The Mischief of Impositions, Section 2
SECT. II. The Text propounded. The Doctor's manner of raiſing his Doctrines, conſidered; his Suppoſitions, Poſitions, modeſtly examined; and proved vain in themſelves, and uſeleſs to his preſent purpoſe.
THE Reverend Author, having ſet himſelf this great Task, to prove Conformity lawful, the preſent Separation ſinful, has choſen the words of the Apoſtle, Philip. 3.16. a little varied from the Original, and ſomething from our own Verſion, that by that diſguiſe it might better comply with, and ſubſerve his great deſign.
Nevertheleſs whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the ſame Rule, let us mind the ſame things.
A Text, from which of all in the whole Bible, Diſſenters leaſt expected their Conviction; for who could have believed that the Apoſtle, who, in ver. 15. leaves the otherwiſe minded, to God's inſtruction; ſhould, in the next verſe, aſſert the Churches power to make Impoſitions to their deſtruction; that he ſhould blow cold and hot with one and the ſame breath; and mount an Eccleſiaſtical Canon, upon a Platform of Moderation. Some wonder'd where ſuch a killing Text, ſhould be kept ſecret all this while, that the world ſhould never dream of, never dread the leaſt danger from it: But it ſeems there was a neceſſity for it; for being reſolv'd not to bring down their Principles to Scripture they would try if perhaps Scripture might be brought up to their Principles; ſo eaſie will it be to convert Diſſenters, if once they can pervert the Scriptures.
I cannot conjecture what ſhould ever flatter them, that this Text would become their Proſelyte, except it be one of theſe two things, or both:
Firſt, That they met with the word foreign in it, a Rule or Canon, not in a Military Notion, (for great Guns were not then invented) but an Eccleſiaſtick acceptation; for ſpiritual Artillery, which has always done the moſt dreadful execution: And ſo to walk by the ſame Rule, muſt be (or it's a thouſand pities but it ſhould be) to order and govern our ſelves by the Conſtitutions of a Convocation, which then was not invented, but in After-Ages, might haply be erected: But their own admired Grotius, has enter'd a miſchievous Caveat againſt this Notion, which may poſſibly defeat all their hopes from it: In MS. deeſt foreign, referatur ad illud foreign. That is, In his Manuſcript Copy, the word foreign, or Rule, is quite left out, ſo that the expreſſion, Let us walk by the ſame, muſt be referred to the Antecedent foreign, or [To that;] and then read the words, What we have attained, let us walk up to the ſame. And now, I hope, the ſenſe is not ſo mortal to Diſſenters, as was threatned; and comes to no more but this, Unto whatſoever meaſure, or degree of knowledge we have reach'd, let us walk ſuitably to it: which one Note has utterly, nay maliciouſly ſpoil'd the deſign of a famous Sermon, and render'd the whole Diſcourſe, one great Impertinency. A ſecond thing that might give them hopes of ſome good from the Text, was a well-ſounding expreſſion, Let us mind the ſame things; which, at a bluſh, ſeems to favor the great Darling of Uniformity. And the Reverend Doctor, to render it more plauſible, has quite through his whole Sermon made bold to render the Command thus, Let us mind the ſame things: excepting p. 37. where he had occaſion to render it, Do the ſame things. And what man dares now queſtion, but that we are all bound to nick it to a Tag, to a Pin, to a Point, in an uniform practice, in all the minutes, all the punctilio's, all the nice and capillary circumſtances of worſhip? All which fine ſport, the bare reading of the original Text will ſpoil, which is only this: foreign, to mind, or let us mind that very thing▪ Here then we find no things, nor ſame things, nor doing the ſame things: but that we mind the very thing, which the Apoſtle mention'd to them; and practiſed himſelf, ver. 14. This one thing I do, I preſs towards the mark for the prize (foreign) of the high calling of God in Chriſt Jeſus. And the ſame thing he commands others, ver. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect, mind that thing, foreign what you ſee me mind, that I charge you to mind, that very thing; but if any of you be ſhort in your attainments, let them wait, and we will wait, till God reveal it to them.
Theſe things would have continued exceeding plain, had not ſome private Reaſons, neceſſitated men to render them perplexed and obſcure; which how the Author of this Sermon will be able to do, we muſt now attend.
