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
least of their Impositions which have made the Separation it might better have been stiled The Mischief of Union Now to do this as he thinks more convincingly he will first lay down some Concessions It had been a more convincing method in the judgment of most Men if he had proved Separation sinful from Scripture grounds rather than from some Mens Concessions seeing I do not understand either that we are bound to stand to their Concessions or that the Concessions themselves will do his Cause the least service And they themselves have been so bang'd by the Papists by this Argumentum ad hominem that one would think they should have little comfort to use it We cannot forget how in the Relation of the Conference between the A. B. Laud and the Jesuite the Lady who gave occasion to the Dispute asked this Question Whether a Person living and dying in Communion with the Church of Rome might be saved His Grace answered affirmatively Now what Triumphs before the Victory the Papists have made upon this Concession the Doctor has sufficient cause to understand You say they confess that Salvation is attainable in Communion with us we peremptorily deny it That Salvation may be had in your Communion And therefore the safest way is to hold Communion there where both sides agree Salvation may be attained This Argument from that Concession is much stronger than one drawn from the Concession of any one or many amongst us because we own no learned Men to be our Ecclesiastical Head as that Archbishop was supposed to have been theirs But thus fared it with them for their Charity to Rome and thus fares it with us for our Charity to them they cannot own Rome to be a true Church and that persons in that Communion may be saved but they must hear on 't on both sides of their ears why then did you separate from a true Church wherein you might have been saved Nor must we grant the Church of England to be a true Church but presently we are pelted with the same Reply that was thrown at their heads why then did you separate But we had rather suffer by our Charitableness and their Uncharitableness than admit any the least Temptation to deny the Church of England to be a true Church and to hold all the essential Points of Faith seeing the Doctor himself has granted as much as this comes to where he allows of Separation yet let us hear what these Concessions are § 1. They unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrinal Articles of our Church Doctrinal Articles Are there then any Articles that are not Doctrinal Every Article contains as I always thought some Doctrine or other and which then are the Non-doctrinal Articles more particularly 1. It is not true that the Dissenters unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of the Church for I am confident none of them but do find fault with that Doctrine That Children baptized and dying before the commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved And that other That whosoever believeth not stedfastly all that is contained in the Athanasian Creed cannot be saved but shall perish everlastingly 2. They do not believe all the Articles of the Thirty nine and particularly not the 20th of the Churches power to impose Rites and Ceremonies and that also is a Doctrinal Article 3. But if by Doctrinal Articles be intended no more than those that relate to the essential Points of saving Faith it 's true they find no fault with them but then it 's as true that the Doctor has confest also That the Church of Rome maintains all such Articles and yet he justifies the Separation from their Communion whence it will unavoidably follow that it is lawful to separate from a Church which holds all the essential Points of Faith absolutely necessary to salvation 4. And what is it to the Laity what Doctrinal Articles are contained in the Book compiled 1562. if the contrary Doctrines be now openly preached in those Parochial Churches to which their adherence is required For if their Communion with the Parish Churches be the thing which he mainly insists on it 's of more concern to them what is there preach'd than what Faith they were of an hundred years ago § 2. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these their Communion is required And are not then the Parochial Churches more beholden to the Dissenters than to the Doctor whose Principles do deny them to be true Churches For so he tells us p. 27. That although when the Churches encreased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptistry and one Bishop So that the Parochial Congregations are but occasional meetings members and appurtenances of the Cathedral Chappels of Ease under the Mother Church but no true Churches because each has not its proper Bishop And so they make the Diocesan Bishop the onely Pastor and the Parochial Teachers to be onely his Curates to ease them of the trouble and cumber of Preaching And some have observed a strange Innovation in the very office of the Minister of late years for whereas in the old Ordination of Priests they enstated them in their whole office by reading that Text Acts 20.28 Feed the Flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops This Text is now omitted and Ministers are ordain'd to preach when and where the Bishops shall give them a Licence And thus the Parochial Teachers are no Officers of Christ but creatures of the Bishops making nor have they any Jurisdiction any power of Government or Discipline in their hands which all those Pastors whom Christ appointed are vested with but serve to execute the Decrees Sentences and Awards of the Chancellors Officials and Commissaries without liberty to interpose so much as a judgment of discretion And though they retain the name of Rectors yet 't is rather a footstep of what once originally they were but not any term that carries or imports in it any real Authority And what if the Dissenters do not deny that you have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments and an implicit Covenant between Pastors and People Do not also our great Clergymen own and allow that Rome hath all these The Doctor I am certain allows them to be true Churches to have all the Essentials of true Churches and that they have true Sacraments too else why are not they re-baptized which from Rome are converted and brought over to the Church of England And true Ministers else why are they not re-ordained who after reconciliation are allowed to exercise their Ministerial Function when yet a Minister ordained by the Reformed Churches shall not enjoy that priviledge meerly for want of Episcopal Ordination And will the Doctor deny that they have the Eucharist in all its essential parts though they have superadded many gross
will certainly do 1. When such Communion shall persuade the parish-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
impossible to be attained till men are convinced of the evil and danger of the present Impositions and the Dr. was once of that mind when he proved so learnedly Iren. p. 1 2. That things necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed Which principle had he and others adhered to his Weapon-salve for the Churches wounds had been as common and famous as the sympathetical Powder which Sir K. Digby assures us is in France successfully practised by every Barber But why is Union impossible but upon such conviction Is it impossible for the same Power that imposed these severe conditions of Union to relax and remit them We use to say Eodem modo quo quid Instituitur destituitur There 's no more goes to Repeal a Law than to Enact it Nay it 's more possible for our Ecclesiasticks to wave what they confess indifferent than for the Laity to comply with what they judg sinful But if inexorable stiffness has made their condescention impossible who created the impossibility If Union as matters now stand is become desperate who put matters into that desperate posture It 's unreasonable that any should create a necessity of separation and then complain of an impossibility of union but 't is easily observed that men to conciliate repute to their own humors call what they have a mind to absolutely necessary and that to which they bear an aversion simply impossible The Grandees of the Church knew full well that the generality of the Nation who seriously attended Religion had contracted such principles as either condemned the Ceremonious appendages as sinful or unuseful and therefore sinful because unuseful they knew well also that these Impositions had lost much of that stock of credit upon which they had formerly set up for themselves and driven a pretty trade among us They must needs know too that to perpetuate the old Conditions would be but to perpetuate old divisions and create new ones why then would they venture so precious a lading as Peace in that old worm-eaten bottom wherein it must certainly miscarry But if it be