolution in holding fast to the faith of the Gospel in spight of all the malice and threats of their enemies Phil. 1.27 28. And most wholsom counsel it is God give all Dissenters grace to take it for if once the fears of Troubles and Persecutions make men afraid to own and maintain their Religion it will be an easie matter for their enemies first to divide and then to subdue them This will not yet do the Doctor 's work nor undo the Dissenters 2 He makes a nearer approach thus The Apostle beseeches them in the most vehement and affectionate manner not to give way to any differences or divisions among them Very good As much then as in us lies we will live peaceably with all men But what security shall we have that they will do so with us We will labor that there be no differences in judgment which yet in our imperfect state is not to be expected but if there be differences we will take care there be no divisions for we are taught to maintain Christian affections towards those that are of different apprehensions from our selves and different practices too proportionable to those different sentiments for so the Apostle adjures the Church Phil. 2.1 2. To be like minded having the same love being of one accord and of one mind Upon which words the Doctor gives us this Paraphrase q. d. I have seen the miserable effects of Divisions in other Churches indeed Divisions that are caused by or issue out in hatred malice envy persecution have effects as miserable as themselves but what miserable effects did he or we ever see that all mens faces were not of one complexion Let me therefore entreat you to avoid the first tendencies to any breaches among you and unnecessary Impositions lay the first foundations to these Mischiefs entertain no jealousies no unjust suspicions of each other as that the most godly among those that differ from you in lesser matters can least endure to be told of their faults or that the tenderness of their minds out of meer shame-facedness keeps them from declaring truth but shew all the kindness you are able to your fellow members and surely you are able to wave these Bones of Contention these make-bate Ceremonies you are able to forbear railing persecuting are you not I confess Pride is an impotency of mind and Passion a great weakness of soul the strongest wills have commonly the weakest reason to govern them and the ambition of glorying in the flesh of those whom they can make to truckle to their Humors and Crotchets is a pretty flesh-pleasing vanity which I hope in time you will overcome so that hitherto we can smell no Plot the Doctor has upon us no scent of Match or Powder or how by these Ambages and remote Fetches he intends to attack us we discern not 3 In the next place therefore he tells us the Apostle gives Cautions against some persons from whom their greatest danger was viz. such as pretended a mighty zeal for the Law Nay I always suspected our danger would come from that Quarter but am glad we know our enemies and do promise him we 'll keep a special eye upon them in all their motions Some such there are in the world who are exceeding zealous for Ceremonies and Traditions and would triumph if they could carry it for Bel and the Dragon such as would knead the world into its old mass and lump rather than want of their wills and as the Judaizers would renounce Christianity and return to Moses except the Gentiles would conform to their legal observances so have we some such who will revolt to Rome unless they may not retain for who hinders them but impose their own admired knick-knacks upon others Now such as these the Apostle deals smartly with he calls them Dogs Evil Workers the Concision because they tore in pieces the seamless Coat of Christ into shreds
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
commanded To this Mr. Cartwright replies Is this to interpret mens words Are these Phrases equipollent Commanded and expresly commanded Many things are forbidden many things commanded which are neither expresly commanded or forbidden We say not no Ceremony no Order no Discipline is lawful in the Church but what is expresly found in the Word of God but that men may not act arbitrariously that they are bound to conform themselves to the general Rules of the Scripture which are given forth as a Rule by which to square all Religious matters Thus far Mr. Cartwright And so do we openly and freely own that direct immediate consequence from Scripture or whatever is included in the general Rules of Scripture shall conclude and determine us in these disputes Here again the Doctor thinks he has gravelled us with an unanswerable question If saies he it be mutual consent and agreement which makes a Church why then 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 I will tell him why if he please to hear me out with patience 1. Because it is not mutual consent and agreement and alone in the general but such agreement and consent as the Gospel warrants which we have for particular Churches which were well known to the Scriptures but not for National to which constitution the Scriptures are perfect strangers 2. Because the end of that consent and agreement must be considered and looked at which is union for worship though not for worship alone to which end national union signifies nothing seeing that a National Church unless it be a Church no larger than the Kingdom of Ivetot can never meet together for that end 3. Because the particular Churches must consent to nothing that may destroy their own government and power of reforming whatever corruptions by length of time steal and creep in among them But if his meaning be that they may be called a Church it 's little to us what he shall please to call them seeing we do not intend to draw the Saw of contention about the Nomenclature of that or any other Body From reasoning the Doctor proceeds to wondring at those