[1] The firſt ſtep the Doctor takes, to make the words his own, is this: We are (ſays he) to conſider, that an unhappy Schiſm, or wilful Breach of the Churches Unity, had begun in the Apoſtles times: there did ſo, and we have conſider'd it, and do find two things conſiderable. 1. That a Schiſm, and a wilful Breach, are terms equivalent; where there is no wilful Breach of Peace, there's no Schiſm. To be turn'd out of the Church againſt my will, and beſides my deſerts is none of my Schiſm; to be kept out of the Church, by the old turn-pikes of ſinful conditions, is none of my Schiſm; Wilful Obſtinacy, is the formal reaſon of Heretical Pravity, and Schiſmatical Levity. Errare poſſum, haereticus eſſe volo: Invincible Ignorance may betray me to miſtakes, but I can chuſe whether I will be an Heretick or no: ſo may I poſſibly ſeparate, and judge I have juſt reaſon ſo to do; yet will I not be a Schiſmatick, nor ſhall they, with all the skill they have, make me one; for I will ſtill maintain a Chriſtian frame of ſpirit towards thoſe from whom I am forced to ſeparate, and ſeparate no further than I am forced. 2. The Reaſon of that primitive Schiſm, is more conſiderable, which (as the Doctor informs us) was upon a difference that aroſe concerning the neceſſity of keeping the law of Moſes; and that which made the Schiſm more dangerous, was, that the beginners of it pretended a Commiſſion from the Apoſtles. Let now the Reader believe me, I did verily believe it would come to this at laſt; That all the Authors of Diviſions and Separations, would firſt be impoſing unneceſſary, doubtful, unſcriptural terms of Communion, and then to ſet a good face upon a bad matter, would pretend Catholick, Apoſtolick Traditions, Commiſſions, Decretals, Extravagants, Canons, Conſtitutions, to juſtifie their own Uſurpations; and when once they are got into the Saddle, and have the whip-hand of the poor Laity, all that cannot run like Tumblers through theſe Hoops, ſhall be rated as Schiſmaticks: Now becauſe the Doctor has a little diſguis'd the matter in his Diſcourſe, to make it ſmile upon his pretenſions, I will give the Reader the naked truth of the whole buſineſs.
There were in the Apoſtles days ſome Judaizing Chriſtians, who being not well weaned from the Moſaic Ceremonies, would needs compel the Gentile Converts to their old obſervances, for which they plauſibly pretened, that thoſe Rites having been once confeſſedly eſtabliſh'd by Divine Authority, and not yet explicitely repealed by any Countermand of Chriſt, equal to that whereby they had been enjoined, were ſtill in full force, power, ſtrength and virtue, and did oblige the gentil world to give their aſſent and conſent to them; and in purſuance of this impoſing humor, they would have obtruded upon them a Canon, Acts 15.5. That except they were circumciſed, and obſerv'd the law of Moſes, they could not be ſaved. To this Uſurpation the Apoſtles oppoſe their authority, and taking the Gentile Chriſtians into their protection, vindicate their Liberty, and command them to ſtand faſt in it, and not tamely ſurrender themſelves to the will and pleaſures of theſe imperious Maſters: And becauſe St. Peter, by his compliance, had hardened theſe Judaizers in their Superſtitions, St. Paul takes him up roundly, reproves him to his face, and ſtrenuouſly aſſerts their Goſpel Liberty; which had he not done, the Doctor thinks, all the Gentile Chriſtians had been forced either to a compliance with the Jews, or to a perpetual Schiſm: But herein I muſt beg his pardon; for though they had been forced to a Separation, it had been no Schiſm, which viſibly had lain on the other ſide; for Paul in his admonition to the Church at Rome, lays all the blame of the Separation not upon them that ſeparate, but on thoſe that gave cauſe to the Separation. Rom. 16.17. I beſeech you, Brethren, mark them which cauſe diviſions and offences among you, and avoid them. Where he points to us theſe three things. 1. That they who cauſe diviſions, are the culpable dividers: the Impoſers muſt be reſponſible for the evil conſequences of their Impoſitions. 2. That it's lawful, nay a duty, to divide from thoſe, that unwarrantably give ſuch cauſe of diviſion; foreign decline, or depart from them. 3. That any Condition of Communion impoſed beſides, as well as againſt the Doctrine received from the Apoſtles, is a ſufficient ground to condemn the Impoſers, to juſtifie thoſe that reject ſuch conditions; for ſo we read, foreign And ſo we find it rendered, Gal. 1.8. Though we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Goſpel unto you, then that we have preach'd unto you, foreign, let him be accurſed.