impossible to attain Union at cheaper rates with men we must look up to Him to whom nothing is impossible who can open their eyes to see the things that belong to our common peace and in the mean time enable us to discharge the things that belong to our duty and bear those evils which shall attend them What a fine world now must moderate and unconcerned Christians have between these two some have sworn to endeavour a Reformation according to the word of God and others seem to have taken a solemn Oath never to come up to that Rule and between them both Vnion is impossible Well! say what we will or can it 's impossible to attain a lasting Vnion till Dissenters are convinc'd of the evil of their Separation Pray then convince them of it That he will do with a wet finger for the present Separation says the Doctor is carried on by such principles as not only overthrow the present constitution of our Church but any other whatsoever If that be the worst on 't we 'l endeavour to carry it on by better principles that shall overthrow neither will that please him But what if I should return that the present Impositions are supported by such principles as will divide not only our Church but any Church whatsoever This would be but a Rowland for his Oliver And I am somewhat confident that fairer probabilities may be offer'd for this Assertion than the other for as to matter of fact it 's most evident that from the first Infancy of the Gospel-state when the Church was in its Minority of years and Adult state of perfection to this very day nothing has more disorder'd the outward face of the Church than the Lordly Imperious Imposition of dubious matters Thus the Judaizing Dogmatizers who would stretch all mens Consciences to their own Last and compel them to a conformity to the antiquated Law of Moses began the brawl and their successors in pride have danced after their measures to the World's confusion Nor has any Engine of the Devil more batter'd and shaken the well-compacted Walls of God's Jerusalem than these roaring Ecclesiastical Canons And if we examine the principles upon which they proceed in exacting these unnecessary and doubtful terms of Union we shall find them the very same upon which proud Rome has introduced the whole Lirry of her superstitious Observances viz. an unaccountable power in those that are the Top to make them do and say any thing that are at the Bottom in which Observances and upon which Principle the Christian World never yet united and it 's more than probable never will But I intend not to confront but modestly examine the truth of the Doctor 's Assertion namely Whether the present Separation be carried on by such principles as not only overthrow the present Constitution of our Church but of any other whatsoever And there are two Inquiries I shall make upon this subject First Whether the principles by which the Separation is carried on will destroy any other Church Which if it be true and that the Dissenting-Churches are built upon such mouldering foundations such self-destroying principles it is next to miracle that they should yet stand and neither fall with their own weakness nor the weight of Oppression wherewith they have been surcharged that they should be continually batter'd with violence from without and undermined by policy from beneath and yet no considerable breach be made in their intrinsick Frame and Constitution Now to put this Question out of all question I will make a reasonable motion Leave the Dissenters quietly to overthrow themselves by their own bad principles and so shall the Church of England avoid the odium of Persecution which of late has no very good name and the Separators as Felones de se shall be condemned to have a stake driven through them who like the foolish woman pluckt down their own house upon their own heads with their own hands Give them but respite from outward fury and commit them to be crumbled to nothing by the inconsistency of their own principles and they must lay upon themselves not the Church the guilt of their own destruction The Dissenters have outlived one twenty years of vexation and if men could be quiet may outlive twenty more and in time outgrow all their weaknesses so that it may tempt an Impartial Considerer to think their present constitution immortal which no outward assaults no inward Schisms has been able to dissolve There are two things usually pleaded for the souls Immortality the one that it 's not compounded of Contraries such as by intestine jars may dissolve its essence The other that it 's not obnoxious to external Impressions such as may storm and break in pieceâ— its powers And on both those accounts the Dissenters humbly hope their Congregations may prove Immortal seeing they have not felt utter ruine 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-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
the means of their salvation will justifie a separation but I shall the less insist upon this because I am confident the Church of England never gave the Doctor a Commission to declare so much in her name and I believe will give him as little thanks for his labour 3. That every Christian is obliged at least necessitate praecepti to live in the use of all Gods Ordinances and Commandments and therefore it will follow 1. That where all Christs Institutions are not to be had a Christian may peaceably withdraw from that society and seek them where he can find them Now they say the case is this That though we ought not to commit one sin to enjoy all Christs Ordinances yet there are some wanting in this Church which if you would commit a thousand sins to purchase you cannot have them The preamble to the Office of Commination intimates some such matter Brethren in the Primitive Church there was a godly Discipline that at the beginning of Lent such persons as were notorious sinners were put to open penance and punishment in this world that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord and that others admonished by their example might be more afraid to offend Instead whereof until the said discipline may be restored again which thing is much to be desired it is thought good that at this time in your presence should-be read the general sentences of Gods curse against impenitent sinners Now view this paragraph well in its parts 1. There was a godly discipline in the Primitive times if we could have kept it 2. That this discipline was of unspeakable benefit to the people notorious sinners were put to open shame others warned by their censures and the end of all was the salvation of their souls 3. That this Ordinance is not to be found in the Church at this day which is a great loss 4. That it is a thing to be much desired and therefore it cannot but be worth the while to step over two thresholds for it it 's worth a wish if wishing would do it with the most ordinary Christian on earth 5. That there 's something set up instead of it but quo warranto we are not informed nor who has power to chop and change any Institution of his for a new trick a Quid pro Quo contrived by men And therefore we may fairly hope we shall not be condemned for Schismaticks for practising what they desire to practise but alas we can and they cannot because none hinders them 2. It will follow also that where the Institutions of Christ may be found yet if they be fetter'd and chain'd to or mixed with sinful Conditions 't is the same case as if they were not at all to be had for we can do nothing but what we can lawfully do To name no more at present we cannot have our Infants baptized without the Aerial sign of the Cross as a Medium whereby it is dedicated to Christ What then shall we do Here we may have a part or two of worship with innocency and peace of conscience but if we will walk in all Christs institutions we must seek elsewhere What shall we do then must we spend our Lords days in an undecent trotting up and down the Town for one scrap here a snap there or shall we sit down under a well-fixed order of Worship and Discipline and joyn with other Congregations occasionally in what they have This is the general course of Dissenters and will deliver us from that argument wherein they so much triumph That though we cannot joyn with them in all parts of worship yet are we bound to it so far as we are perswaded it is lawful so to do for we are fully perswaded 'tis our duty to partake of and communicate in every Ordinance of Christ and therefore statedly and fixedly to adhere to that Church where to that Pastor by whom they are all administred not neglecting other Congregations as Providence shall invite to participate of what they afford and what without sin we may have 4. That it is sinful to submit subscribe assent to dubious and obscure terms of Communion How far this principle will be allow'd us I know not but this I know the Reverend Doctor once allow'd himself the benefit of it when he justified the Separation