who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England and he will inform their ignorance concerning it We mean saies he 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 Whence it will follow that the Churches of dissenters are each of them the Church of England For every one of them is 1. A society of Christian people though perhaps in his judgment but bad ones yet as good as their Neighbours 2. They are in this Nation though full sore against some mens wills who would have them removed by Capital punishments or banishment 3. They are united under the same profession of faith that is one half of them are not Socinians or Arminians and the other half Calvinists 4. They are united under the same laws of Government 5. And they have the same Rules of divine worship And then it follows too by the Doctor 's concession they have a right of governing each Church its own self and of reforming errors in Doctrine and corruptions in worship Notwithstanding this famous definition what man is the wiser or knows more than he did before what the Church of England is For 1. We understand not by this Description who is the visible head of this Church whether a civil or ecclesiastical person and by consequence are at a loss whether the Church may be called a civil or ecclesiastical constitution 2. We are not informed how this National Church became so united whether they were driven together by violence or drew together by their consent whether it was not some storm or tempest that might jostle them all on a heap or whether the consent of the particular Congregations was asked and obtained in order to this coalition We have seen some Churches in this nation that have had their Pastors torn from them and the Sheep scattered strangers obtruded upon others whose persons they knew not whose ministerial gifts they had no trial of and all his right to them was that he was nominated by a certain Gentleman called the Patron and the institution of the Diocesan and if with their consent it was such a one as was obtained by duress and do well call this uniting what was it then which united them why some of the Ministers of the Parochial Churches met together and chose one or two out of their number and sent them up to a convocation and these meeting with some others they call Archbishops and Bishops Deans c. agreed upon a national Church-frame without the least consent of many of the particular Churches And this is the too much boasted Union 2 Another thing he would have us consider is He does not intend to speak of the Terms upon which persons are to be admitted to the exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-communion And it was advisedly done for if it be so difficult to render Lay-communion practicable what will it be to justifie all those terms upon which Ministers are admitted to the function of the Ministry or the exercise of it But why does he mention the exercise of the function and not the function it self Do they use to ordain Ministers to a Ministerial work and then prohibit them to exercise the work of their ministry till further order Must men pay for an Order to Act and then be put to purchase another order that they may act according to their order surely one of these fees might have been saved and it might have been sufficient either to buy a License to preach without ordination or an ordination to preach without a License The Country Chancellors are more merciful who do not usually that I hear of sell a man a License to marry and then Compel him to take another License to lie with his Bride It is confessed that the Terms upon which Ministers are admitted to their function and the exercise of it are more severe than those upon which the Laity as they love to call them are admitted to communion in the word and Sacraments and there might be reason for it seeing the Laity held no good fat Parsonages that might tempt any to eject them But yet the Terms are not such easie things of digestion but they lie upon the stomachs of thousands to this day and some of them are as hard to swallow as the biggest gobblets that are imposed upon the Clergy and they are apt to think that the same terms that are imposed upon their Pastors are imposed upon themselves by consequence seeing they approve interpretatively their Ministers subscriptions their declarations their oaths by owning them for their Pastors whom they know upon such terms to have
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-Churches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this reason for their judgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for peace-sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with purer administrations It is a dangerous thing to give us uncertain ambulatory Notions of Schism other than what the Scripture has given us both because the Scriptures alone can inform us what is the Notion of a true Church and by consequence what must be the true Notion of sinful Separation from it and because these unstable mutable Notions of Schism will make that to be Schism in one Countrey which is an innocent thing in another and that to be Schism one year which perhaps the next may prove a good and Catholick practice That was Schism in England in Edward the 6th's days which was not so in Queen Maries and that was Schism in Her Reign which became none in the days of Her Successor And we may be Schismaticks here in England when if we cross the water we shall be none though we practise the same Worship and retain all that which at home would have fastened that brand upon us And if we travel through Germany though perhaps we cannot be Schismaticks and Catholicks twice a day because the miles are very long yet may we be both backwards and forwards forty times in a Twelvemonth and continue the same men both in principle and practice that we were when we went our pilgrimage It is little to our purpose what the Doctor is pleased