Hitherto matters do not work to the Doctor's mind; he does movere, but nihil promovere; the ſtep he has taken, has ſet his cauſe a ſtep backward,
[2] And therefore he will try another Experiment, whether the Epiſtle with the Context may not invite, or draw the Text to his Intereſt.
(1) His firſt approach he makes thus: The Apoſtle exhorts the Philippians to an unanimous and conſtant reſolution in holding faſt to the faith of the Goſpel, in ſpight of all the malice and threats of their enemies, Phil. 1.27, 28. And moſt wholſom counſel it is, God give all Diſſenters grace to take it; for if once the fears of Troubles and Perſecutions, make men afraid to own and maintain their Religion, it will be an eaſie matter for their enemies first to divide, and then to ſubdue them. This will not yet do the Doctor's work, nor undo the Diſſenters.
(2) He makes a nearer approach, thus: The Apoſtle beſeeches them, in the moſt vehement and affectionate manner, not to give way to any differences or diviſions among them. Very good! As much then as in us lies, we will live peaceably with all men: But what ſecurity ſhall we have that they will do ſo with us? We will labor that there be no differences in judgment, (which yet in our imperfect ſtate is not to be expected) but if there be differences, we will take care there be no diviſions; for we are taught to maintain Chriſtian affections towards thoſe that are of different apprehenſions from our ſelves, and different practices too, proportionable to thoſe different ſentiments; for ſo the Apoſtle adjures the Church, Phil. 2.1, 2. To be like minded, having the ſame love, being of one accord, and of one mind. Upon which words the Doctor gives us this Paraphraſe, q. d. I have ſeen the miſerable effects of Diviſions in other Churches, (indeed Diviſions, that are cauſed by, or iſſue out in, hatred, malice, envy, perſecution, have effects as miſerable as themſelves, but what miſerable effects did he, or we ever ſee, that all mens faces were not of one complexion?) Let me therefore entreat you—to avoid the firſt tendencies to any breaches among you; (and unneceſſary Impoſitions lay the firſt foundations to theſe Miſchiefs:) entertain no jealouſies, no unjust ſuſpicions of each other, (as that the moſt godly among thoſe that differ from you in leſſer matters, can leaſt endure to be told of their faults; or that the tenderneſs of their minds, out of meer ſhame-facedneſs, keeps them from declaring truth:) but ſhew all the kindneſs you are able to your fellow members, (and ſurely you are able to wave theſe Bones of Contention, theſe make-bate Ceremonies; you are able to forbear railing, perſecuting, are you not?) I confeſs Pride is an impotency of mind, and Paſſion a great weakneſs of ſoul; the ſtrongeſt wills have commonly the weakeſt reaſon to govern them; and the ambition of glorying in the fleſh of thoſe whom they can make to truckle to their Humors, and Crotchets, is a pretty fleſh-pleaſing vanity, which I hope in time you will overcome; ſo that hitherto we can ſmell no Plot the Doctor has upon us, no ſcent of Match or Powder; or how by theſe Ambages, and remote Fetches he intends to attack us, we diſcern not.
(3) In the next place therefore he tells us, the Apoſtle gives Cautions againſt ſome perſons, from whom their greatest danger was, viz. ſuch as pretended a mighty zeal for the Law. Nay, I always ſuſpected our danger would come from that Quarter! but am glad we know our enemies, and do promiſe him, we'll keep a ſpecial eye upon them in all their motions. Some ſuch there are in the world, who are exceeding zealous for Ceremonies and Traditions, and would triumph, if they could carry it, for Bel, and the Dragon: ſuch as would knead the world into its old maſs and lump, rather than want of their wills; and as the Judaizers would renounce Chriſtianity, and return to Moſes, except the Gentiles would conform to their legal obſervances; ſo have we ſome ſuch who will revolt to Rome, unleſs they may (not retain, for who hinders them? but) impoſe their own admired knick-knacks upon others. Now ſuch as theſe the Apoſtle deals ſmartly with; he calls them Dogs, Evil Workers, the Conciſion: becauſe they tore in pieces the ſeamleſs Coat of Chriſt, into ſhreds and tatters, confounding the minds of peaceable Chriſtians, who would willingly have united upon thoſe plain, eaſie, reaſonable terms upon which they had already received, and profeſſed Chriſtianity, only theſe peeviſh trouble-houſes would not let them. And this is remarkable, that the Apoſtle never gave one hard word to the Conſcientious Diſſenter, nor one good word to the Judaizing Impoſer, in all his Epiſtles.
