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
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
be pressing forward to whatsoever degree of exactness in this life is attainable We question whether we ought not to aspire and endeavour after greater purity but it 's past all question with us that we ought not to retreat to greater Impurity Dissenters are so far from divding that they would be growing up into greater Union they would walk as they have attained to know and would know more that they may walk farther know clearer that they may walk holier and for what they cannot attain by study prayer and the due use of all good means they would humbly wait upon God till he shall and that he may reveal even that thing also unto them But some are so hasty and impatient that they will neither stay Gods leisure nor theirs but drive knowledg into their heads and their brains out of their heads with the great Churchbeetle 6. Lastly I have heard some of them own this principle That where the Church has no power to command there it cannot be the peoples duty to obey for power to command and obligation to obedience being Relatives must be affirmed or denied equally and reciprocally if then the Church has no power from Christ and whence she should derive it but from him I cannot divine to impose these things in Controversie it can never be proved their duty to obey in the premises 'T is a sad sight to see how Dissenters have been teazed with that Text Let all things be done decently and in order but the clamour grows very weak from that Quarter and now a new Text has been found out which they hope will kill and slay all before it As we have already attained let 's walk by the same rule from whence they argue with singular acuteness we must walk as we have attained and therefore we must walk as we have not attained if we be otherwise minded we must wait till God reveal it to us therefore though we be otherwise minded we must act as if like-minded and though there be various degrees of light and knowledg yet we must come up to an uniformity of practise as if there were no variety of degrees which makes a man a certain creature about six pence better than a horse though some think upon that principle he 's a shilling worse But these Doctrines of the Doctors are collected and raised from the Text just as our Collectors raise a Tax upon indigent non-solvent people who come armed with a Law and a Constable to distrain for that which is not to be had rather than the King should lose his Right and certainly never was Text so strained and distrained to pay what it never owed never man so Rack't to confess what he never thought never was a Pumice-stone so squeez'd for water which it never held nor ever a good Cause so miserably put to its shifts as to press those innocent Texts against their wills which refuse to come in as Volunteers to the service Notwithstanding what has been said it shall stand for not-spoken if the Doctor can prove his assertion That the present Separation is carried on by such principles as will overthrow any Church whatever Thus then he proceeds If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and set up new Churches Now because this dead weight always hangs lugging on one side give me leave to put a Counterpoise on the other side to make it hang more even If it be lawful to impose the Ceremonies upon pretence of decency and order and to exact submission to them upon pretence of Peace and Vnion then may bare will and pleasure be a sufficient reason to raise the severest persecution to force Communion against conscience or to destroy all the Churches of Christ on earth for a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstances Let us however with all tenderness examine this way of Reasoning always protesting 1. That we will not be cheated with that expression of pretence of greater Purity for we do not allow hypocrisie to be a sufficient ground of Separation 2. Nor with that other expression a bare difference in opinion which we would explain both here and hereafter if we understood the meaning of it These things premised I observe in his Argument some things prudently supposed and those supposals as wisely improved First then here are some things very prudently supposed As 1. that there is a confessed agreement between the differing parties in Doctrine But where shall we find that system of Doctrine in which the Agreement is supposed to lye shall we seek it in the Holy Scriptures In vain one party can find a Church-power there to make Canons in which the other party shall be bound to acquiesce upon pain and peril of the guilt of Schism but the Dissenting-party can see no such matter Those again have found a Doctrine there that the Addition of any thing in specie to Gods word or worship which he has not commanded in genere is culpable but the other party wonder where they pickt up this ungrateful Doctrine shall we then go search for this supposed or confessed agreement in the 39 Articles there or no where we may expect to meet with it but here also are we miserably disappointed for the Doctor himself has satisfied us in his Rational Account p. 54 55. That the learned Primate of Ireland understand not B. Vsher but Bramhall tells us the sense of the 39 Articles of this Church Neither doth the Church of England define any of these Questions necessarily to be believed either necessitate praecepti or Medii but only bindeth her sons for peace-sake not to oppose them And more fully in another place We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of Vnity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but not to contradict them Now if this be true I would fain learn how the Doctor can be so confident that we are agreed in Doctrine when we are at a loss and wholly to seek in what Doctrine to agree You are surprized Sir I doubt not at this discovery Has not the Church of England defined in her 39 Articles any thing necessarily to be believed then it seems the essence and existence of a God is not defined to be necessary Are these Articles no essentials of saving faith then it 's no essential point of faith to believe that Christ is the eternal Son of God Are these but pious Opinions then it 's a pious Opinion that we are justified by faith without our own merits
Is it enough not to contradict them and that we are not obliged to believe them then an Atheist is agreed in the Article of the Godhead if he has but wit enough to keep a good tongue in his head And the Socinian is agreed in the Article of the Trinity the Papist agreed too in the Article against Transubstantiation provided always they can but bite in their sentiments nay the Protestants at Rome are agreed in the Articles of Trent the Christians in Constantinople are agreed in the Alchoran for I think they do not believe them and yet have so much wit as not to contradict them Here they torment us with new-coyned Distinctions of primary and secondary affirmative and negative Articles some more refined others of an inferiour Alloy Well then let us suppose that the negative secondary the Articles of the lower Classis are not necessary to be believed in order to salvation Are we agreed in the primary affirmative and those of the highest form I doubt not for granting that the Dissenters assent to them and the Assenters dissent or suppose on the other side the Conformists agree to them and the Nonconformists disagree 't is all a case they are in the same degree of distance from each other Now the plain truth is this The Dissenters generally agree with that book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a hundred years ago and this book some men call the Church of England but then they are far from Agreement with the leading Clergy-men of this generation who as near as we can ghess do constitute the Church And this is certain that the Rulers and Teachers of the Church do really differ from one another and therefore Dissenters must needs differ from some of them but which of them is the Church we know not If both parties the Church must necessarily be of two Religions and so this pretended agreement is not real and sincere but notional speculative and imaginary 2. 