to tell us what one told him viz. that An. Dom. 1663. Divers Preachers met at London to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish-Churches where they lived in the Liturgy and Sacraments or that 20 Reasons were brought in to prove that it is a duty in some persons to join with some Parish-Churches three times a year in the Lord's Supper For 1. If they consider'd how far it was lawful I hope they spoke something at least to the Question and left it not as they found it a Question forsaken of its Answer which ought to be individual Companions 2. They met to consider what was lawful for or a duty to themselves not for or to others in whose names they had no commission to hear and determine the Question 3. If they inquired how far it was lawful or a duty they supposed that it was not unlimitedly so for to what end should they inquire how far they might go if they had once thought they could go through 4. And the design of the twenty reasons abundantly proves it for it was but some persons whose duty it was adjudged to be to receive the Sacrament thrice a year and it was but in some parishes neither where those some persons might communicate so that there might be some others many others possibly the greatest number whose duty it was not so to joyn and other some parishes many others and and possibly the greatest number with whom it was not lawful or not a duty to hold Communion The Case then is this a Christian may be placed in such circumstances that he may receive the Sacrament from some persons who will indulge him in the questionable Terms in such places where he cannot enjoy that ordinance at all if he do not receive it there and thus with many restrictions limitations distinctions and clauses a Case may be put wherein the twenty reasons may conclude some thing but yet nothing to the Doctors advantage But what effect what operation had these twenty reasons upon the Company Why none of them seemed to dissent that is they did not enter their several protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them They came to consider of the lawfulness of Communion and they would go away and consider of the strength of the Reasons propounded to convince them I see it 's more dangerous than I had thought it to have been to come into the parish Churches lest naked presence and silent appearing in those assemblies should be brought against us as an interpretative approbation of whatsoever is there done or spoken The Doctor adds that they had such another meeting after the plague and fire and if it were but such another there was no great harm in 't at which they agreed that communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good for which he quotes Plea for Peace p. 240. But here the Doctor is tardy by his favour and wrongs his Relator manifestly by nibbling off the last and most considerable words of the sentence viz. when it would do no more harm than good And we believe it lawful in that Case to hold Communion with any Church in the world so that now we must come to another enquiry and start a new question when there are one or two already up before the Dogs viz. whether Communion with the Parish-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
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-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
present Dissenters have particularly expressed the matters of their Offence and cannot obtain a removal of them neither for Love nor Money and it 's a very hard World when neither of those two Wedges will drive 12 And they say farther That the Honourable Houses may find out more for Reformation than haply the Assembly have Advised or themselves yet concluded so that they will be willing to be farther instructed in the things that belong to the Churches Peace But our good Masters have set up their Hercules's Pillars and Engraven on them Ne plus ultra so that now Hope it self is become hopeless Patience worn to the Stumps and all Endeavours out of breath for after Cheese and Canon comes Nothing 13 Whatever the Altercations and Debates between the two Parties were in the Sub-Committee yet the Resolve at last which is the main if not only thing considerable was this Decemb. 15. Resolved upon the question That they which agree in the substance of the Worship in the Directory according to the Preface and agree in the Confession of Faith and with the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches contained in their Confessions and writings as we do who differ from those Brethren in matters of Discipline shall have the benefit of the Indulgence In short It may be a plausible but no righteous Method to take the Arguments of the Committee which were only conclusive in the Case before them and perhaps not there and to applie them to our present Case which is quite another thing And yet when all is said that can be said in this matter it must be confessed there were undue heats and animosities between the Brethren both standing too high upon their Pantables which deserves to be lamented and not Imitated and drawn into Argument and Example to justifie the inflexible Rigour of the present Terms of Communion SECT VIII Philip. 