To what end now is all this pompous, ceremonious train of words? to what end are theſe Poſitions, Suppoſitions, and Preliminaries? why ſo many Lines, Entrenchments, Galleries? why theſe tedious Approaches? why all this Spaniſh Gravity? why does he not fall aboard with his Text, and ſtorm it? Alas! Things are not yet ripe, and ready for ſuch hot ſervice, and therefore—
(4) —The Apoſtle having done this, he perſuades all good Chriſtians to do as he did, ver. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded; What was that? to aſſert his liberty? he did ſo, and would not be brought under the power even of lawful things, 1 Cor. 6.12. Was it not to put his neck under the old yoke of bondage? he did ſo; or did he ſcorn to build up what he had once pluckt down? he did ſo; and would he have us do as be did? Content. Shall we ſtand faſt in our liberty as he in his? Content. Muſt we not build up whatever of humane inventions we have pluckt down? Content. Would he have us as many as be perfect, be thus minded? Content. Let as many as are as he was, do as he did; They that are honour'd with his Attainments, let them come up to his Evangelical Practice: when we were children, we thought, ſpake, acted as children: Are we grown up to Manhood? let's put away childiſh things! It is a ſhame not to outgrow our Trinckets, our Rattles, our Hobby-horſes, when we have outgrown the Rickets. Shall it be ſaid of Chriſtians, as of the Grecians, foreign. The Greeks are always children: But ſuch were the Judaizers, always learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth: And you may as ſoon whip theſe huge great Boys out of all Religion, as out of one Ceremony; ſo fond, ſo doating, ſo peeviſh, froward, awkward, ſuch a whimpering, ſuch a whining, ſuch puleing and powting for Ceremonies, as if they had loſt that famous Engine of the Nutcrack, or had been plundered of a pin-box: I have read of a learned man in this nation, who tells us he had quite other ſentiments of, and apprehenſions about death than moſt men; others were afraid to die, but he was aſhamed to die: Really, many are afraid of the Ceremonies as ſinful, and I am not without thoſe fears too; but methinks I am greatly aſhamed of 'em, as I ſhould that any ſhould ſpie me riding upon a penny Colt, or a Gelding: No, St. Paul would have them that are thus perfect, grow up into a more manly and generous way of ſerving and worſhipping God; Though the famous Alcibiades did once (to pleaſe a child) condeſcend,
Ludere par, impar, equitare in Arundine longâ.
To play (the fool) at even-or-odd;
And for a hobby-horſe, ride a rod.
5. Hitherto we have felt no wound, but like the bird in the tree looking at the gunner, wonders what he's fidling about, till of a ſudden ſhe's paſt feeling: At laſt the Author comes nearer: Becauſe (ſays he) many diſputes, and differences as to opinion and practice might happen among them, he therefore lays down two Rules to govern themſelves by; Here now the Dr. beats up, and gets within our Quarters, and very ſubtilly would inſinuate, to the unwary Reader, that the Apoſtle gave two Rules about one and the ſame thing, whenas 'tis evident he gave but one, nor was it poſſible he ſhould give more in that caſe: The caſe which the Dr. ſuppoſes, is that there were differences of opinion and practice among the Philippians: Let it be ſuppoſed! Does the Apoſtle give two Rules in that caſe? No! but one ſingle Rule, which was the Rule of mutual forbearance, and leaving one another to Gods Inſtructions: but in Another Caſe, where Chriſtians had attained to be of the like mind, there the Rule was, that they ſhould walk up and according to what they had attained: But we muſt go through now we are in, and therefore let us hear what theſe two Rules are, and what uſe he will make of them.