'T is further supposed that the disagreeing parties are yet agreed in the substantial parts of worship To which I must answer 1. That we know of no Commission no Charter granted by Christ to any Church to institute any parts of worship at all whether substantial integral or circumstantial or by what other devised terms they be distinguished or confounded 2. Nor have we heard of any Rule assigned by Christ to warrant them how to disterminate the substantial parts of worship from the Integral or the integral parts from the circumstantial How easie a thing were it to demolish a substantial part of worship pretending it to be only a circumstantial part or to magnifie something of their own which they have drest up like worship and then exact Conformity to it and Union in it in the Name of Christ for it 's a common observation That when they would wheadle us into Compliance then every thing is but Circumstance but when they proceed to chastise us for Nonconformity then the same things are nick-named substantials matters of moment such as without which no Church no Government no Worship can possibly breathe or subsist And yet if the matter were well searcht into perhaps we are not so clearly agreed in the substantial parts of worship An outward visible sign of an inward and invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of worship If it be instituted by Christ 't is a divine lawful part of worship and he will bless it If only appointed by man out of his great tenderness to supply the defects of Christs Institution this is also a part of worship but humane it has the matter and outward form only wanting the right efficient cause it wants that which should give it the stamp of Authentical and warrantable worship Again we see with our eyes worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Jesus and these things are made the Motive of worship if not something else perhaps no Canon enforce these but yet they are generally practised by all that hope to make earnings and good wages out of the Churches preferments Now whether the Conformists exceed the Canons or the Nonconformists fall short of them 't is still the same case and there will be the same or greater difference than if the former kept level with the Rule and the other came short of it or the latter came up to the Rule and the other transcended it The Doctor will tell us That to bow at the Name of Jesus is no more than going to Church at the Tolling of a Bell Defence p. 864. and is very facetious and pleasant with his adversary T. G. drolling about Whittingtons Bells and Meg of Westminster p. 867. nor ought any man dare to check the excellent wit of these Repartees only it had been wisht he had bestow'd a little fancy on Whittingtons Cat but I assure the Doctor in many indifferent mens judgment the Objection is not so easily dofft off for why may not an Image give warning to the eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear 'T is true indeed the Papists have preferred an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs but the question is Whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated Motive to worship If they do how shall we excuse our own Adorations if not why do we not introduce Images into our Churches as well as these other of bowing towards the Altar c which if once our Church-men shall venture upon as with equal reason they may do they 'l find them not a Bell to Toll Dissenters into the Church but thousands of Assenters out of it Besides his Illustration is very lame though witty enough for the Bell tolls out of worship to Convene the people to the worship of God but the sound of the word Jesus is used in the midst in the height in the heat of worship when the soul should be most firmly ardently intent upon its Devotion and not sit listning and watching as Whittingtons Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But if it be a duty to give external reverence to God when ever the word Jesus is named there 's more need of it in our ordinary Converses and the secular affairs of this world when those divertisements distract our minds from the actual thoughts of God which might be retrieved by this Doctrine and so that word might do the service of another Bell I mean that which in Popish Countries goes Ting tang ting tang before the Hoste when carried to the sick or dying from which all that meet it are obliged to take the hint and fall down and worship The moderation of that Canon 1640 which recommends bowing towards the East or Altar is very commendable In the practise or
Is it not the duty of those who are not arrived at that firmness and settlement of judgment to preserve Unity and Peace without question only this will handsomly mislead us to a mistake that Unity and Peace among Christians are unattainable till they are all of one scantling in Opinion for this is the fancy that is gotten into mens heads That we must have peace with all that in order to Peace there must be Unity of judgment and uniformity in practice 2. He says the Apostle charges them by all means to preserve Unity which if we understand of Gods means is very true but we are not to use our own means such as a naughty heart would prompt to us not to prostitute our Reasons and Consciences to the lust of men but if it be possible as much as in us lies to live in Unity and Peace The Text I see is exceedingly unwilling to be dragg'd into the Doctor 's service two or three plucks therefore he will try more and if it will not come leave it as incorrigible and untractable for says he the Apostle supposes two things § 1. The necessity of one fixed certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians This the Dr. calls one of the Apostles but 't is certainly one of his own supposals For 1. We are even now told of two Rules one for them that differ from the body of Christians they lived with and here the Rule was to leave them to Gods immediate Care for farther illumination but now there is but one fixed standing Rule notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians 2. And to what end is there a fixed Rule inflexible and untreatable when dissatisfaction of Conscience about these matters will exempt any man from it or to what purpose had we a Rule for Indulgence if now it must be vacated by this certain and fixed Rule 3. If there be such a necessity of a fixed standing Rule notwithstanding mens different attainments It 's a wonder the Scripture that contains all things necessary should not speak of it neither of the matter of this Rule nor the makers of the Rule nor the Rules by which the Rule must be made 4. And if there must be one fixed Rule then perhaps The particular forms of Church-government may in time prove jure Divino 5. And what are we the nearer to satisfaction to be told of a Rule and not to be told also what that Rule is If a Scripture Rule we agree but that will not serve his turn if a Rule sent down by Tradition that would do his work but that we want evidence it was intended by the Apostle If Christ or his Apostles had made the Rule with what security of Conscience with what satisfaction of mind could we acquiesce in it but if it be a rule made by the Church governours of after times to hamper and snickle all that they can get within their clutches it will alter the case and we see no reason to give that subjection to it 6. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule about things in their own natures indifferent then when those things by their particular Circumstances are reduced ad actum exercitum what must the poor Christian do If the Rule commands him to Act and the Circumstances have made the Act sinful in that time place c. where is he now here 's a rule against his acting here 's another made by men for his acting they might as well have made one Rule more and that is to hang 'em out of the way rather than to leave them to be tormented between two contrary Rules 7. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule in circumstantial matters how comes it to pass that the Church of England has determined that she has power to alter and varie these Rules according as she sees cause And 8. Must this Rule be for the Universal Church or a National Church or a Particular Church If for the Universal Church it crosses the judgment of your National Church which says it is not necessary that Rites and Ceremonies be alike If for a National Church it must be proved that ever the Apostle understood any such Creature If for a Particular Church only then what will become of Uniformity in the face of the National Church which is the great thing for which this Rule is pretended useful and necessary 9. If there be a necessity of one fixed standing Rule notwithstanding differing attainments then either this fixed Rule must yield and bend to those weak ones that have not attained to see the lawfulness of it or those weak ones must be stretch'd and screw'd up to the fixed Rule If the former how is it fixed that in thousands of Cases every day must bend If the latter what is become of the other Rule that allows those that have not attained to stand or fall to their own Master and appoints them to be left to God's gracious instruction For 10. The Rule prescribed by the Apostle If any man be otherwise minded is the only fixed Rule in matters of indifferent nature which Rule is plain Nonsense if there must be another Rule to which all Christians must come up notwithstanding their dissatisfactions about it 11. That which exceedingly prejudices the Doctor 's Rule is that the universal current and stream of all Expositors run against him Grotius thus glosses it Etiam qui de Ritibus aliter sentiunt interim sciant Evangelii praecepta quae Divina esse persuasi sunt sibi esse sequenda i. e. They that differ in their judgments about Rituals must yet know that they are obliged to walk according to the Precepts of the Gospel which they are persuaded to be of Divine Authority So that the Rule of Scripture was that alone to which they were obliged who were not satisfied about Rites and Ceremonies So Tirinus Regulam hic intelligit à Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam He understands the Rule prescribed by Christ and his Apostles Zanchy takes it for the Rule of Brotherly Love and Holiness and in a word all conspire against the Doctor 's interpretation 12. And why could not the Apostle have spoken intelligibly had he pretended any such thing it had been easie to have said Notwithstanding what I said just now of leaving those that have not attained so far as you and I to God's instruction yet my will is that you all walk by one fixed and standing Rule whether you have attained or no 't is no great matter I 'll not indulge these peevish tender Consciences Let 'em Conform or the Prelates and their Chancellors shall admonish them admonish them admonish them thrice with one breath and then Excommunicate and deliver them up to the Devil To conclude the Doctor had much better have employed his Talents in demonstrating 1. That by a Rule is meant a fixed Rule about things indifferent or dubious 2. That the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy in Convocation Synod or
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
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
commanded To this Mr. Cartwright replies Is this to interpret mens words Are these Phrases equipollent Commanded and expresly commanded Many things are forbidden many things commanded which are neither expresly commanded or forbidden We say not no Ceremony no Order no Discipline is lawful in the Church but what is expresly found in the Word of God but that men may not act arbitrariously that they are bound to conform themselves to the general Rules of the Scripture which are given forth as a Rule by which to square all Religious matters Thus far Mr. Cartwright And so do we openly and freely own that direct immediate consequence from Scripture or whatever is included in the general Rules of Scripture shall conclude and determine us in these disputes Here again the Doctor thinks he has gravelled us with an unanswerable question If saies he it be mutual consent and agreement which makes a Church why then may not national Societies agreeing together in the same faith and under the same government and discipline be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation I will tell him why if he please to hear me out with patience 1. Because it is not mutual consent and agreement and alone in the general but such agreement and consent as the Gospel warrants which we have for particular Churches which were well known to the Scriptures but not for National to which constitution the Scriptures are perfect strangers 2. Because the end of that consent and agreement must be considered and looked at which is union for worship though not for worship alone to which end national union signifies nothing seeing that a National Church unless it be a Church no larger than the Kingdom of Ivetot can never meet together for that end 3. Because the particular Churches must consent to nothing that may destroy their own government and power of reforming whatever corruptions by length of time steal and creep in among them But if his meaning be that they may be called a Church it 's little to us what he shall please to call them seeing we do not intend to draw the Saw of contention about the Nomenclature of that or any other Body From reasoning the Doctor proceeds to wondring at those who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England and he will inform their ignorance concerning it We mean saies he That society of Christian people which in this Nation are united under the same profession of faith the same laws of government and Rules of divine worship Whence it will follow that the Churches of dissenters are each of them the Church of England For every one of them is 1. A society of Christian people though perhaps in his judgment but bad ones yet as good as their Neighbours 2. They are in this Nation though full sore against some mens wills who would have them removed by Capital punishments or banishment 3. They are united under the same profession of faith that is one half of them are not Socinians or Arminians and the other half Calvinists 4. They are united under the same laws of Government 5. And they have the same Rules of divine worship And then it follows too by the Doctor 's concession they have a right of governing each Church its own self and of reforming errors in Doctrine and corruptions in worship Notwithstanding this famous definition what man is the wiser or knows more than he did before what the Church of England is For 1. We understand not by this Description who is the visible head of this Church whether a civil or ecclesiastical person and by consequence are at a loss whether the Church may be called a civil or ecclesiastical constitution 2. We are not informed how this National Church became so united whether they were driven together by violence or drew together by their consent whether it was not some storm or tempest that might jostle them all on a heap or whether the consent of the particular Congregations was asked and obtained in order to this coalition We have seen some Churches in this nation that have had their Pastors torn from them and the Sheep scattered strangers obtruded upon others whose persons they knew not whose ministerial gifts they had no trial of and all his right to them was that he was nominated by a certain Gentleman called the Patron and the institution of the Diocesan and if with their consent it was such a one as was obtained by duress and do well call this uniting what was it then which united them why some of the Ministers of the Parochial Churches met together and chose one or two out of their number and sent them up to a convocation and these meeting with some others they call Archbishops and Bishops Deans c. agreed upon a national Church-frame without the least consent of many of the particular Churches And this is the too much boasted Union 2 Another thing he would have us consider is He does not intend to speak of the Terms upon which persons are to be admitted to the exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-communion And it was advisedly done for if it be so difficult to render Lay-communion practicable what will it be to justifie all those terms upon which Ministers are admitted to the function of the Ministry or the exercise of it But why does he mention the exercise of the function and not the function it self Do they use to ordain Ministers to a Ministerial work and then prohibit them to exercise the work of their ministry till further order Must men pay for an Order to Act and then be put to purchase another order that they may act according to their order surely one of these fees might have been saved and it might have been sufficient either to buy a License to preach without ordination or an ordination to preach without a License The Country Chancellors are more merciful who do not usually that I hear of sell a man a License to marry and then Compel him to take another License to lie with his Bride It is confessed that the Terms upon which Ministers are admitted to their function and the exercise of it are more severe than those upon which the Laity as they love to call them are admitted to communion in the word and Sacraments and there might be reason for it seeing the Laity held no good fat Parsonages that might tempt any to eject them But yet the Terms are not such easie things of digestion but they lie upon the stomachs of thousands to this day and some of them are as hard to swallow as the biggest gobblets that are imposed upon the Clergy and they are apt to think that the same terms that are imposed upon their Pastors are imposed upon themselves by consequence seeing they approve interpretatively their Ministers subscriptions their declarations their oaths by owning them for their Pastors whom they know upon such terms to have