3.15 Considered How the Doctor rids himself of the danger of the Context His second Question propounded and answered like the former that is not at all His Discourse about Conscience examined THe Author of the Discourse was very apprehensive that the Context would be urged against his interpretation of the Text and therefore to save us a labour he has from thence formed an objection for us against his own Doctrine which we thankfully acknowledge and accept whatever may be said says he as to other Pleas for their present practices my Text it should have been the verse before it seems to afford the strongest of all that men are to be pressed to go no further than they have already attained and not to be strained up to an Uniformity beyond the dictates of their Consciences but to be let alone as the Apostle directs in the foregoing verse If any one be otherwise minded he must be left to God and that manifestation of his will he will be pleased to give him This Objection to say truth is drawn up with as much integrity as we could well expect For the Counsel for the Defendent is hardly to be trusted to draw up the declaration for the Plaintiff One small exception we have against his wording our Plea and 't is but a small one We say not that men are not to be pressed to go further than they have attained provided they be only pressed with such Arguments as are proper for the conviction of Rational Creatures For thus would our Blessed Savior have them pressed who was the grand exemplar of all moderation and meekness Luke 14.23 Compel them to come in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And let tender Consciences be thus compelled and spare them not we shall never complain of this force this violence But there is a more savage and ferine Method of Compulsion like that of the Gentleman who courteously invied his poor Tenants to a Christmas dinner by a Bum-bailiff and Tickets of green-wax which filled his house indeed with guests but spoiled all the mirth of the Feast A Hawk will never make a good sign for a Dove-Coat We would not have men pressed and oppressed with Club-Logick as a procedure unsuitable to the nature of Christianity And now we abide by the Objection If God himself has given the Indulgence what man has power to take off the Seal or why should the Church trouble it self and others with doubtful Canons when they that have not attained to satisfaction about them have the condescension of God to plead for the suspension of their own Acts during such dissatisfaction Now this knot the Doctor will untie or cut or break And the clearing of it he says will give a full answer to the second enquiry viz. what is to be done if men cannot come up to the Rule prescribed But is not this very much about and about the Bush why should he give himself the needless trouble to enquire so scrupulously what is to be done in case men cannot come up to the Rule when the Apostle has already given us a short but plain answer to it namely that they are to be left to God for farther instruction But the Doctor is not satisfied with this Answer and therefore he will answer it in these particulars Answer it yes just as he did the former question by speaking never a word to it Had he been pleased to have answered the Question what is to be done he should have resolved us first What means are to be used to reclaim them that cannot come up whether fair or fowl Christian or barbarous whether corporal penalties are to be suspended or the Dissenters whether they are to be left in Gods hands or taken into the Gaolers clutches Secondly By whom this must be done that is to be done as what they are to do who are dissatisfied what course they must take to attain more knowledge of Gods mind and Will in that matter that so they may enlarge their practice according to the improvement of their understanding Let it not then be ill taken if we put a few questions about this Question I. What must they do to whom a Rule is prescribed by Men about their worshiping of God who cannot come up to it And surely if pride and interest had not muddied it the Answer had run very clear They ought to examine and try that Rule by the word of God to beg of him instruction in any point wherein they may possibly be otherwise minded than he would have them And in the mean time to forbear for whatsoever is not of faith is sin that is whatever a man does and is not persauded that it may be lawfully done II. What must be done by Church Governours if men cannot come up to their establisht Rules and thus much of the Answer is exceeding obvious 1. That they had better sit still and do nothing than rise up and do mischief Let 'em do no more harm than good and let them be doing 2. That if they must need have more work to do let 'em be sure they have a Commission
scrupled 2. We produce the Authority of God to justifie our Obedience to all his Commands Statutes Judgments and instituted Worship 3. We produce plain reason from those premises to justifie our Churches For if tenderness of Conscience will justifie us in Non-Communion and God's Command justifie us to Worship him according to his Revealed Will we must of meer necessity separate from a Church where we cannot have all the Ordinances of Christ to another where we can 4. We say The Doctrine of the Sub-Committee viz. That such tenderness of Conscience as ariseth out of an opinion cui potest subesse falsum which may be false is not a sufficient ground c. to justifie Separation and that of the A. B. Laud's who would have all Dissenters produce such Arguments for their Dissent require more Evidence than our Learned Doctor will allow for the Existence of a Deity This Point by the way I shall a little examine because I find it asserted in some of the Doctors staple-Discourses I shall not cite his Irenicum because he has put that Piece amongst his Tracts that are to be retracted and seems weary of his Weapon-Salve and will now trust only to his Weapon His Rational Account is not yet amongst his prohibited Pieces Now p. 178 179. he thus expresses himself It is a piece of great weakness of Judgment to say there can be no certain assent where there is a meer possibility of being deceived for there is no kind of assent in the human understanding as to the existence of any thing but there is a possibility of Deception in it And p. 206 207. he calls aloud to the Papists to come forth with their infallible Arguments to prove the existence of a Deity before they talk of an infallible way of proving the truth of Religion And surely the Dissenters are not more rigidly obliged to prove the lawfulness of their Separation