The Rector of Sutton Committed, Letter (2 of 3)

The Rector of Sutton Committed · Letter (2 of 3)

p. 3011. Then what if they be found ſuch Teachers, and to worſhip God in ſuch a way, as true Religion doth How? What if an human Conſtitution eſtabliſhed, allow not of thoſe, who are allowed of by God in his Word?

12. Let it be conſidered, whether if true Miniſters of Chriſt are caſt out by ſuch Rules as are not warranted by the Word they are not thereby neceſſitated to have diſtinct Congregations or to lay aſide their Miniſtry; which may not be lawful for them to do? I would do the Doctor no wrong, but acknowledg, he diſtinguiſheth betwixt Non-Communion in unlawful, or ſuſpected Rites or Practices in a Church, and entring into diſtinct Societies for Worſhip. Now mark what he ſays, Irenic. p. 123, 124. This I do not aſſert to be therefore lawful, becauſe ſome things are required which Mens Conſciences are unſatisfied in: Unleſs (N.B.) others proceed to eject and caſt them wholly out of Communion on that account, in which caſe their ſeparation is neceſſary.—Here if I can underſtand the Doctor, he grants Separation neceſſary, entring into a new and diſtinct Society for God's Worſhip unavoidable, when Chriſtians are wrongfully can out for not conforming to a Church in unlawful or ſuſpected Practices. And I can find nothing in his Conferences (p. 170. or elſewhere) to take off or retract this Conceſſion. From whence by a Parity of Reaſon, I think, it will follow, that when Miniſters are wrongfully ejected, and caſt out of their publick Miniſterial Station for not conforming in unlawful or ſuſpected Practices, their having diſtinct Aſſemblie becomes neceſſary, at leaſt, if there be any need of their Miniſtry. And whether this be not the preſent caſe, I would leave it to indifferent, unprejudiced Minds to judg. When alſo the Canon ipſo facto excommunicateth all Lay and Clergy who ſay they take Conformity to be Sin.

Now I proceed on with the Doctor.

P. 21. But that I may do it more convincingly, I will not make the difference wider than it is.

This I like well, as tending to Peace and Union. And it is his Advice to his Diſſenting Brethren (Serm. p. 56.) Not to inflame the Peoples heats, by making their differences with the Church of England to appear greater than they are. Now I heartily wiſh, he may follow his own Rule. Surely, we agree in far more and greater matters, than we differ in. We are one with the Church of England in all the neceſſary points of Faith and Chriſtian Practice. We are one with the Church of England, as to the ſubſtance, and all neceſſary parts of God's Worſhip. p. 31But we differ as to certain accidental Forms, and Modes, and Rites, which the Church of England cannot ſay are neceſſary, and appear to us as things at leaſt to be ſuſpected, and yet they are obtruded and impoſed with as much rigor and ſtrictneſs, as if they were moſt highly neceſſary.

P. 21. They generally yield, that our Parochial Churches are true Churches.

Anſ. They cannot yeild that all Pariſh-Churches are true Churches; or every Pariſh-Prieſt a true Miniſter. Are there none in place ſo lamentably ignorant, ſo wofully idle, ſo looſe and groſly profane, that the Doctor would be aſhamed to own, as Perſons fit to be truſted with the diſpenſation of God's Holy Ordinances, and with the care of precious Souls? Now will the Doctor allow them to have private Aſſemblies in ſuch places, under ſound Teachers, where otherwiſe their Souls are in danger to periſh for lack of knowledg?

Ibid. They do not deny that we have all the Eſſentials of true Churches, true Doctrine, true Sacraments, and an implicite Covenant between Paſtors and People.

They will not grant ſo much of all Pariſh-Churches. Are there none in place unable to teach, that know not ſound Doctrine? Are there none that teach corrupt Doctrine? If there be but one, or never ſo few blind Guides; if but one Heretick, Socinian, &c. or never ſo few of them; they are too many. But I doubt it may not be ſaid, there are none ſuch, no, not one. And are there none brought in quite againſt the Peoples conſent? and is there yet an implicite Covenant betwixt ſuch and the People?

2. It may ſo happen, that Churches which have all the Eſſentials of true Churches, may ſet down ſuch terms of Communion, as ſome cannot ſubmit to without Sin. In which caſe it may be no Sin, to ſeparate from true Churches. Non-Communion is no Sin, where one cannot have Communion without Sin.

P. 22. Who could have imagined otherwiſe than that—they ſhould have joined with us in what themſelves judged to be lawful, and in many caſes a Duty?

What they judg to be lawful, and in many caſes a Duty, will not prove it a neceſſary Duty at all times, and out of thoſe caſes which make it ſo.

Ibid. Scarce any of their Preachers—come ordinarily—

If Preachers come not ordinarily to the publick Congregations to hear, ſuppoſing they have a warrantable Call to preach unto others; there is this to be ſaid for it, which the Doctor hath, (p. 31.) That p. 32which may be a duty in one caſe, when it comes to thwart a greater Duty, may be none.