of the Church of England from Rome Dialogue p. 165. We think says he the requiring of doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable is ground enough for us not to embrace communion with that Church unless it may be had on better terms And we think that this is ground enough for us as well as himself not to embrace the Communion of this Church seeing there are imposed upon us doubtful things for certain new for old and we think too false for true I say we think so and it was but the Doctors we think that he opposed to T. G. And we think further that this will vindicate us from those loud but empty outcrys of Schism and Schismaticks for so the Doctor asserts Ibid. We have often proved that the imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism I have told the Doctor what we think I will tell him now why we so think that doubtful things are imposed on us for certain false for true and among many others I assign this one instance That in the Catechism of the Church wherein the Laity are concern'd this Doctrine is contained That Infants perform faith and repentance by their sureties and such repentance too whereby they forsake sin and such faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament You see Sir how the Importunity of the Doctor has drawn us out of our reservedness Dissenters have been modest to their great prejudice and had rather dispute the matter upon other Arguments than those drawn from the sinfulness and unlawfulness of the things required out of that great veneration they have ever had for the Church of England and yet we hope that they that call and invite nay provoke and force us to this task will not be so disingenuous to trapan us into the ambush of a penal Statute it being unworthy of Gentlemen and persons of Honour first to be our Tempters and then our Accusers 5. That every Christian is obliged to walk with and in all the ways of God so far as they have attained so far as they have the knowledg of Gods Will they are to live up to it so far as they see their freedom from bondage they are to stand fast in it so far as they are advanced towards a perfect reformation they are to persevere All retrograde motions are dangerous for who knows but that the least declension from the ways of God may terminate in Apostacy Foreseeing Christians therefore will not dare to tread back those steps they have taken towards perfection but rather will
and tatters confounding the minds of peaceable Christians who would willingly have united upon those plain easie reasonable terms upon which they had already received and professed Christianity only these peevish trouble-houses would not let them And this is remarkable that the Apostle never gave one hard word to the Conscientious Dissenter nor one good word to the Judaizing Imposer in all his Epistles To what end now is all this pompous ceremonious train of words to what end are these Positions Suppositions and Preliminaries why so many Lines Entrenchments Galleries why these tedious Approaches why all this Spanish Gravity why does he not fall aboard with his Text and storm it Alas Things are not yet ripe and ready for such hot service and therefore 4 The Apostle having done this he persuades all good Christians to do as he did ver 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded What was that to assert his liberty he did so and would not be brought under the power even of lawful things 1 Cor. 6.12 Was it not to put his neck under the old yoke of bondage he did so or did he scorn to build up what he had once pluckt down he did so and would he have us do as be did Content Shall we stand fast in our liberty as he in his Content Must we not build up whatever of humane inventions we have pluckt down Content Would he have us as many as be perfect be thus minded Content Let as many as are as he was do as he did They that are honour'd with his Attainments let them come up to his Evangelical Practice when we were children we thought spake acted as children Are we grown up to Manhood let 's put away childish things It is a shame not to outgrow our Trinckets our Rattles our Hobby-horses when we have outgrown the Rickets Shall it be said of Christians as of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks are always children But such were the Judaizers always learning never coming to the knowledge of the truth And you may as soon whip these huge great Boys out of all Religion as out of one Ceremony so fond so doating so peevish froward awkward such a whimpering such a whining such puleing and powting for Ceremonies as if they had lost that famous Engine of the Nutcrack or had been plundered of a pin-box I have read of a learned man in this nation who tells us he had quite other sentiments of and apprehensions about death than most men others were afraid to die but he was ashamed to die Really many are afraid of the Ceremonies as sinful and I am not without those fears too but methinks I am greatly ashamed of 'em as I should that any should spie me riding upon a penny Colt or a Gelding No St. Paul would have them that are thus perfect grow up into a more manly and generous way of serving and worshipping God Though the famous Alcibiades did once to please a child condescend Ludere par impar equitare in Arundine longâ To play the fool at even-or-odd And for a hobby-horse ride a rod. 5. Hitherto we have felt no wound but like the bird in the tree looking at the gunner wonders what he 's fidling about till of a sudden she 's past feeling At last the Author comes nearer Because says he many disputes and differences as to opinion and practice might happen among them he therefore lays down two Rules to govern themselves by Here now the Dr. beats up and gets within our Quarters and very subtilly would insinuate to the unwary Reader that the Apostle gave two Rules about one and the same thing whenas 't is evident he gave but one nor was it possible he should give more in that case The case which the Dr. supposes is that there were differences of opinion and practice among the Philippians Let it be supposed Does the Apostle give two Rules in that case No! but one single Rule which was the Rule of mutual forbearance and leaving one another to Gods Instructions but in Another Case where Christians had attained to be of the like mind there the Rule was that they should walk up and according to what they had attained But we must go through now we are in and therefore let us hear what these two Rules are and what use he will make of them 1. Rule If any happen'd to differ from the body of Christians they lived with they should do it with modesty and humility not breaking out into factions and Divisions but waiting for further information Now here we want that Accuracy that might have been expected from a person of his Abilities For 1. He puts it as a rare and extraordinary Case If any happen such a one as might fall out in an Age or so whereas this was a most familiar Case and that which the Apostle met with everywhere that there was a difference of apprehensions about the lesser things at least of Religion nor was he to seek what direction to give in the case but uniformly determines that they should not judge nor despise each other upon these accounts nor was there ever any Church at any time wherein these differences did not happen 2. He lays the stress of the duty upon those that differ from the Body of the Christians they live with It is very true the Church or Body of Christians at Philippi at that time was sound in the Doctrine of the Gospel evangelical in their worship and regular in government and Discipline and therefore it was the duty of those that differed from that body not to separate from it but suppose any happened to differ from the body of Christians they lived with which were not so must the Rule hold equally is there the same obligation in the case also what if a Christian should happen to live at Rome what if it should be the Drs. lot to live there must he be under the same obligation not to divide from the body 3. He supposes the Rule only to be given to the person that happens to differ from the body of the Church whereas the Rule is mainly given to the Church how they are to demean themselves toward a dissenting brother viz. to wait till God shall reveal his mind to the person otherwise minded Neither is he to act nor the Church to compel till God clear it up to his Conscience that he may act like a Saint or since Saints is a term of reproach at least like a Man and not a Beast 4. He disguises his rule by those Terms of Art faction separation c whereas faction and separation are two things the one always sinful the other many times a duty 2. Rule For those that are come to a firmness and settlement upon the Christian Principles he charges them by all means to preserve Unity and Peace among themselves Now these things also are laid down with as much obscurity as one could wish For 1.