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
the Churches mouth nor be tryed by her Rules when they come to be tryed for their All. And by this time we see and so may the Doctor how much better it had been for him to have follow'd his Text and not to gather Doctrines thence which never grew there nor to have so confidently asserted pag. 9. The necessity of one fixed and certain Rule notwithstanding the different attainments amongst Christians unless he could have proved it more solidly of such Rules as Churches make not contained in the general Rules of the Scripture 3. Is the Doctor in good earnest On is this Rhetorick pro formâ tantùm Will worshiping God by other Rules and in other modes and manners than a Church requires make such Worship Schismatical then mark the fatal consequences 1. It 's then apparent that most of the Parochial Churches in England are Schismatical Churches for do not they worship by other Rules and in other manner than the Church prescribes where is the prescribed Rule for singing Psalms in Hopkins's and Sternhold's Metre which yet is universally practised in most Parishes that I have heard of The Title Page of the Common-Prayer-Book tells us there are contained in it the Psalms pointed as they are to be said or sung but what Parishes sing according to those Interpunctations The end of the Book tells us Here the Morning Prayer is ended and Here the Evening Prayer is ended And yet when the Church has ended the Parishes begin and set up their Notes in those Metrical Versions Again what Rule have we for bowing towards the Altar the East the Church And yet these modes and manners of worshiping God are commonly practised Are all those Parish-Churches which are got into the garb and equipage of the Cathedrals with Organs Choristers and the like Schismatical or no If not Then to worship God in another mode than what is prescribed by the Church may not be Schismatical Worship but if it be so then are those Churches Schismatical and how then can it be Schism to separate from them 2. It will follow also there 's no remedy for it that either the Parochial Churches or the Cathedral are Schismatical Churches for the former are as much below the splendor of the latter as the latter are above the rusticity of the former If there be two Rules one for the mode of Cathedral Worship another for that of the private Parishes let them but allow half as much diversity to the Dissenters and all the pother and dust and clamor of Schism will be over I would therefore propound one modest Question Why is this practice of singing Hopkins's Metre so universally practised and yet so little or not at all preach'd against in the Pulpits Is it for fear they should have none left to preach to That is not to be imagined of conscientious and mortified men Though it 's true English Men they say are like your Irish Cows that will not give down their milk kindly except their Calves stand by or however to humor them the Calves skin stuft with straw Or is it lest they should seem to condemn themselves that make Dissenters Schismaticks for that very thing which they themselves practise This looks somewhat oddly I confess and the tenderness of a man's mind in such a case may out of meer shame-facedness keep him from declaring a Truth which flies in his face while he speaks it What can it then be Do they fear the reproaches of the People I will not determine but by asking the Doctor his own Question How comes it to be Schismatical in some and lawful in others Have they two weights and measures Are the Dissenters Schismaticks for worshiping God by other Rules and the Parish-Churches pious Sons who do the same thing Or are they resolved that all the World shall be Schismaticks besides themselves But the Doctor has got a Notion in his head that these men are unwilling to confess a Separation and he gives us the reason of it because they have formerly condemned it with great severity and yet they do the same things for which they charg'd others as guilty of a sinful Separation A heavy Charge and wants nothing but the old thing Proof Is it not a wise course to pretend to give a Reason of nothing To assign a cause of a thing before it 's clear that there is such a thing in the World To tell us why they are unwilling before it appears they are unwilling So far as they do Separate they are willing to confess it and would he have them confess more than the Truth against themselves They own that they do not locally hold Communion with all Parishes at all times in all the parts of Worship and this they are ready to prove is not Schism is not sinful They avow that they do hold Communion with some Parishes in some Ordinances at some times and this they say will avoid the charge of a total Separation They say they never condemned that for Separation in others which they practise themselves How will he evince this Why he has ransacked and rumaged all the Papers of Accommodation that past between the Presbyterians and the Independents and there he finds That the Assembly of Divines urged their dissenting Brethren to comply with their Rules of Church-Government and charged them with Schism if they did it not Well what then Were the Rules proposed by the Assembly the same with these that are urged now Were they of the same nature doubtfulness difficulty What if it was not the Assembly but a Committee a Sub-Committee or a Subter-Sub-Committee of the Assembly What if it was not the final judgment of the Assembly but the private opinion of that Sub-Committee And what if we be no ways obliged to abide by their judgments or opinions And what if the Presbyterians were too rigid the other too stiff in their Sentiments must the Church only imitate them in their weaknesses when they had so many excellencies which deserved imitation And lastly what if the Doctor has misreported the matter of Fact as there laid down Any of these much more all these will render the most plausible part of his Sermon preached or his Discourse printed manifestly impertinent All which particulars and many more I shall make out from those very Papers 1 The Order of the Lords and Commons Die Jovis Novemb. 6. 1645 which Ordered the Committee to Act gives them these Instructions That they should take into consideration the differences in Opinions of the Members of the Assembly in point of Church-Government and to endeavour an Union if it be possible And in case that cannot be done to endeavour to find out some way how far tender Consciences who cannot in all things submit to the Common Rule which shall be Established may be born with according to the word Here we see a provision designed for Tender Consciences and that before the Rule was Establisht in case an Union could not be procured which had