1. Rule. If any happen'd to differ from the body of Chriſtians they lived with, they ſhould do it with modeſty, and humility: not breaking out into factions, and Diviſions, but waiting for further information: Now here we want that Accuracy, that might have been expected from a perſon of his Abilities: For, 1. He puts it as a rare and extraordinary Caſe, [If any happen] ſuch a one as might fall out in an Age, or ſo, whereas this was a moſt familiar Caſe, and that which the Apoſtle met with everywhere, that there was a difference of apprehenſions about the leſſer things at leaſt, of Religion; nor was he to ſeek what direction to give in the caſe, but uniformly determines, that they ſhould not judge, nor deſpiſe each other upon theſe accounts, nor was there ever any Church at any time wherein theſe differences did not happen: 2. He lays the ſtreſs of the duty upon thoſe that differ from the Body of the Chriſtians they live with: It is very true, the Church, or Body of Chriſtians at Philippi, at that time, was ſound in the Doctrine of the Goſpel, evangelical in their worſhip, and regular in government and Diſcipline; and therefore it was the duty of thoſe that differed from that body, not to ſeparate from it; but ſuppoſe any happened to differ from the body of Chriſtians they lived with, which were not ſo; muſt the Rule hold equally? is there the ſame obligation in the caſe alſo? what if a Chriſtian ſhould happen to live at Rome? what if it ſhould be the Drs. lot to live there? muſt he be under the ſame obligation not to divide from the body? 3. He ſuppoſes the Rule only to be given to the perſon that happens to differ from the body of the Church, whereas the Rule is mainly given to the Church, how they are to demean themſelves toward a diſſenting brother, viz. to wait till God ſhall reveal his mind to the perſon otherwiſe minded: Neither is he to act, nor the Church to compel, till God clear it up to his Conſcience, that he may act like a Saint, or, ſince Saints is a term of reproach, at leaſt like a Man, and not a Beaſt: 4. He diſguiſes his rule, by thoſe Terms of Art, faction, ſeparation, &c, whereas faction and ſeparation are two things, the one always ſinful, the other many times a duty.
2. Rule. For thoſe that are come to a firmneſs, and ſettlement upon the Chriſtian Principles, he charges them by all means to preſerve Unity, and Peace among themſelves. Now theſe things alſo are laid down with as much obſcurity as one could wiſh: For, 1. 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 'tis 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, 'tis no great matter; I'll not indulge theſe peeviſh tender Conſciences, Let 'em Conform, or the Prelates and their Chancellors ſhall admoniſh them, admoniſh them, admoniſh them, thrice with one breath, and then Excommunicate, and deliver them up to the Devil. To conclude, the Doctor had much better have employed his Talents in demonſtrating, 1. That by a Rule, is meant a fixed Rule about things indifferent, or dubious. 2. That the Archbiſhops, Biſhops, and Clergy in Convocation, Synod, or Council, muſt be the fixers of this Rule. 3. That all are bound, notwithſtanding their various meaſures of light, to conform to this Rule. 4. That the Governors of one Church, or many Churches, may make Rules for other Churches, and force them upon their Conſciences to be obſerved by Divine Right; inſtead of which, and much more he has to do; he has ſuppoſed, what he can never demonſtrate.
But that we ſhall ſoon ſee, for now he draws apace towards Argument.
1. He tells us, That the phraſe, foreign, ſeems to be a continuation of the former alluſion to a Race: for the firſt thing the Greeks were wont to do as to their Exerciſes, was to circumſcribe the bounds wherein they were to be performed; now that which fixed and determined thoſe limits, was called foreign by the Greeks, &c. Had it not been for theſe Olympic, and other Games and Exerciſes, I cannot tell what our modern Criticks would have done for work; but what does foreign allude to? is that term alſo applied to a Race? No! it's borrowed from the grave marching of an Army, not the furious running of a Foot-match: 'Tis verbum militare, a term of Art in the Tactics, ſayes Zanchy. But grant that alſo, (for I'll yield as much as reaſonably he can deſire for peace-ſake,) ſtill the Queſtion will recur, what that Rule is, by which we muſt either ſoberly walk, or ſwiftly run? And there are two things that chiefly ſtand in competition.
1. A Rule of Charity, and mutual forbearance under different practices ſuitable to their different judgments.
2. A Rule of Severity, which determines to one uniform practice, notwithſtanding the diverſity of judgment, ſo that all muſt be drawn, hang'd, and quarter'd, that come not up to this Rule: 'Tis the latter, the Doctor now ſo ſtifly contends for; and none can blame him if he be for that Rule, becauſe ſuch a Rule would be for him, if he could get it, which is the beſt Reaſon he can produce for this Rule.
II. He pleads, therefore it cannot be the Rule of Charity, becauſe the Apoſtle had ſpoken to that just before; but rather (think I) it muſt be that ſame Rule, becauſe the Apoſtle had ſpoken of it just before, and therefore he calls it the ſame Rule, foreign, that is, that very Rule he had juſt before mention'd; for they that have attained to the higheſt meaſure of knowledge, are not exempted from the Rule of Charity towards thoſe that have leſs knowledge; and it's new Grammar, (as well as new Divinity) that a Relative cannot agree with his Antecedent, becauſe the Antecedent went before; and will deſtroy the ſureſt way of interpreting Scripture from the Coherence and Context, if we muſt conceive there can be no reference of what follows after, to that which immediately went before.