deny themselves in a greater matter than things strangled and blood rather than give offence to their weak Brethren without troubling the Church to make any Decree about them And when this Canon was in its greatest force and vigor the Gentile Believers might have eaten the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately yea in company where no offence would be given or taken for what was the Jewish Convert concern'd what another should eat at home either of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fragments of heathenish Sacrifices presented to him by his Relations or of those things killed by suffocation But alas the Case is otherwise with us for such is the necessity of the Cross the white Garment kneeling at the Supper c. That the omission of them shall silence and suspend a learned faithful laborious Minister of Jesus Christ ab officio beneficio from his work and wages 7. The Apostles add no penalty neither pecuniary corporal or spiritual to afright men into compliance with it but contented themselves to have commanded in the Name of Christ and of his true Church they made not those necessary things the conditions of ministerial or lay-communion Significavits Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo were not then invented nor till a long time after that the Lady Churches having lost the true spiritual Sword began to arm themselves with secular power to back and set an edge upon their Dictates 8. This Decree was onely negative not positive a restraint from the use of some but not an imposition of any It was onely This you shall not Do not This you shall Do which kind of Canons are much easier than the other Conscience may better be tyed up from acting in a hundred than forced to act in one particular A negative precept restrains us from acting at any time in any Case an affirmative always obliges but obliges not always to act in every Case But things at home are much otherwise where we are commanded both what to do and what not to do and are still constrain'd to act even in those things we apprehend against the command of God either in general or special 9. Lastly It appears from the Apostle Paul's After-writings that when this Decree had a little gratified the Jewish Converts weaned them a little from their old customs and usages whereof they were so tenacious mollified their morose and rugged tempers sweeten'd and endear'd them towards the Gentiles it expired of course as to what obligation it received from man and lay among those obsolete Canons which were not regarded because antiquated for when the reason of an humane Ecclesiastical Law ceases the Law itself ceases without any formal Repeal which because some expected should have been more solemn they will not be beaten out on 't but it 's still in force Thus have we seen the Vanity of the Doctor 's Supposition which he would persuade us is the Apostles viz. That there was a necessity of one fixed and certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians Which I am not afraid to call vain being so dark that we neither know whether the Rule must be of Divine or Humane Institution what the matter of it must be nor is it proved by Reason or any Scripture argument but what is ultimately resolved into that Decree made at Jerusalem which I have now fully shewn will do him nor his Cause any service SECT III. The Dissenters Plea from Rom. 14. and whether the Doctor hath spoken Reason to invalidate their Reasonings from hence THe Reverend Dr. having toiled hard to prove the necessity of a fixed standing Rule notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians about unnecessary matters and caught nothing to reward his pains bethinks himself of an objection that Dissenters might possibly make which he thus words for them Doth not the Apostle in the 14th Chapter of his Epistle to the Rom. lay down quite another Rule viz. only of mutual forbearance in such Cases where men are unsatisfied in Conscience Yes he doth so and the same Rule he lays down in the verse before the Drs. Text That if any were otherwise minded they should wait and not Act the Church should wait and not impose but leave them to the instruction of God To which the Dr. gives an intimation of a general answer That there was a vast difference between the case as it stood then at Rome and the case as it stood at Philippi For sayes he The Church of Rome consisted most of Jews where they did not impose the necessity of keeping the Law on the gentile Christians And therefore in this case he perswades both parties to forbearance and charity But now in those Churches suppose at Philippi for one where the false Apostles made use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches there the Apostle bids them beware of them and their practices as being of a dangerous and pernicious consequence So that the preserving the peace of the Church and preventing separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his Directions and that makes him insist so much on this advise to the Philippians that whatever their attainments were they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things I have often observed that when men are pinch't with plain Scripture they use to twist and twine and turn themselves into all shapes to get out of their streights and they have no more ordinary way of evasion than to fancy some imaginary various Cases upon which a various judgment must be made and a various Rule laid down to serve the present turn which is most notorious in this answer The Apostle acted like a prudent governour says he and in such a manner as he thought did tend most to the propagation of the Gospel and good of particular Churches To which some would reply that then there are a great many in the world that have acted like fools But my general answer is that the Apostle acted upon higher Reasons than those dictated to humane prudence even the infallible guidance and immediate direction of the Holy Ghost Divine directions and the supernatural counsels of the H. Spirit are well consistent and had he only gone upon thinking as the Dr. fancies I had rather have built my faith and practice upon one of his thinkings than upon one of the Drs. full perswasions 1 Cor. 7.40 I think also that I have the Spirit of God And he was not deceived in so thinking But for a particular answer § 1. The Doctors Reason why the Jewish professors at Rome did not impose on the gentile Christians the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses is this Because we do not find they did so And is not this an ingenious course for a person of his learning to suppose the main foundation upon which he builds the variety of the case with no other proof but that he does not find it so I do not find a
means for if they be true Churches of Christ his ill meaning will not deprive them if they be not so his good meaning will not give them a power to reform themselves 2. It may be quaeried how those Churches of the nations which separated from the Roman Empire came by this great priviledge to reform and govern themselves more than others for if it be an inherent power and right all Churches have it if not who could give it to some more than others 3. We should be glad to see what right to govern and reform themselves was given by the Scripture to national Churches which yet the Doctor affirms It had been very convenient to have proved their Being from Scripture before he asserted their right and power And it will make men admire that the Scripture should give a right to such Churches as it never knew 4. And if the Churches of those nations that were incorporated into national Churches upon the decay of the Roman Empire did by consent embody for their own preservation it can hardly be believed that they design'd their own destruction that is that those particular Churches should grant a power to National Ecclesiastical Governours that would deprive them of that power that they had within themselves For as it cannot be imagined that ever any number of families would embody to set a civil Governour over them and entrust him with a power that would destroy propriety or take away paternal authority or the just power of Masters over Servants so neither can we suppose in a dream that particular Churches should agree to unite in such a national frame as should destroy the power of the Pastors and Elders of the particular assemblies so as they should be but the Curates and their Churches but Chappels of to the Cathedrals and Bishops which were prudential Creatures erected meerly by their own consent 5. To say that the Church of Macedonia would have been National if from being a Roman province it had become a Christian Kingdom is to say thus much and no more That there would have been a national Church in Macedonia but for a small inconvenience that there was none 6. And to say that the several Churches of the Lydian or proconsular Asia would have been a National Church if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same authority under the same Rules is to say just as much that is nothing or nothing to the purpose for the uniting of several Churches under one Prince who governs them by the same Authority and Rules will not make one Church 7. And what strange kind of Churches were they who having assumed their just right of Government did then own Christianity and then incorporate into one Church where had they their just right of Government