too bad to redeem and whil'st there are such the Church unless She will be a Shrew or a Stepmother must take a tender care of them But if it be so endless to satisfie these erring Consciences leave 'em to God he can do it and he will either forbear them in their ignorance or give them knowledge whom it might become those men a little to imitate who call themselves his servants 3. That Scruple of Conscience is no protection against Schism Who says it is It 's only a Prohibition to afford Communion in what we scruple Except when the things scrupled and not scrupled are so blended together that we cannot swallow what appears lawful but we must gorge that with it which appears otherwise which has been the policy of some modern Imposers so artificially to mix the certain and the uncertain the questionable with the unquestionable that these scrupulous Consciences cannot enjoy that wherein they are satisfied except they will venture at that about which they are not so so are Private Bills stitch'd with the Publick ones that the more useful may sell the other which few else would regard So have I seen idle Masters delight themselves to see their Children play at Bob-apple where the poor young Rascals would have been glad of a Bit but were always prevented by the Candle 4 That the Apostles notwithstanding the difference of mens judgments did prescribe Rules of Uniformity Well but mark their proof Did not the Apostles bind the burden of some necessary things on the Churches albeit there were in those Churches gradual differences of light And will the Doctor infer hence a power to bind unnecessary burdens upon the necks of Disciples because the Apostles imposed such as were necessary The Argument then concludes If the Apostles who were infallible had power to impose Necessaries much more may the Prelates impose Unnecessaries though they be fallible But of these things thus much § 3. Come we now to his third and last Proposition A wilful Error or mistake of Conscience doth by no means excuse from sin These things surely are oddly joined together that a wilful Error and a mistake of Conscience should be made the subject of one Proposition There may be a mistake of Conscience where there 's no wilful Error wilfulness makes every Error double obstinacy being added to it but a mistake of simple ignorance makes it not half so great though it makes it not to become nothing it may excuse à tanto though not à toto and mollifie it a little though not justifie it nor nullifie it It will not excuse from sin And yet p. 44. he moves this Question What Error of Conscience doth excuse a man from sin in following the dictates of it If no Error will excuse why is the Question put What Error will excuse And if some Error will excuse why is the Proposition laid down so loosely and uncertainly A wilful Error or Mistake will not excuse from sin And upon this proposition he makes a case If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it which is one of the wildest cases that ever was put For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a Man in his wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful separation A man may think himself bound to separate and that separation may possibly be sinful but he cannot think himself bound to sinful separation He that is bound is under a Law He that thinks himself bound thinks himself under a law but it Implies a broad contradiction for a man to think himself bound to sin because that implies that he thinks himself bound not to be bound or under a law to be under no law A sort of men there are that think it lawful to tell a Lie to avoid a great evil to procure some great good Yet none ever owned this principle that it was lawful to sin to procure the one or avoid the other but they pretend that to tell a Lie in such a case under such circumstances is no sin 2. I very much question whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it but how should such a crotchet come in 's head that he was bound to divide it when the Church of England separated from Rome did they think it their duty to make divisions in it 3. The instances that he gives are short or wide of his case by many leagues Paul thought himself bound to do many things against the Name of Jesus He did so but not to do one thing that was sin The Jews thought themselves bound in Conscience to kill the Apostles True but yet they thought not themselves bound to kill them sinfully they wanted not pretences to justifie the cause to the World nor untemper'd mortar to daub over their own Conscience 't was easie to say they were rebels against traitors to the Emperor An easie thing to cry out of heresie and schism and sects every where spoken against nor wanted they a Tertullus who before the Magistrates and Judges could accuse Paul for a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition and a Ring-leader of a sect so that all the world sees and the poor dissenters feel the Truth of what the Dr. says men may do very bad things and yet think themselves bound in conscience to do them 4. It s freely granted by all the world that wilful error that is Interpretively such for no man can formally err wilfully does not excuse from sin that is what God has prohibited no mans errour can make a duty what God has commanded no mans errour can discharge him from obedience to it Nor do we or ever did we make Conscience a stalking horse for these ends And thus we have got through the three famous propositions that should have cleared up the objection and so answered to the second Question but what are we edified by all this discourse or how do we understand either what we or Church governours must do in case we or others cannot come up to the establisht rule men are not justifiable in not doing what they lawfully may do well but if they see not that may be lawfully done which may so must they be left to God or no wilful error and mistake will not excuse from sin be it so still what must be done when men cannot come up to the establisht rule I confess I am just as wise as I was but this is the Genius of the Sermon He propounds an enquiry p. 15. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an establisht rule He shuts one thing out of the Question then a second thing out of the Question then excludes a third out of the Question and at last shuts the Question out of doors and it goes wandring up and down like a vagabond to this day
there are other just rules of conscience then Gods Law which is a Notion we cannot admit of without better evidence we would gladly know where those other just Rules are to be found must we seek them in Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical whether then are all such or only some of them such just rules If onely some of them which are they and by what characteristical marks may we distinguish them but if all be so then must we acquiesce in all the Canons decrees rescripts and Rules that were ever made by any Counsel or convocation and why then did not the Church of England rest satisfied with those rules which were given her before the Reformation 2. We must needs say that if the Dissenters do examine things fairly on both sides praying for Divine Direction and have had a world of patience to boot to hear any thing against their Opinion though never so weak in Reason and strong in passion which they profess before the searcher of all hearts they have done and continue still to do they must be discharg'd before all the world that shall take cognizance of their cause and hear their pleas of any wilful or voluntary error And for the suggestion that they form their judgments from prejudice passion and interest they dare not judge of other men contenting themselves to have averred their own innocency when the temptation visibly lies on the other side § 4. For a Conclusion The Dr. would apply the charge of a wilfully erroneous Conscience to the Dissenters If men says he through the power of an erroneous Conscience may think themselves bound to make schisms to disobey Laws to break in pieces the Communion of the Church they may satisfie themselves that they pursue their Consciences and yet for want of due care of inforcing themselves those actions may be wilful and damnable sins But we think not our selves bound to any such wickedness There are enow that think themselves bound t do that without our assistance enow besides us to perpetuate the cause of our divisions and to entail contentions upon Innocent posterity whose teeth must be set on Edge with the sowre grapes their Fathers have eaten but if any shall think themselves bound through the power of an Erroneous Conscience to make unjust Rules of Conscience when t is Impossible they should make one de novo that is just and thereby break the Church in peices they may think what they please that they are pursueing their just rights to impose upon other mens Consciences and satisfying their own and yet for want of a due care to inform themselves better in their duty the extent of their power and the ends for which it was given be guilty in the sight of God of willful and damnable sins as bad as those of the Jews who thought they did God good Service when they persecuted and murtherd his faithful Servants SECTION IX A consideration of those Assertions of the Doctor If Communion with the Church be lawful it will in time be judged a duty And If occasional Communion be lawful its hard to understand that constant Communion should not be a duty I Find the Doctor ever and anon insinuating that what is lawful to be done upon some account or other ought to be done Which if it be