nor the sinfulness of the Terms imposed on them by Arguments which cannot possibly be false than all Mankind is to produce such infallible Proofs for the existence of the Godhead Nay further by what I can gather from the Doctor he seems to proceed upon such principles as plainly render it impossible by any certain Argument to prove the existence of a Deity Orig. sacr p. 230. where 1. He lays down this for a principle That the foundation of all certainty lies in the necessary existence of a being absolutely perfect so that unless I know that there is a God I cannot be assured that I know any any thing in a certain manner Now then if all certainty doth suppose the existence of a being so absolutely perfect I must before I can know any thing certainly conclude that there is an infinity of knowledge wisdom power and goodness in this God If then God be the first knowable and that it 's impossible to know any thing certainly Except I first know such a being as God how shall we come to prove his existence by such demonstration cui non potest subesse falsum shall we demonstrate a God A priori what cause shall we find of him upon which and from which our demonstration may be formed without a cause we cannot demonstrate à priori And supposing a cause we suppose him to be no God Shall we then proceed à posteriori from the Effects to the Cause The Apostle would have gone this way Rom. 1.20 And from the creation of the world have demonstrated his eternal Power and Godhead but the Doctor has shut the door because we must first know there is an invisible God before we can certainly know there is a visible world 2. How then will the Doctor prove there is a God why he tells us Orig. sacr book 3. cap. 1. p. 367 368 c. We must have recourse to an Idea A settled and consistent Notion of a being that is absolutely perfect not as he says that there is any such connate Idea in the soul but that there is a faculty in the soul whereby upon the free use of Reason it can form within it self a settled Notion of such a being which is as perfect as it is possible for us to conceive a being to be Well then we must form a Notion of God from the Use of Reason But seeing that all the processes of Reason are from things known to unknown or from more known to less known where shall we place our engine where shall we fix the first foot of the compass where must Reason begin must we begin with the perfections of the Creatures to argue our selves into a belief of that God that made them and therefore must need contain all their perfections in himself this is that the Doctor has renounced for we must first be sure there is a God before we can be sure there is any thing else I would begin with a Flie an Ant a Mushrome and from thence I would gradually climb up to the first Cause but the Doctor forbids us for we have no assurance that there is such a Fly Ant or Mushrome till we are first assured of a God Must we then leave this way of reasoning and search for something before God Co-ordinate with God the danger is lest that which is before God should prove the true God or if any thing be Co-ordinate with God there will be two Gods or none Now this being once the judgment of the Reverend Doctor and confirmed by him in his Dialogues p. 269. where he appeals to his Orig. Sacr. for this very thing I hope they will never more expect fuller proof for the warrantableness of our Nonconformity than they require to prove the existence of God and let them beware lest whil'st they trample upon Conscience where God has his Throne they do not fight against him that sits thereon and so bring Heaven and Earth about their ears 2. Another thing collected is That it 's endless to hope to give satisfaction to tender Consciences and therefore they resolve never to begin And is it not as endless to give assent and consent to the Impositions for who knows where they will end By the same Reason they have imposed these they may five hundred but if the Distemper be endless why should nor the Remedy The Apostle Paul gave satisfaction to tender Consciences without ever fearing it would be endless Men are for endless wealth but not for endless trouble Can any man think the primitive Christians had only a Lease of the Rule for Indulgence during the Apostles Lives and that they must Fine for it smartly when the next Generation came up How much better had it been to have been left to restraint and absolute will during the Apostles times with a reversion of liberty after their decease than that the 14th Chapter to the Romans should be like the Ceremonial Law to expire with the Apostles and be buried in their Graâ—es There will be honest mistaken Souls to the worlds end whom Christ thought not
of which my Inviter will not taste but the Doctor and the Reader will expect other Answers and that whatever becomes of others we do clear our selves 1. Then we will acknowledge that what we can lawfully do we ought to do for peace sake when peace will certainly be obtained from them by doing what we can lawfully do but if the doing all we lawfully can will not be accepted as the condition of peace to what end should we stretch our selves and straine our uttermost powers to reach that which can never be reacht I will part with much of my right deny my self in what I may lawfully do to buy my peace at the hands of a vexatious Neighbour but if all that I can lawfully do will not purchase it It s better saved than ill spent For an Indifferent thing that becomes good as it tends to a good end will yet be no good thing again but return into its old box of Indifferents when it tends not to that good end Nay that which is in its general nature a duty as relating to such an excellent end yet ceases to be a duty nay becomes a sin when it s applied to no such end An oath is a part of worship and so far a duty the end of an assertory Oath is to put an end to Controversies to procure peace