before their owning of Christianity 8. And if these particular Churches of Nations had power to incorporate into one National Church then the particular Churches are of Christs institution and these National Churches only prudential contrivances for common security and then it will follow that the National could have no power but what was freely given them by the particular Churches which cannot be imagined was ever given to their own Annihilation or rendring them meerly titular and perhaps they may resume their right when as weighty reasons do appear for the resumption as ever there were for their resignation 9. And if these particular Churches have so far devolved all the intrinsick power which Christ vested them with upon the National frame and constitution that they cannot now govern themselves reform themselves or exert the power which they sometimes had and enjoyed then have they unchurched themselves and remain only so much matter without form and then it can be no schism to separate from them since all corruptions among them must be immortal when they have foolishly quitted the power of reforming themselves except the National Church pleases This word Church has made a great noise in the world and we hear every moment what wonders what miracles the Church can do Now there 's a natural curiosity in all men to see that person or thing that boasts of this wonder-working power and accordingly we would gladly be acquainted with this body called Church To satisfie our Humour the Doctor tells us That the true Notion of a Church is no more than a society of men united together for their order and government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which description I perceive marvelously edifies all that hear it For a Parliament is a society of men and of men united and united for their order and government and truly I believe according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Quare now whether the Parliament of England be not the Church of England I humbly conceive the Doctor fell asleep in the next words It 's a great mistake says he to make a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that the true Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship For never certainly was any so bereaved of common sense as to assert that this is the adaequate Notion of a Church It had been civil to have quoted some one obscure Nonconformist that in some Book which none ever read but the Doctor has asserted such an Absurdity We say that the Publick Worship of God is one of the Ends of uniting into a Church Society but not the onely End and to exclude Worship as the Doctor seems to do in his description is as bad if not worse than to exclude Discipline and Government But we agree that Worship is not the onely End there must be Government Discipline exercised in every Church what will the Doctor gain by all this but that our Parochial Churches are not true Churches And when the Doctor says further There must be some other Bond to unite Churches some other besides Worship I cannot enough admire at the absurdity of the expression seeing Worship is not the Bond but the End of Union It has been familiar with this Reverend and Learned Person having been employ'd in more important Controversies either to mistake or misrepresent the Notions and Principles of the Dissenters for so I find him Answ to several Treatises p. 180 181. laying this down as a fundamental Principle of those who separate from the Church of England as to Worship wherein the difference lies that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he has expresly commanded And at the bottom of the same Page he repeats the same thing with the same confidence wherein the Doctor treads in the steps of Archbishop Whitgift and he must tread in his steps if ever he reach Lambeth who in his answer to the Admonition does charge the Puritans to hold That nothing was lawful in Worship but what was expresly commanded in the Word of God upon no better ground than that the Admonition had said nothing is lawful in Worship but what God has
been assignned to them nor do they love to have him for their Pastor whom they know to be of a different Religion from theirs But here are some particulars wherein the Reader will desire the Doctor 's ingenuity and that plainness which became a sermon 1. He asserts that there has been a great deal of art used to confound these two this I say is not honest dealing for they that Judge parochial Lay-communion lawful and have the greatest latitude that way have from Press and Pulpit sufficiently proclaimed their minds and they that judge otherwise have by their own practice and example sufficiently declared their judgment unless the Doctor be angry that they do not fill up their publick worship with declamations against Ceremonies and they that have made the nearest approaches to Parochial Communion have found such bad treatment that they are tempted to judge the Clergy are more afraid of their coming wholly in than keeping out of the Church and they are to be allowed the fittest judges in this case because they know best what stock the Church-commons will bear In the mean time they may take warning how they approach too near that flame which has already singed some or their wings and may possibly consume their whole bodies but consciencious men are above those considerations 2. The Doctor tells us that in the Judgment of the most impartial among the dissenters little is to be said on the behalf of the people from whom none of those things are required None of these things what not to dedicate their Children to God by the sign of the cross not to kneel at the Sacrament I am sure the Canons of 1603. have declared Can. 30. that in memory of the Cross and other Reasons the Church of England hath thought meet to retain the sign of the Cross in baptism taking it for a symbol whereby the Infant is devoted or dedicated to the service of him who dyed the death of the Cross This is the true import of that Canon which I cannot now give the Reader the English of Verbatim having only by me a Latine Copy of those Canons And those of the most impartial among the dissenters and such as have come nearest to conformity in their Lay-Capacity will tell you that there are some things which even they in their private station cannot comply withall 3. The Doctor does not understand how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a sin in hearing them Either then the things are unintelligible or the Dr. is not that man of understanding we have always taken him for what the Divisions of Reuben were he does not well understand p. 2. Why many Cities united under one civil government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one national Church he cannot understand p. 19. And if occasional Communion be lawful that constant Communion should not be a duty is hard to understand p. 56. And now here how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a fault in hearing them he does not understand But what great difficulty lies in this Some do sin though they hear and yet not sin because they hear or there may be a sin in the hearer and yet no sin in hearing but whatever the tempers or distempers the ends and designs of the hearers are that which justifies the Ministers preaching is his own call to the Ministry not the qualification of the hearers A man may come from the next parish to hear the Doctor when by the Rules of the Church he should have been in his own parish Church and yet the Doctor will not think that this supersedes the exercise of his Ministry Some may come out of custom because they have used to trundle thither down the hill others out of curiosity to hear a person of whom fame has spoken so much others out of a carping humour to pick quarrels as no doubt Priests and Jesuites have done and yet the Doctor satisfies himself that it is his duty to do his Masters work and however they hear sinfully schismatically captiously yet he is acquitted in his ministerial service 3 The Doctor tells us he does not confound bare suspending Communion in some particular Rites with either total or at least ordinary forbearance of Communion in what they judge lawful and proceeding to the forming of separate Congregations What great matter is it to us or to the controversie what the Doctor shall please to confound or to distinguish The law of the nation which is the assigned Rule and Reason of Conformity requires total Conformity to all Rites The Law considers not whether mens scruples be modest or immodest nor what they judge lawful or unlawful Conformity is exacted to the whole Liturgy Ceremonies and the Laity must not pick and chuse what they can use and refuse the rest they must like Travellours on the King 's high way keep to the road and not break out here and there to escape the foul way If the Doctor were the Church of England or the Parliament it were considerable but as the case stands we are under a peremptory law Now then if there be some things which we do scruple and not only scruple but upon the most impartial scrutiny we can make do judge sinful and these be made the condition of enjoying one Sacrament or other Ordinance of Christ and that by a law of his as peremptory as any of these of men and imposed upon a far more severe penalty than man can inflict we are bound to live in the constant use of all his institutions we must unite our selves to those churches where we may enjoy them upon better terms Thus much in consideration of his considerations But yet we are to seek for the answer to the Question How far we are obliged to comply with an establisht Rule Separation of whole Churches is shut out of the Question Ministerial Conformity is shut out of the Question Suspending Communion in some particular Rites is shut out of the Question But where is the answer to the Question That is adjourned or prorogued or utterly lost and therefore if any honest Gentleman or Citizen has taken up the answer to this question lost between St. Pauls and the Guild-Hall Chappel let him restore it to the owner and he will be well rewarded for his pains And now let the Reader judge whether the dissenters are not likely to be well instructed by a Catechism made up of Questions without Answers SECT V. The state of the present Controversie between the disagreeing Parties as laid down by the Doctor what Concessions some Dissenters make and what use the Doctor makes of them THE former Question being laid by at present he comes to consider the present Case of Separation and to make the sinfulness and mischief of it appear And this is it which denominates the Discourse The Mischief of Separation Though to an impartial Considerer how loth they are to step over a straw or to forgo the