universally true will take away the difference between merely lawful and necessary at least as to use and practice since it implies that whatever is lawful may be made constantly and fixedly a duty If it were only asserted that what is merely lawful might through a concurrence of circumstances pro hic nunc become a duty as it would do this cause no service so neither would it meet with our opposition But to be thus laid down in general without further explication needs a little consideration and so in this case that which otherwise had been but lawful will be incumbent on me as my duty Two expressions I find worthy our Notice 1. I do not question but in time if they find it Communion in prayers and Sacraments lawful they will judge it to be their duty Now because we have ever thought that what was lawful and merely so stood in the midst between sinful and necessary forbidden and Commanded it deserves some care and pains to dive into the Mystery of it how or why these lawfulls may become determined to one side of their extremes or termes between which they formerly stood neuters And by what we can gather from his discourse it must be one of these things 1. That whatever we judge lawful to be done in any case for peace sake will become a duty to be alwayes done For he tells us p. 31. 32. There 's nothing Christ and his Apostles have charged more upon the Consciences of Christians then studying to preserve peace and unity among Christians To which pupose the Doctor quotes us several places of Scripture which it is needless here to repeat seeing none ever yet denied the study of peace to be a very great and manifest duty But if it be charg'd on the Consciences of all Christians to study to preserve peace We hope they find the charge upon their Consciences also for they are Christians Have they then studyed the things that make for peace I mean not their own but the peace of all the Christians in the Nation A little study would have discovered the means had they been as they pretend such passionate Lovers of the end What expedients have they then found out by all their study or what expedients will they accept that others have studied and found out to releive and procure peace so far as it s lost to preserve peace so far as it yet remaines and to further peace so far as it may be attainable in the Imperfect state of this life what will they part with to purchase it will they step over one straw remove one stumbling block that lies in the way of it will they wave the least of their pretensions or condescend to others in the smallest of their desires will they promise to reforme our Rubrick that one Rule for finding out Easter for ever when it would not find it out for but proved it self Erroneous in almost half seven years will they forbear to exact our Assent and consent to a known falshood for that excellent thing which they so much predicate Peace The matter is slight yet if an Error they can more easily forgoe it then we avow it we know not why we should tell the smallest lie for peace if they will not part with one Nay tell us what thing so Inconsiderate so minute which all our humble Petitions for peace could procure the relaxation of And yet thâ—se are the Men that boast themselves highly of their burning zeal for peace To be an Advocate for peace is an office of good credit but I cannot tell what to think on 't when I am pressed so earnestly and heartily to feed lustily on that Dâ—sh
he is somewhat hard of understanding especially of those things that he has no mind to In the former discourse he argues from the lawfulness of Communion to the necessity but here also from occasional to constant Communion To which confident assertion of his we Oppose this Occasional communion with a particular Church may be lawful when yet constant fixed stated Communion may not be a duty which we prove 1. From their own Doctrines and practises Their Canons have made it the duty of every individual member of their Church to hold constant Communion with his own parish Church and Teacher and yet they allow occasional Communion with other parish Churches A journey will make occasional Communion with a remote Congregation lawful but they will hardly perswade us that they can make it our duty to take such journeys in order to such communion If the great Bell rings at the next parish to a Lecture Sermon or chimes all in to Divine Service when we have none of those at home 't is lawful to take the occasion without coming under a constant obligation to it The dissenters crave the same equity they say they are under an obligation ordinarily fixedly statedly constantly to worship God in those congregations whereof they are members they say they can readily joyn with other congregations as they have opportunity but they cannot admit the inference that because they may occasionally that therefore they must constantly practise it because Acts of worship have a larger extent then Church relation those may be performed and yet these remain sacred and inviolate 2. Some conforming Ministers and Christians judge it lawful to hold communion occasionally with the dissenters in prayer and preaching what a rare argument has the Dr. furnisht us with to prove it their constant duty and from once hearing lawfully to prove it an incumbent duty to hear them for ever 3. It may be lawful occasionally to step in and hear a very weak preacher perhaps one that is vicious in his life or unfound in some points of Doctrine when we can hear no other will it follow that we are bound or that any power on earth can bind us to hear such constantly when God has made better provision for our souls and we want only grace to accept it 4. How many have judg'd it lawful to go to a play or the Chappel at Sommersethouse occasionally who yet think that twenty Acts of Parliament cannot make either of them a constant duty 5. And how unwilling are most men to be argued into duty from the meer lawfulness of the thing The Dr. thinks it lawful to resign one of his preferments to some worthy person that has none and yet his own argument will hardly convince him 't is his duty It seems very lawful for him that is almost melted with two coats to part with one to his brother that 's almost naked and yet we despair of success in thus arguing with him Nay it were well if some men would be perswaded that plain duty when it crosses worldly interest is duty and we should the better bear with them in denying every thing lawful to be duty And 6. If all lawful things may be converted into duty and what is occasionally indifferent may be turn'd into constant necessity then farewel Christian liberty and let man hereafter eternally mourn or dance to the Musick of his fetters SECTION X. Of terms of Communion required by the Church whether upon the same Reason that some of them are Imposed the Church may not also impose some Vse of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb WE hear every day eloquent Orations in praise of peace and Union smart declamations against separation but we seldom hear of the fatal terms which obstruct the one or may justifie the other I shall not tire the Reader with a tedious enumeration of the particular conditions but shall content my self to have named One though I discontent some others that I have no more and some will find themselvs aggrieved that I have named that one It is the use of the sign of the Cross in baptism which I intend and have therefore singled out that one because it is number'd amongst the three innocent Ceremonies and because 't is imposed both on the Ministers to practice it and the people to dedicate their Children to God by it 1 And here I ask what Reason can be assigned for the use of this sign as it signifies Christs cross and him crucified thereon as it is the symbol of a persons dedication to Christ and his service but what will equally justifie the Religious use of a crucifix set up in the Church for the same use and purposes This sign of the cross is instituted by the Church First as a memorial of Christs cross Secondly as a Symbol whereby a person is dedicated to him who died the death of the cross Thirdly as a token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the Devil to continue Christs faithful servant and soldier to his lives end That these are the ends and uses of that sign is expresly owned by the Canons of 1603. and the office of baptism in the Liturgy Now why the image of Christ upon the Cross or a Crucifix may not be used for these ends upon the same Reason