among men but if an Oath of that sort be used where it cannot put an end to the controversy it becomes sinful as taking the name of God in vain 2. We acknowledge that what we lawfully can do for peace sake that we ought to do But withal we affirm that we actually do it and do it as our duty to for suppose I find it lawful in general to hear a sound pious Conformable Minister preach the Gospel when circumstances meet together to call me out to go I do it under the strict Notion of duty And they that find it lawful to Communicate in the prayers and Sacraments and the Church do judge they are doing a duty in such communion There must then be something else that the Doctor would have if we could get out the secret which his next Magisterial assertion perhaps may discover 3. They that judge it lawful nay their duty to hold Communion with the Church in prayer and Sacraments yet neither think it their duty nor lawful to joyne with one Church to deprive them of the lawfulness and duty of joyning with other Churches least whilst they press after positive duty they should neglect a Comparative duty for seeing they judge it a duty to joyne with the parochial Churches for peace sake and to joyne with others Churches also for the same end they shew a more true and Catholick Spirit for a general peace amongst all Christians then they whose Narrow straight laced Souls only designe a peace within the limits of their own Constitutions And 4. If it be true that what we may lawfully do without sin we ought to do as our duty why may not others turn the inference thus That seeing its lawful to joyn with the separate Churches without the guilt of schism it will be a duty also so to joyn for these that think the one lawful think the other lawful also and as the argument holds on one side it will hold on the other with equal force Nay 5. With more for those persons against whom this argument is brought from their own judgment of the lawfulness of joyning do judge it a more clear case that its lawful to joyn with those other meetings which are more near the word of God in worship and discipline and where the dubious Conditions of Communion are not found to raise scruples about the lawfulness of Communion with them which in other places cannot but sometimes occur Nor will those external accidental advantages which one side has got above the other vary the case seeing 't is the intrinsick merits of the cause that conscience regards in forming a right judgement about its duty And let thus much serve for an Answer 2. Yet I rather think there 's a further meaning in his words which we poor heedless sleepy Creatures little dream of I do not question but in time if they find it lawful they will judge it to be their duty In time yes all in good time that is when they have preacht up the Magistrate to a due height for persecution and alarm'd the Nation with another Presbyterian Plot or retrieved that of Ax-yard and the Meal-Tub when they have rallied up the whole Legion of Informers and once more given us a specimen of ecclesiastical Grace in driving us out of our houses into prisons then is the time when we shall all find it a duty to conform I have no great Reason to be confident of my self and I hope I know my own heart a little better than to trust it nor can I tell whether one terrour may not make me think that Lawful which I never so thought before and the next make me think it a duty a man is ready enough to stretch his Conscience rather than an halter there 's no such feeling conviction like that of the Statute nine and fifty dull arguments and one sharp sword will create a good title to the seventeen Provinces It may be then in time we shall find it a duty that is a duty not to God or our Consciences but to our Carcasses and other duty upon this account is not yet discovered 3 But the most probable intendment of this Paradox is That if we find such Communion lawful the intervening authority of the Magistrate will turn the scale and make it a duty To this I shall not need to say much because so far as we judge Communion lawful before the Command of the Magistrate so far we do judge it to be a duty under due circumstances and no further can we judge it to be either lawful or a duty when the Magistrates command has had its most operative influence either upon the things themselves or our Consciences yet these things we take to be clear 1. That where Communion with the Church would have been sinful under all its circumstances no command of the Magistrate can make it lawful 2. That no command of the Magistrate can discharge a Christian from that duty which he owes his proper Pastor or that particular Church whereof he is a member according to Gods Word 3. That the Magistrate has power from God to enforce all his Christian subjects to live peaceably among themselves and punish them that do otherwise but not to destroy that for which Peace is desirable namely the leading a quiet and secure life in all godliness and honesty for he is the Minister of God to us for our good and not for our ruine 13 Rom. 4. § 2. A second uncouth passage of the Doctors is that of page 56. It s hard to understand if occasional Communion be lawful that constant Communion should not be a duty I perceive