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-Parish-Churches will do more harm than good which it
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
in his time who satisfied all his Neighbours contending about the old Ceremony of Chaucers Ale-stake and determined it thus Neighbours you that are for a May-pole shall have a May-pole and you that are for no May-pole shall have no May-pole Christians that have out-grown their Juvenile-vanities can be satisfied with a worship adorned with Gospel-simplicity but if any must have a better let the children be satisfied rather than bawl and disturb the family But the Doctor would have us consider further How many things must be allow'd a favourable Interpretation how many things must be born how many things must be allow'd a favourable construction I fear they are Sans number Now if our Interpretation might stand for Authentick and they would allow us to add our Interpretation to their Text this were something In the mean time let them be pleased to consider whether a more favourable Interpretation ought not to be put upon the principles and practises of Dissenters without wresting vexing torturing them to a sense beyond and against their intentions And further may it please them to consider whether a more favourable Interpretation ought not to be put upon their own Constitutions for it cannot be expected that any should interpret them favourably if they themselves Interpret them rigidly And the execution of Laws and Canons will tell us what construction they put upon them that best understand ' em It cannot be hidden what an Interpretation has been made of the Statute against Popish Recusants to torment poor Protestants who are brought within the lash of it though out of the Reason of it And lastly we humbly desire it may be a little better considered that the Imposed matters are in their judgments indifferent in ours sinful which is like the Quid si to an Atheist that can never be answered And seeing as the Doctor says something will be amiss either in Doctrine Discipline Ceremonies or Manners he might have added or in all that they who have the power in their hands would either rectifie what is amiss or however not compel others to comply with what they themselves confess to be so 3. He would have us consider How Separation of the people from our Churches comes to be more lawful now than in the days of our Fathers But had it not been more becoming a rational Divine first to consider whether it be so or no before it be considered how it came to be so Many men are so hasty they leap over the stile before they come at it 1. Then Separation was as lawful then as 't is now had they seen with our eyes and as unlawful now as then if we saw with their eyes I mean the eyes of Conformists for such are they who are produced against us And what an odd argument is it to quote them for our Fathers who were their own Grandfathers 2. It would be considered whether the Separation of former times was not much greater than that of the present time for they proceeded to set up their Presbyteries their Synods their Provincial and National Assemblies formed themselves into separate bodies for Government and were soundly smok't for it in the high Commission 3. And yet if in any respect the Separation be greater now than it was then it is because there are more severe terms put upon the Pastors of Churches and they being removed from the Benefices the Flock did not judg that a sufficient discharge from nor dissolution of their relation and therefore adhered to their true and only lawful Pastor and by consequence a Separation followed Nor were the Ministers of old haggled off their legs with a quarter of the Oaths Subscriptions Declarations Renunciations that now they are and they that took such care to throw the Pastors out of Churches must be responsible to Christ if the people follow'd them And in those former days there was much connivence and Indulgence exercised towards the Nonconformists in some obscure places where lay no temptation to a quare Impedit but we have mended the matter as sowr Ale does in Summer 4. Lastly He would have us consider The common danger that threatens us all by our divisions which if some late Preachers had well considered they had never blown up the sparks of persecution against Protestant Dissenters we are willing to consider the common danger that threatens us by our Divisions Are they as willing to consider and remove the Causes of the Divisions which heighten the common danger If the danger be common to both why is not the security so too Must the Dissenters only be in danger on all hands Wise men that can foresee a common danger should not destroy one half of their friends that the common enemy may with more ease destroy the other The first Conquest Rome made of Brittain was by this error of the Natives Dum singuli pugnant omnes vincantur and we heartily wish that in their next attempt they proceed not upon the encouragement of the same Maxim In which Devastation though all are like enough to share in the common misery yet their share of the sin will be the greatest that would hazard every thing rather than part with any thing that would lose the Horse to save the Saddle or perhaps one hair of the Horses tail They that are such admirers of Vnity and will yeild nothing to procure it and have such apprehensions of Popery and yet will do nothing to prevent it must presume strangely of the strength of their Rhetorick or think meanly of the weakness of our Reasons if ever they hope to Proselyte us into the faith of it As for Dissenters how vigilant and active they have been against the Designs of Rome how Cordially they have espoused the common English Protestant Interest without regard to their private pretensions how zealous they have been for His Majesties Person Government and Interest let others speak we shall be silent SECT XIII The Doctors Pacquet of Advices Advised upon with some humble Advice to himself and others The Conclusion THE Advice to those in Communion with the Church was short and sweet but the Dissenters shall now have it by Winchester measure § 1. And first we are advised Not to give encouragement to rash and intemperate zeal We thankfully take his advice and humbly return our own Not to give encouragement to rash and intemperate Railing whether he gave or his successor took without his giving any encouragement to let fly at Meroz to vomit up a whole Pulpitful of Gall we must no determine but if the quatuor tempora four times a year or so would serve their turn to revile us we could be content but this intemperate railing grows very tedious That Gregory Nazianzen seldom saw any good end of Councils we easily believe and have therefore the less hope of Convocations for my part I observed nothing more in the Nation than an universal tendency to mutual love and forbearance till that of late some fearing we should