nay upon somewhat better reason we are yet to seek for if a sign may be used to these ends to make impression upon our minds of those spiritual truths duties and mercies the fixed visible Image will much better do the work then the transient and scarce visible sign of a cross made in the Air with the finger That the Papists do use the Image of Christ upon the Cross as an immediate though not ultimate object of Adoration is true and it is as true that the Church of England does not use the sign of the Cross nor is it by us charg'd to use it for that end but yet as there is an inferiour use of the Crucifix to be the Lay-mans hornbook to teach him to spell out a crucified Christ and a Covenanting use to initiate Converts in the profesion of the Gospel and an obliging use to engage them to serve their Redeemer so there can be no solid reason given why such lower uses of an Image or Crucifix may not be introduced but what will equally militate against our use of the Cross 2. What Reason can be alledged why circumcision may not be imposed as a tearm of Union or Communion to signify the circumcision of the heart as well as the sign of the Cross to signifie faithfulness and perseverance in the service of Christ To the Jews indeed it was a badge of their duty to keep the whole law Gal. 3.4 And such use would now be apparently sinful but suppose it were enjoyned for no other end than as the surplice to denote purity kneeling at the Sacrament to
signifie humility the sign of the Cross to represent courage and constancy so this circumcision to stir up our dull souls to consider of the circumcision of the heart what greater superstition in this then in those Especially when the Apostle has given our fruitful invention such fair hints how apt it is to be drawn into significativeness 2 Rom. 29. Circumcision is that of the heart Nay when he openly avows that Christians are the circumcision 3 Phil. 3. upon which mystick grounds the Church of Abassia practises this Ceremony to this day It is confest that in the Church of the Jews circumcision had a typical use which is now unlawful to be retained as a denyal that Christs being come in the flesh But as we have or pretend to have scraped and scowered away the Idolatrous and superstitious uses of those ceremonies which we borrowed from the Romish Church why can we not purge away the Judaical use of Circumcision too and borrow one poor Ceremony at least from that Church as well as the other from Rome 3. What reason can be given why we may not together with the Lords Supper use a Roasted Lamb with bitter herbes not to signifie Christ to come which was the typical use but Christ already come and slain which is the Symbolical use since the Apostle has given us a hint for that also 1 Cor. 5.7 Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us The Papists who understand well how far their principles will lead them have not scrupled this use of it for granting them a power to impose outward visible signes of inward and invisible grace mercy and duty what should hinder then from turning the Paschal Lamb into a significant Ceremony Mounsieur Lortie in his Treatise of the Supper part 1. c. 6. b. Informs us that the Greek Church upbraided the Roman that formerly they never used the Supper upon Easter day without a Lamb And he quoteâ— a good Author for his voucher Mr. d' Autenil Who thus informes us Suger reports how that Pope Innocent the 2d being at the Abbey of Saint Dennis upon an Easter day after all things were prepared according to the order of the Roman Church he sacrificed the most Holy victim of the Paschal Lamb and when the Mass was ended they then did eat that material and real Lamb. And why not if the Church may judge what is decent orderly edifiying fit to teach and stir up the mind of man by some notable signification and Impose what it so judges to be as a tearm and condition of Communion with her what should hinder her to proceed and bring in the Paschal Lamb too for the more the Merrier and which seldome holds the better chear also SECTION XI The Application And first To those in Communion with the Church NOthing now remains as the Doctor thinks but application and perhaps it may be so nothing for us to Read because we have read all the rest but upon my word there remains a great deal more for the Doctor to do than he has yet done unless he can satisfie himself to have done just nothing Here are several Propositions to be proved his own Questions to be answered and many things upon the score not wiped off yet let us hear his Application which is alwayes either the best or the worst part of a Sermon He begins with a word of Advice to those That continue in Communion with the Church That they would walk by the same Rule and mind the same things For whilest we keep to one Rule all people know what 't is to be of our Church Here then are two sorts of Persons both supposed to be in Communion with the Church First The super-Conformists who out-run Canon Convocation Rubrick and are got as far as Calice before some of their Brethren can reach Canterbury The second of Subter-Conformists who jogging on their own pace neither the high-trot nor the Tantivey are almost run out of distance the former are for the high Notion of Canon-Prayer the other form their own Conceptions in their own expressions in Prayer both before and after Sermon these again are so stiffe in their Hams they will not bend at the naming the word Jesus but others are so supple in the joynts they are ready to buckle at the name of Judas Some are got into the high strains of the Organ above Canon against Homilies others content themselves with the plain song of the old Metre and from hence 1. Quaere whether super-conformity and subter-conformity overdoeing the Rule and underdoing it excesses and defects in reference to the same Canon be not a real Schism in the bowells of the Church 2. Quaere If so which faction is it that makes Schismatick If the Gallopers why are they not then declared Schismaticks from the press and Pulpit Is it for fear they should lose such zealots from their party or are they ashamed to condemn others for what they practice themselves or is it because these Sinners are too good too bad or too great to be told of their faults But if the halting Conformists be the Schismaticks how comes it to pass that only defects are Sins and yet excesses are such vertues why is it that a man may advance towards Rome and yet be no Schismatick but yet one step towards Geneva makes him a damnable one that it would be no crime to out-run the Constable but to hang back and give him the slip when he would drag him to the Stocks is such a heinous one Quaere 3. Whether if they can relax the Rule of Severity or exercise the Rule of Charity towards their own brethren to save them from being Schismaticks they might not strain a little farther to save the rest of the Nation Quaere 4. If it be true that while all keep to one Rule all people know what it is to be of the Church of England Mr. B. will not be as far to seek as ever he was to understand what the Church of England is when he cannot but see by mens practises they either walk by no Rule or Twenty and when a punctual Conformist neither exceeding nor coming short of the Rule is like that Temperamentum ad pondus which unless in some Philosophical Noddle never yet had any real existence Quaere 5. If as the Doctor says it be Indiscretion only and some peccadillo to go beyond the Rule a good nature might not allow it to be Indiscretion too and no more in those that fall below the Rule It may be demonstrated that ten degrees of Northern Latitude varies no more from the Equinox than as many degrees of Southern Latitude But the misery is Titius shall be a Saint for the same thing for which Sempronius is a Rascal and let him fly never so high above the Canon he 's but indiscreet when-as let him lag never so little behind it he 's a notorious Schismatick Nevertheless Conformists must own it to be wholesome counsel which he gives them
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-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