III. The Doctor yet argues farther, That the Philippians underſtood already what Rules he had given them, when a Church was first formed among them, and therefore when he mentions a Rule, without declaring what it was, we have reaſon to believe it was ſuch a Rule which they well knew he had given them before. Well then, 'tis confeſſed that the Rule the Apoſtle exhorts them to walk by, was ſuch a Rule as he had before given them; we are aſſured he had given them a Rule concerning all neceſſary things; we are not aſſured he had given them any Rules for unneceſſary things: if the Doctor can, let him produce the Rule, and we are ready to Conform to it. Apocryphal Rules about new Rites, new Ceremonies, new Churches, new Government, we find none, and therefore muſt be contented with what he had given them before, viz. that Rule by which the New Creature is guided and governed. Gal. 6.16. As many as walk according to this Rule, peace be on them. But we have got another Rule, and they that walk not according to that Rule, though conſcientiouſly and ſtrictly walking by the other, no peace ſhall be on them, no peace ſhall be with them, but wrath and vengeance, Fire and Fagot; but that time is ſhort.
IV. The Doctor yet further argues from 1 Cor. 11.34. The reſt will I ſet in order when I come. And 1 Cor. 7.17. As God hath diſtributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, ſo let him walk, and ſo ordain I in all the Churches.
Here then we have an Order, an Act or an Ordinance of the Apoſtle, a fixt ſtanding Rule, to which all are bound to Conform themſelves; but what now if they who call themſelves the Apoſtles Succeſſors, will not ſuffer us to Conform to the Rule? The Apoſtles Rule is, Let every one walk as God has diſtributed to him. The modern Rule is, Let every one walk farther and faſter than God has diſtributed to him. Well, there's no remedy; for, (ſayes the Doctor) This ſhews the Apoſtles did not leave all perſons to act as they judg'd fit; No, I believe they did not, but as God by his Apoſtles thought fit; not by Traditions, but Scripture Revelations; not by the Fleſh, but by the Spirit; not by their own Wills, or the Wills of men, but by and after the Will of God. But the Apoſtles made Rules determining their practice: No doubt of that; but was it about Mint, Aniſe, and Cummin, or the great and weighty things of the Law?
V. Still he proceeds; That although Men might pretend that the things were not in themſelves neceſſary, that they were ſcrupled by ſome perſons, and therefore were not fit to be impoſed upon any, yet he does not find that the Apoſtles forbore to give Rules in ſuch caſes, and to oblige Chriſtians to obſerve them. To which I ſay,
1. That I do not find that the Apoſtles did attempt to give Rules in ſuch Caſes, other than the Rule of Charity, of kindneſs, of mutual forbearing one another; the Doctor does not find they did forbear. Muſt we believe they did every thing, we do not find they did forbear? Really I do not find they did forbear preaching againſt Liturgies, the Sign of the Croſs, Archbiſhops and Biſhops, Archdeacons, and Deans; will he allow me to conclude, that therefore he did preach againſt them? what wild work would an Argument from Authority negatively in matters of Fact make with our Ceremonies? And what a Hubbub had it raiſed, if ſuch Reaſonings were to be found in the Sermons of the Diſſenters?
2. Let him therefore ſhew plainly, That the Apoſtles interpoſed their Authority, to impoſe upon the Diſciples any one thing, which was not antecedently, ſome way or other, neceſſary to that Impoſition; and never ſtand caſting a miſt before our eyes, by ſaying the Apoſtles gave Rules in ſuch Caſes, when the Caſes are vaſtly different from thoſe that are in debate amongſt us.
VI. He goes on, What the Apoſtle thus impoſed, was not on the meer authority of Apoſtles, but as Church-Governors, whoſe buſineſs it is to take care of their preſervation. Not as Apoſtles, but as Governors! Things well joined, but ill divided! As they were Apoſtles, ſo were they Governors of Churches, to whom the Care of all the Churches was committed, 2 Cor. 11.28. There was indeed another matter that ſhould have here been ſhuffled in, and is handſomly inſinuated, That the Apoſtles in eſtabliſhing Rules for Rites and Ceremonies, and thoſe other things that are ſuppoſed, acted not as extraordinary Officers, whoſe power was to expire with their perſons, but as ordinary Guides, who were to have Succeſſors in their whole Ruling work to the end of the World; but this is far more eaſily hinted, than proved: we deny therefore, and wait for evidence,
1. That the Apoſtles ever made Rules for the determining of unneceſſary Circumſtances, and impoſed them on the Churches as terms of Communion.