be too happy beat up the Pulpit-drums to awaken drowsie persecution § 2. He advises us not to be always complaining of our hardships and persecutions That 's I confess somewhat a hard chapter to be always forced and never allow'd to complain Let them either take away the cause of Complaint or our sense of the Cause and we shall either not need the advice or quickly take it To vent inward griefs in outward expressions is some little relief to an oppressed heart that must either breath or break but thus passionate Mothers sometimes whip the child till it cryes and then whip it for crying which a blunt great man once exprest in more slovenly phrase To beat a Dog till he stinks and then beat him for stinking which had never offended the Readers ears if the Doctor comparing the Separators to Dogs p. 7 8. had not warranted the Decency of the expression Nor yet do we always complain of our hardships nor with uncivil reflexions nor at all of our Prince in whom we might be compleatly happy if some Insinuators did not intercept his Royal Propensities to Grace and Mercy How easie is it for them that are at ease to read Lectures of patience to those in misery thus we advise the poor sick patient to patience and gravely reprove his sighs and groanings Omnes Consilium facilè aegrotis damus And thus the keepers of the Inquisition pity their wretched prisoners telling them they do ill to complain of their hard fare since a spare diet is more for the health of them that want air and exercise thus did Julian answer the complaints of the Christians That he had taken away nothing from them but what was a hindrance to their spiritual race and now they might more easily thrust in at the narrow gate when he had stript them of the worlds cumber but to pinch us and then command us not to feel is to chew the bullet that the wound may be more incurable the anguish more intolerable We will not say with Job chap. 16. v. 4. If your soul were in our souls stead we could heap up words against you but this we may that seeing he will neither allow us to lay down our burthens nor complain of them we will allow our selves to complain of our sins and when we are discharg'd of those we shall bear other loads the better § 3. We have this Advice Not to condemn others for what we our selves have practised and think to be lawful 'T is good counsel Nor do we remember that ever we persecuted our brethren for non-compliance with our inventions nor that we know of did we ever silence two thousand Ministers at one clap for scrupling our modes of worship The heats and animosities of Brethren ought to be bewailed not imitated and though they have not silenced each other for trifles yet the wise God to take down their stomacks has chosen they should suffer by others hands and not their own But the Doctor turns his Advice into Accusation and draws up a Charge against the several sorts of Dissenters from their own practices 1 And first he must be supposed to begin with the Presbyterians Who contend even at this day for the obligation of a Covenant which binds men to endeavour after uniformity in Doctrine Discipline and Worship I will add the words following according to the word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches And will they condemn the Doctor for such a Covenant Vniformity they plead for and Vniformity they plead against and yet without any shew of contradiction for it 's another Uniformity they plead for than that they plead against If T. G. had advised the Doctor not to condemn the Papists for what he himself practises not to condemn them for worshipping God when he worships the same God his answer had been ready we worship and you worship the same God but not with the same worship And so from his own answer he might have answer'd himself The great rule we own is this In necessariis unitas in Adiaphoris libertas in utrisque charitas Let unity and if you will Vniformity be kept in necessaries in non-necessaries liberty in both charity 2 The Independents must have a touch too for their severity in New England where as he says They made it no les◠than banishment for the Anabaptists to set up other Churches among them That is they banisht them to their own homes in Old England we desire we may suffer no worse banishment here But yet the news is very bad if it be true but we suspect all stories from thence ever since the great Archdeacon licensed the Legend of one Mr. Baxter baptized in his own blood by the Anabaptists there for which his Doctorship came upon the stool of repentance but supposing the information true he must first weigh all the circumstances of it before he can justly condemn them and then show that we have practised the same thing we condemn in others 3 He has a fling at the Quakers too Who notwithstanding the single independency of every mans light within have found it necessary to make rules and orders among themselves to govern their societies to which they expect an uniform obedience and allow no liberty out of the Power and the Truth And let them expect it so long as they do not exact it I am confident those persons will not condemn the Clergy for their highest expectations if they would forbear their rigid exactions I see then plainly some mens dealings are harder than their arguments Vniformity may be good who imposes it is not much considerable all the controversie lyes what the matter of which it must consist what the rules by which it must be enjoined ought to be § 4. His next advice is Not to inflame the peoples heats by making their differences with the Church of England to appear greater than they are They that complain of other mens heats ought to cool their own but thus the Torrid Zone may send a Pacquet of Advice to the Temperate not to inflame the peoples heats They that make the differences not they that make 'em appear are the dividers nor have we made 'em appear greater than they are though some have made 'em greater than they need be If we preach this Doctrine to the people that the parish-Parish-Churches are true Churches they will never believe us so long as they believe the Doctor That one Church one Altar one Baptistry and one Bishop in his sense were of the same extent and latitude and all the rest but Occasional Meetings pag. 27. and if we should preach to them that if Occasional Communion be lawful constant communion will be a duty they would but laugh at us and perhaps we should smile a little at our selves That the Dissenters have as the Doctor says some little interests of their own is very true little very little interests they are but if he will thence conclude they prefer 'em before
together in the Church compar'd with ver 20. when ye come together into one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where to meet in the Church and to meet in one place are phrases of equal Latitude and so Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians Edit Voss p. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. If the Prayer of one or two Christians hath such power how much greater efficacy hath that of the Bishop and the whole Church he therefore that cometh not to that place or that Congregation is already proud and hath condemned himself Hitherto the Doctor has endeavor'd to overthrow the Principle which seeing he cannot do he comes to suppose or grant it yet withal denying that from thence any thing can be drawn that will justifie Separation § 1. Suppose says he that the first Churches by reason of the small numbers of Believers at that time were Congregational yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the Peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant state To which I answer none at all we know no such obligation lies upon us and do wish that they supposing the Church to be Metropolitical or National did see no more obligation lying upon them to disturb the Peace of the Churches that we live in to reduce all to their overgrown state we are for our own liberty without infringing theirs but it 's common to complain of other mens unpeaceableness who will have peace with none but themselves § 2. They do not think it necessary says he to introduce the first community of goods which was far more certainly practised than Congregational Churches nor to wash one anothers feet though Christ did it and bad his Disciples do as he did I answer 1. For Community of Goods I dare say I shall convince the Doctor it was no obliging example for he has no temptation to become a Leveller and would lose more than he could hope to gain by putting all the Benefices of the Land into Hotchpot For there was never any such command or practice for the promiscuous use of all outward things without the free consent of individual Christians Propriety was not then destroyed but each Christian was the Proprietor of his Estate the great exigency of the Church did invite to a very liberal and extraordinary measure of charitable contribution to the necessity of the Saints but still it was voluntary and no otherwise forced than by Arguments Acts 5.4 While it remained was it not thy own and after it was sold was it not in thy power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Charity did not destroy Propriety And if the same distress should again overtake any particular Church as that was it would be as much the duty of the Rich to extend their Benevolence to the necessity of their poor Brethren as then it was or could be 2. For his instance of Christ's washing his Disciples Feet and commanding them to do as he did What person that reads the Scripture does not observe that it was not the washing the Feet that was commanded but that mutual deference reciprocal serving of each other avoiding of ambitious encroaching of one over another when Christ had made them Equals this was the great Point Christ would instruct them in by that temporary Ceremony For so it is commanded that we lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting 1 Tim. 2.8 when yet none ever stood so superstitiously upon 't that every man is bound to lift up his hands in Prayer but the Duty was purity of the whole man Two things therefore there are in this reasoning which would be better cleared 1. That there is no more necessity for the worship of God in particular Assemblies at all times under all conditions of the Church than there was for the Community of Goods in that extraordinary exigence of the Church at that time 2. That Propriety of our Estates and the right of our particular Churches to worship God must give way to National Church Frames in both which we have some cause to be tender and not to part with them till we receive better Arguments § 3. The Doctor