the honour of Christ and the peace of the Church he may give proof of his great understanding but not his conscience In the mean time the Doctor might have done well to suspect his own great interests in the world before he had reflected on their little ones § 5. Another branch of his Advice is Not to harbor or foment unreasonable jealousies in peoples minds concerning us i. e. That we are not hearty and sincere in the Protestant Cause To this I only say I shall never hereafter entertain one thought that the Church of England is marching towards Popery for since I read this Sermon and the definition of the Church of England therein I despair of ever knowing who or what the Church of England is Pope Pius the fifth used to say when he was a Bishop he was pretty sure when a Cardinal he began to doubt but when Pope he absolutely despaired of his salvation I have sometimes thought it easie of late I found it hard but now I see it impossible to understand this secret As for his advice we do thankfully accept it and shall not harbour or foment one unreasonable if they will be sure not to give in reasonable suspicions of their inclinations that way And we do humbly intreat them to give us no more grounds for our jealousies than they needs must for if they do though we may be so modest as not to foment them in others it will be difficult not to harbour them in our selves For if whilst they cry out we are all undone for want of unity they continue the impediments which obstruct it and when they thunder against separation they continue the cause of it If they speak hard words against Popery and give harder blows to Protestancy both at home and abroad or if whilst they give the Papists a gentle fillip they reach dissenting Protestants a sound rap if they will still proceed to represent all but themselves as silly in their Principles seditious in their practises and disloyal in their designs we may perhaps perswade the people to say little but they will pay it with thinking § 6. Lastly He concludes with this Advice Not to run the hazard of all for a shew of greater liberty to our selves This advice may be wholsome for ought we know and we may take it when we understand it At present we know not what we have worth the keeping if our Consciences be once lost If he intends we should not hazard substances for shews we shall hearken as far as we may but if he means we should not be wrought upon by the Papists to petition or endeavour a general Toleration his advice is already taken and so becomes our praise we have not done it we shall not do it though their continued provocations and persecutions tempt us daily to it and some are ready to say What matters it by whom we are undone if we must be undone but it 's very wonderful that wise men can yet see no difference between a little moderation and universal toleration nor can distniguish between the toleration of Idolatry and forbearing two or three Ceremonies An universal Toleration says the Doctor is like the Trojan horse which brings in our enemies without being seen It was well rymed however because Toleration of Popery will bring in our enemies most visibly No! it 's secret connivence under hand encouragement that brings 'em in in Masquerade which open toleration would bring in bare-faced and naked The Doctor is afraid lest by setting their gates wide enough open to let in all their friends they should bring in their enemies Such are the wise Notions that Kirk-statesmen have in their heads to shut out their friends for fear of letting in their enemies when they can come in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and can pick the locks of Oaths Tests Subscriptions by a Papal dispensation Let then the Gates be well watcht the horses belly well searcht the Doli fabricator Vlysses the great Engineer of the Intrigue well examined and old Father Sinon not suffered to equivocate with good King Priam Trojdque adhuc stabit Priamique arx alta manebit As I abhor cruelty towards all men upon the sole account of Religion so shall I never plead for Indulgence to any who discredit Religion with such practices or mix it with such Principles as disturb Government and destroy the ends of all society the Magistrate is the Peace-keeper and is intrusted by God to suppress and punish the violaters of it Nor do I fear what advantage the Romanists would get upon us by that Connivence which they enjoy if their Temporal hopes from a worldly interest were less and their fears of being brought to condign punishment for their Treasons were greater and they might have been past the hopes of the one and the fear of the other if some of our Clergy-men had not unseasonably and some say unreasonably insisted upon certain Imaginary priviledges to the obstructing of the Justice of the Nation But if folly be such a catching disease the only antidote will be to teach 'em more wisdom If boldness in Religion give our enemies advantage let not prudent zeal be discouraged If contentions will do 'em such great service remove their causes by following the Rule not as the Dr. has warp't it but as the Apostle left it to walk by the Canon of the Word so far as we have attained and if any man be otherwise minded to leave him to Gods instruction and wait till he shall reveal his mind farther unto him The Conclusion THus have I at length rub'd through the Reverend Authors Discourse and upon a Calm Reflexion on my work do not think I can displease any one more than my self Such is the common fate of eager Disputants that whilst they would reach a knock at their Antagonists they lose their blow and wound themselves so easie it is while we are scribling to forget that we are dying and that our Sand runs faster than our Ink If the late change of Ink-horns into Inck-glasses had but taught us how frail and brittle we all are it had been the most innocent significant Ceremony that ever was invented I could wish there were a General Auditors Office erected to take the Account what all Disputes amount to and 't is probable the Total would be this That the Contenders have lost more than ever their Readers gained Thus zealous Gamesters win and lose awhile till at last the Box gets the stakes and it s well if the unconcerned by-standers come off savers And yet when we condemn and seem to bewail our wranglings we go on and wrangle still like little children that scratch and bite and cry together But the Dissenters have one Plea That in these Piracies they are not the Aggressors but stand purely on their just Defence If the Winds could be quiet the Waves would not tumultuate but poor Neptune bears the blame of all the Mutinies in his Kingdom when Aeolus only is guilty of the disorder If their Opposers could hold their hands the Dissenters would easily rule their tongues and pens and would silently suffer silent persecution That which goes to the quick is this That men cannot be content to shoot their keen arrows except they poyson them with bitter words like the Serpent that pierces with his teeth and infuses his venom along with his biting It is far more easie to pluck up the Flood-gates than having once done it to shut 'em down again We have seen the beginning of a Controversie which may perhaps outlive our Funerals and the next age may lament those wounds which the present has got but sleeps it out and feels not But if we must or will reciprocate this Saw of Contention what need to go down to the Philistins to sharpen the Polemical Cutlass when we have a file at home will give it too much keenness I owe the Reader and my self this debt of Justice to profess That I have not to my knowledg gratified any base lust in this my Answer I have steered by the compass of Truth and have not vered willingly from it though perhaps I have not always made the point I aimed at I must further profess That I have those awful thoughts of the Reverend Doctor whose Tract I pretend to Answer that he has equalled most and excelled many of those Worthies who have maintained the Protestant Cause against insulting Rome but in this Cause he has gone below himself and many others which I do not impute to any want of Controversial skill but the intrinsick weakness of the Cause he defended and the real strength of that he oppugned and seeing further than others into the true state of the Controversie he discerned the feebless of other mens Arguments but yet through the iniquity of the matter could find out none better of his own And lastly I must openly profess after all I can hear or read against the Cause of Nonconformity I am more confirm'd that all the wit of man can never prove the Dissenters in their way of worship guilty of the Mischiefs of Separation nor justifie the exacters of such terms of Communion as are no way commanded by the word of God no way necessary to the executing of those Commands but they must remain still guilty of the Mischief of these Impositions FINIS