2. That Dioceſan Biſhops, or Metropolitans, are the Apoſtles Succeſſors in the governing of Churches.
3. That if they did ſucceed them in any part of their office and worke, yet that they have the ſame fulneſs of power, as wanting their infallible direction, wiſdom, prudence, and other qualifications that might either move Chriſt to entruſt them with that power, or perſuade Chriſtians to ſubmit to their power.
VII. To ſweeten, and ſet off the Diſcourſe, the Doctor has formed a moſt ingenious compariſon between the power and skill of a General of an Army to command, and the Duty which private Soldiers owe to their General on the one part, and the Authority, Wiſdom and Conduct of Church-Governors, to order the Eccleſiaſtical Militia, and the Duty that private Chriſtians owe to their Orders on the other hand, which would have taken before the Trained Bands, or the Artillery Company; at preſent let it paſs for as much as 'tis worth, that is, a ſpecimen of wit, and a rare piece of ingenuity.
VIII. But his great Refuge, his ſafe Retreat, is in and to the Council at Jeruſalem, concerning which, the Reverend Author expreſſes himſelf thus: Although there were many doubts and ſcruples in their times about ſeveral Rites and Cuſtoms, yet the Apoſtles did give Rules in ſuch Caſes, and bind Chriſtians to obſerve them, as we find in that famous Decree made upon great deliberation in the Council of the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem.
To which it were enough to ſay, That the Apoſtles did give Rules, but not ſuch as are now given: They gave Rules in the Caſe that lay before them, but that Caſe was nothing akin to thoſe Caſes which are now before us; That in what Caſe ſoever the Apoſtles did give Rules, it's nothing to them, who pretend a power to give Rules to us, except they can ſhew a Commiſſion as fairly drawn and ſealed as the Apoſtles could produce for their Determinations: But yet more particularly,
1. That Decree of the Apoſtles was about things neceſſary, antecedent to the Decree; not neceſſary becauſe decreed onelyonly, but therefore decreed becauſe neceſſary. Acts 15.28. It ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than theſe neceſſary things. How far is the ſpirit and temper of modern Impoſers from that of the Apoſtles, who think good to impoſe upon us the inſupportable burthen of unneceſſary things!
2. That Council had the infallible guidance and ſuperintendency of the Holy Spirit, (which is not inconſiſtent with the moſt ſerious deliberation) It ſeemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us. But no National Church ever had any promiſe, and therefore cannot in Faith pray for, or expect ſuch immediate aſſiſtance, ſuch extraordinary direction. Let no Church aſſume equal power to impoſe, without an equal Commiſſion for ſuch power.
3. The private Chriſtians might reaſonably acquieſce in the Decree, becauſe it had their own conſent, antecedent to its making: A wonderful inſtance, and not to be parallel'd in latter Ages: There, the Holy Spirits authority, and the Churches conſent, go together; but here, we have neither: That burden will ſit the eaſier on our backs, which firſt has the approbation of our hearts; and ſuch was that Decree, not only ſent to the Brethren, ver. 23. but by and from the Brethren. The Apoſtles and Elders, and Brethren, ſend greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles. But this is not our Caſe, who have neither head, nor heart, nor hand, nor finger, in impoſing thoſe burdens, which it ſeems good to my Lords the Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, to lay upon us: nor do we know what load we muſt bear, till we feel it, no more than the poor Pack-horſe knows before hand, what it ſhall pleaſe his good Lord and Maſter to lay upon him.
4. That Decree was not to burden the Churches, but to eaſe them of thoſe burdens which they already groaned under. The Caſe was this, and it was ſad, and partly ours, Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the Brethren, that except they were circumciſed after the manner of Moſes, they could not be ſaved, ver. 1. Againſt this Tyranny Paul and Barnabas, the great Aſſertors of Chriſtian liberty, made vigorous oppoſition, ver. 2. but the Zealots having reinforced their Faction, from ſome of the Sect of the Phariſees, who believed, ver. 5. the Caſe comes before the Council, who determine againſt thoſe Bigots, that their blind zeal ſhould not be the meaſure of neceſſary, and unneceſſary, and yet not to exaſperate them too much, leſt perhaps they ſhould revolt from Chriſt, and apoſtatize to Moſes, (which they were now in a fair way to do, and ſome of them afterwards did) they agree to lay upon the Gentile Converts no greater burthen than thoſe neceſſary things, in oppoſition to thoſe other unneceſſary things, which the Judaizing Chriſtians contended for as neceſſary.