reasons thus with us They believe that the first Civil Government was appointed by God himself over all Families do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to their first institution if not why shall the Peace of the Church be in so much worse a condition than that of the Civil State To which the Answer is very plain 1. We look upon our selves under no obligation to disturb much less to destroy Kingdoms or any kind of Government whatever to reduce things to their first institution nor is there any need of it to destroy the Civil Government by reducing the Church to such a posture as will answer the great designs of Religion 2. The same Divine Authority that instituted Civil Government in Families did also institute Government over Families whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and if the Doctor can shew that the same Authority which appointed particular Churches for his own service and glory and the edification of Believers hath also appointed National Churches for the same ends we shall confess that his Instance is parallel his Argument from thence cogent and such as will cut asunder the Nerves of our Answer when the wise God did institute National Civil Government yet be reserved entire to the Masters of Families their authority over Servants and Children and the propriety in their Estates but how will this justifie such a National Church-Government as destroys the inherent power of the Pastors of particular Churches making them only shadows of the primitive Pastoral Authority if shadows and leaving them onely the bare Name if the Name of Pastors without any power inherent in them to govern the Churches over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers § 4. He reasons thus It 's very uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as they fancy If so then 1. It is as uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as he Fancies If it were uncertain whether God would be Worship't in particular Congregations that had a power to Govern and Reform themselves then it must be as uncertain nay more uncertain whether God would have a Frame Erected of such Churches where God could not be Worship't 2. And if it be uncertain what the primitive Form was then it 's very crâ—â—â— to plague and torment men as Schismaticks that are quiet and peaceable 〈◊〉 design nothing but the serving their God and saving their Souls for not complying with such a Form or Frame which it is uncertain whether it were the Primitive one or no. 3. And then it will be very certain that there can be no Obligation upon us to hold Communion with the Parochial Church by Divine right since it 's uncertain whether God ever intended such assemblies of Christians or no. 4. And then it will be uncertain also whether the Parochial
Ministers be true Ministers of Christ for if there be no certainty of the Divine Right of particular Congregations there can be as little of certainty That there is any Divine Authority given to the Teachers of them And 5. It will be uncertain whether God will be solemnly and publickly Worshipped for where can he so be but in particular Assemblies And thus to make a National Church certain he has reduced all things to an utter uncertainty § 5. He argues further to this purpose It 's certainly our Duty to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians and it 's impossible so to do if Men break all orders in Pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform It 's well there is something Certain though it 's hard to conceive how we should preserve Peace if it be uncertain in what we 〈◊〉 to unite and agree It 's the Unity of the Spirit that will be kept in the Bond of Peace Peace is the Bond of the Churches but there must be first conceived a Church which Peace is to bind There must be a Vineyard or to what purpose a Hedge a City or to what purpose a Wall or Bulwark More particularly 1. As it is the Duty of all Men to preserve the Churches Peace so 't is theirs especially who have got the Management of things in their hands not to lay such dubious Terms in the way of Peace which they know many Consciencious persons cannot get over but have ever stumbled at for it may be returned with ease It is impossible to preserve Peace if wen will make such Orders as they know others must break meerly for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform 2. If Peace be impossible to be had upon this account who are in the fault Dissenters can maintain a fraternal Charity towards them and their Churches who differ from them in Principle and Practice if imposers cannot or will not discharge that Duty reciprocally we are not responsible for their Passions we can love them whether they will or no though we cannot force them against their will to return that Love and Charity 3. But must Peace be extended no farther than local and actual Communion or must the Parishes of St. Andrews Sepulchers and St. Giles go together by the ears because one Church will not hold the hundredth part of them I can hold and maintain Peace with the Greek Church and yet I never intend actual Communion with it unless she were much more Reformed from all her Corruptions than she is like to be in haste There may be such Corruptions in a Church as may defile it and yet not un-Church it I can distinguish between the Christians and their Christianity on one hand and the Pollutions wherewith they have abased their Christianity on the other § 6 But to this the Doctor Answers Men may please themselves in talking of preserving Peace and Love under separate Communions but our own sad experience shews the contrary This is the upshot of his Reasonings There can be no Peace under separate Communions which I shall answer by asking a few sober questions which will lead to their respective Answers 1. Whether by separate Communion he intends only such as is Locally separate if so joyful Experience shews us the contrary we have no Bellum Parochiale nor are like to have could they secure us as well against a Bellum Episcopale 2. Does he by Separated Communion intend such as differ only in some external Modes How then do the Countrey Villages agree so well with the Cathedral Mother-Churches It 's certain that the Cathedral Service and that of the under Parishes differ so much that a poor Countrey-man dropping in by chance into the Worship would be half affrighted out of his Wits such a Ditty such a Din with Organs Choristers Singing-men and Boys that from the uncertain Sound and confused noise the poor Fellow would not know what was Piped or Tooted so a grave Alderman in the days of Yore going out with the Common-hunt and being askt if he did not feel a transport and extasie of soul at the ravishing musick of the hounds protested he could not hear any musick at all for the barking of those yelping Curs but come into the Country we have nothing there but bad Rhimes set to as bad tunes and worse sung In the one you have turning hither faceing thither such ducking dopping bending bowing cringing changing of postures that the poor country man begins to question whether it be the same God that they and he worship and if it be he 's amazed that God should regard their rude homespun devotions when he has such glorious service such splendid pompous worship in other places and yet we do not see that they come to knocking If then these two sorts can live peaceably and lovingly together the one not despising the rusticity of the high-shoe devotions the other not judging of envying at or grudging against their more stately shows and pageants why will they quarrel with the plain dissenters whose only fault is that though their worship is not well trimmed up with ceremonious ribons 't is of as strong stuff will last as long and keep the wearer as warm as the other 3. Whereas the Doctor fancies that this will alienate mens affections The remedy is to preach down passion pride censoriousness and those base lusts which would produce the same effects if all men were of one Communion If one will be angry because another mans Nose is longer than his own he must restrain his anger for the other cannot help the longitude of his Nose nor give it one degree less of elevation Let them punish or otherwise restrain those incendiaries who by their hot and fiery tempers will suffer none to be cool that are in themselves of a more winterly temper Let them curb such preachers as the Author of Curse ye Meroz who did enough to have kindled a greater fire at Guild-Hall than that which begun at Pudding-Lane The disease lies in mens minds and when they would heal the outward Symptom 't is but like him that applied the plaister to the wrong finger and then complained of his plaister Let men be preacht into the spirit of mutual forbearance and there will be peace under various practices These continual beatings of the Doctor and some others upon Peace mind me of what I have somewhere or other seen or read of a great Gentleman who courted a Lady of no less virtue than Beauty and such an Inamorato was he grown that he became exceedingly melancholly his folded armes his hat plukt in 's eyes retiredness from all company witnessed great distress at last he came to a resolution that seeing he could not win her affections he would die a Sacrifice in the flame of his own This noble Lady whose Name I now remember was Madam Peace not willing that any Gentleman should die a Martyr for her sake began to relent only she desired