and himself Let us take heed we do not give too much occasion to our enemies to think the worse of our Church for our sakes Most excellent counsel it had been had he defined critically what occasion is too much what too little and what just enough to make men think evil of the Church And his old Questioning method might have here been seasonably revived How far we may or may not give occasion to enemies to think worse of the Church but we never expect an Answer of these hot-scalding questions occasion may be given and much occasion but too much occasion must not for too much is too much and therefore whatever that may be take heed of it This advice was first design'd for those that continue in Communion with the Church but by some unhappy accident or other it 's turn'd into a word of reproof nay of reproach to those that are out of it In times of common infection they say all diseases turn to the Plague and in the universal paroxism of railing at Dissenters even Sermons that should be Remedies turn into the disease of railing But what have the Nonconformists to do with the Exhortation given to the Conformists even as much as the Doctor had to do to preach against them at Guild-Hall Chappel But let us hear their crime however They blame says he the Government but if themselves were in place or those they love or esteem then the Government had been a very good thing thus do mens judgments vary as their interests do As if a Weathercock should preach from the top of the Steeple one day What Charter has Christ given the Church to bind men up to more than he has done Iren. Epis p. 8. And the next day should tell us that what is lawful may be made a duty and then I am sure the Church has power to bind us up to more than Christ ever did yet it seems if the Nonconformists might have been all made Bishops they had liked Episcopacy well enough for my own part I like it so well that where there 's one Bishop I wish there were five hundred and yet I have heard of some that might have worn the Miter but that they would not purchase repentance so dear But he goes on We find uniformity and order condemn'd as tyrannical till men come in place themselves and then the same things are very good Where the Doctor found this except in Panciroll de rebus perditis I cannot imagine I never heard Vniformity condemn'd as tyrannical but the rigorous forcing of Christians to an affected uniformity in humane crotchets an uniformity in practise without uniformity in judgment If all mens feet were of the same size I should never complain if their shooes were made of the same Last but to pinch a foot of the slovens twelves into a shooe of the childrens threeâ— is to put conscience into the shoomakers stocks which next to those of Bishop Bonners Colehole are the word one can sit in Nor do we abhor Order but Innovations introduced under that specious title nor did I ever find that the Nonconformists were in the Bishops Thrones though some odd fellows got into their Lands without which perhaps neither one side nor other would be very ambitious of the places Let the Doctor then take an occasion or no occasion little or great to revile us to misrepresent us I am sure his brethren are beholden to us for by our means they have scaped a fine scowring and the edg of that Reproof which seem'd to bear hard upon the Conformists is turn'd directly against us which the Doctor might have forborn for two Reasons the one that there were none out of Communion with the Church to hear his Juniper-Lecture and the other because he promised to read them their lesson by themselves which they now are expecting SECT XII The Doctors Considerations considered HE that had scarce half a word to those in Communion with the Church who were present has for those that are out of the Churches Communion though at the time absent First a Squadron of Considerations and secondly a Pacquet of Advices His Considerations are now to be considered which are precisely four 1. The first thing we are to consider is How many things must be born in the Constitution of a Church A world no doubt in some Constitutions by those that are ambitious of their Communion Now that we may not be in arrere in civility we humbly desire all those whom it may concern to consider 1. What our consideration will signifie unless we had a Commission of Terminer as well as Oyer If we might bear what we could and forbear what we could not it might be worth the while to consider what must be born but if the Imposers will consider what they please to lay on our shoulders and we have no consideration left us but whether we will bow or break under the burden what place for consideration 2. We desire it may be considered also what may be forborn by them as well as born by us and that in order to Peace and Union but it 's plain they are all for our bearing and nothing for their own forbearing which yet had been more proper to his Text had he considered that it is the will of God that they that have not attained to the same strength should not be charged with the same burden 3. It ought to be considered also how many things may not be born as well as how many must for when the Intolerable are removed we shall the better bear the rest but if we must bear either all or none to what purpose is our Consideration 4. We have considered again and again both the tolerabiles intolerabiles Ineptias which I English the tolerable and intolerable unfitnesses and know not how to bear either of them And 5. it 's more our interest to consider how we may get strength to bear the displeasure of the Imposers than the lâ—ad of the Impositions seeing we could easily avoid the one if we could but escape the other 6. We desire it may be considered a little that there are different degrees of strength in Christians all have not the same Bajulatory backs nor the same Herculean shoulders and therefore it might become Church-Governours to sit down and consider whether it be agreeable to the mind of Christ that the weak should bear the Imperious passions of the strong and not the strong bear the infirmities of the weak Rom. 15.1 2. The Doctor would have us consider how impossible it is to give satisfaction to all We have considered that too and hope he will consider whether there may not be found a Medium between giving satisfaction to all and to none Methinks this might satisfie all if they that are so zealous for Ceremonies might have their belly-fulls of 'em and they that are more indifferent for 'em might not have 'em cram'd down their throats He was reputed a wise Countrey-Justice