5. If we conſider the things impoſed, we ſhall find them none of thoſe Trifles, which the more pragmatical After-Ages divided the Churches with: Abſtaining from meats offered to Idols, from blood, from things ſtrangled, and from fornication, ver. 25. Of which, Fornication was in its ſelf unlawful; meats offered to Idols (under that notion) were then, and are ſtill unlawful to be eaten; things ſtrangled, had preſcription and countenance from moſt Reverend Antiquity, againſt their uſe; and by Blood, ſome underſtand Murther, in which ſenſe that alſo was ſimply unlawful; but if by Blood be underſtood, Fleſh with the life thereof which is the Blood, Gen. 9.4. that is, a limb taken from a living creature, and ſo eaten; to forbid that, was no more than to forbid them to be Canibals: and if thereby we will underſtand Blood in the moſt general acceptation, yet that alſo was ſo averſe to the Jews, that it's no wonder if the Church agreed to gratifie them in it. Nay, I have known (amongſt ſome others) a Reverend Dignitary of our Church, who from this Decree, and the Precepts given to the ſons of Noah, Religiouſly abſtained from all things ſtrangled, and from blood, to his dying day.
6. The end of that Decree, was to avoid Scandal; the morality of which, had it been well underſtood by theſe raw Gentile Converts, had taught them to deny themſelves in a greater matter than things ſtrangled, and blood, rather than give offence to their weak Brethren, without troubling the Church to make any Decree about them: And when this Canon was in its greateſt force and vigor, the Gentile Believers might have eaten the foreign, privately, yea, in company, where no offence would be given or taken; for what was the Jewiſh Convert concern'd what another ſhould eat at home, either of the foreign, or fragments of heatheniſh Sacrifices, preſented to him by his Relations, or of thoſe things killed by ſuffocation? But alas! the Caſe is otherwiſe with us; for ſuch is the neceſſity of the Croſs, the white Garment, kneeling at the Supper, &c. That the omiſſion of them ſhall ſilence and ſuſpend a learned, faithful, laborious Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt ab officio, & beneficio, from his work and wages.
7. The Apoſtles add no penalty, neither pecuniary, corporal, or ſpiritual, to afright men into compliance with it; but contented themſelves to have commanded in the Name of Chriſt, and of his true Church; they made not thoſe neceſſary things, the conditions of miniſterial, or lay-communion; Significavits, Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo, were not then invented, nor till a long time after that the Lady Churches having loſt the true ſpiritual Sword, began to arm themſelves with ſecular power, to back and ſet an edge upon their Dictates.
8. This Decree was onelyonly negative, not poſitive; a reſtraint from the uſe of ſome, but not an impoſition of any. It was onelyonly, This you ſhall not Do; not, This you ſhall Do! which kind of Canons are much eaſier than the other: Conſcience may better be tyed up from acting in a hundred, than forced to act in one particular. A negative precept reſtrains us from acting at any time, in any Caſe; an affirmative always obliges, but obliges not always to act in every Caſe: But things at home are much otherwiſe, where we are commanded both what to do, and what not to do; and are ſtill conſtrain'd to act, even in thoſe things we apprehend againſt the command of God either in general, or ſpecial.
9. Laſtly, It appears from the Apoſtle Paul's After-writings, that when this Decree had a little gratified the Jewiſh Converts, weaned them a little from their old cuſtoms and uſages, whereof they were ſo tenacious, mollified their moroſe and rugged tempers, ſweeten'd and endear'd them towards the Gentiles, it expired of courſe, (as to what obligation it received from man) and lay among thoſe obſolete Canons, which were not regarded, becauſe antiquated; for when the reaſon of an humane Eccleſiaſtical Law ceaſes, the Law itſelf ceaſes, without any formal Repeal, which becauſe ſome expected ſhould have been more ſolemn, they will not be beaten out on't, but it's ſtill in force.
Thus have we ſeen the Vanity of the Doctor's Suppoſition, which he would perſuade us is the Apoſtles, viz. That there was a neceſſity of one fixed and certain Rule, notwithſtanding the different attainments among Chriſtians: Which I am not afraid to call vain, being ſo dark, that we neither know whether the Rule muſt be of Divine, or Humane Inſtitution, what the matter of it muſt be; nor is it proved by Reaſon, or any Scripture argument, but what is ultimately reſolved into that Decree made at Jeruſalem, which I have now fully ſhewn will do him nor his Cauſe any ſervice.