Ibid. And this is that which at preſent we lament, as a thing which unavoidably tends to our common ruine, if not in time prevented.

It ſeems if ruine comes upon us, thoſe ſeparate Congregations he ſpeaks of, muſt have it laid at their Doors. But if we were convinced, that the Union of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection, then in Uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies (as the Doctor hath the expreſſion. Irenic. p. 121, 12….) and ſo could learn to exerciſe more Charity and mutual Forbearance towards each other, and no more bite and devour one another, both might be preſerved in Peace, and our common ruine prevented. Whether the tolerating of Religious Aſſemblies, that differ not from the ſtated publick Congregations in any thing that is neceſſary to Salvation, or eſſential to a Chriſtian Congregation, when both may be looked upon as Chriſtian Aſſemblies, when God is truly worſhipped in both or the ſuppreſſing of them that differ only in ſome Mo…e of Worſhip, & Rites not neceſſary, tendeth more to the ruine of Religion, ſeemeth not hard for ſuch as are unbiaſſed to determine. Hath nothing been done in thoſe more private Aſſemblies to ſecure and promote the true Intereſt of Religion? Hath nothing been done there to prevent Peoples running into dangerous Errors? Might we not have had greater Flocks of Quakers, amp;c. had not many been ſtayed in thoſe Aſſembles? Have not Quakers, Anabaptiſts, &c. en reaſed moſt, when theſe Aſſemblies have been moſt diſturbed, when Men have been moſt zealous to diſperſe and ſuppreſs them? Hath nothing been done there to prevent the Growth of Popery? See the Morning Lectures againſt Popery. As the ejecting of ſo many ſound Teachers and thruſting them out of their Pulpits did; ſo no doubt the hunting them out of their Corners would very much pleaſe, gratify and encourage the common Enemy. If the Doctor thinks, it was better that none of that Worſhip was performed to God, and that Souls had none of thoſe means and helps there, than that they ſhould not have all juſt according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, this is a thing I would lament. On the other hand, it ſeems a little ſtrange to me, how they do ſeriouſly lament our diviſions, who are yet for keeping up the Wall of Partition betwixt them and us. What could we do in compariſon of them? We cannot for our Lives ſubmit to ſome things required. It ſhould not be expected from us, unleſs they would have us lie and diſſemble with God and Man: but if indeed they would have us one with them, they may plead hard, that no unneceſſary burthen ſhould be laid on us, which we cannot p. 33in conſcience ſubmit to, the ſtrict impoſition whereof is never likely to do any good, but muſt ſtill keep up the unhappy differences among us. As the Con-Non and Non-Con ſayes, I am well ſatisfied that the Church will never enjoy Catholick peace but upon Catholick terms, which the terms of Conformity are not.

Yet let not our Hearts be alienated from thoſe with whom we muſt profeſs to agree in the main; no, not though (through ſome ſtrange prejudice) their Hearts ſeem hardned againſt us. Poſſibly, they might ſome time paſt have done much to take away the cauſe of our differences: but theſe differences muſt continue, and our common Enemy takes advantage at them; as it ought not, ſo I hope it ſhall not prejudice our minds againſt our Religion, about which we differ not (the difference being but about certain unneceſſary Additaments to it;) And they that boaſt ſo much of their unity, have (we know) as great differences among themſelves. As about that great point of the Churches Infallibility (the very Corner-ſtone in their Fabrick, which ſhould hold all together) they are not yet agreed where to place it.

P. 23. But you may ask, What then are the grounds of the preſent Separation: —That conſcientious Men can in ſuch a juncture of affairs perſiſt in ſo obſtinate and eſtructive da courſe of Separation?

Here are hard words indeed, that once I ſhould not have thought would ever have dropt from the Doctor's mouth or pen. But Tempora Mutantur—How juſtly it is called Separation (in the bad ſence of the word) and whether it deſerves thoſe Epithetes the Doctor hath beſtowed on it in this Sermon, as ſinful, Miſchievous, Wilful, Obſtinate, Deſtructive Separation, is to be conſidered. As the Doctor (in Iren. p. 146.) grants, there was a leſſer, and an higher ſort of, or greater Excommunication; ſo methinks if he would needs have it Separation, yet there was no neceſſity for him to aggravate it, as if there was no difference betwixt a neceſſitated, and wilful, obſtinate Separation. There may be a ſinful Separation, that is not to be called wilful, obſtinate Separation. Much leſs doth that which is neceſſitated, deſerve to be ſo called. The Doctor hath told us, (Iren. p. 108.) that we muſt not Judg every thing to deſerve the name, which is by many called Schiſm. That term being (as the Learned Hales ſayes) but a Theological ſcar-crow, as it is commonly uſed. Schiſm then (ſayes the Doctor) as it imports a Separation from Communion with a Church-Society, is not a thing intrinſecally and formally evil in it ſelf; but it is capable of the differences of good and evil according to the grounds, reaſons, ends, and Circumſtances inducing p. 34to ſuch a Separation. The withdrawing from Society is but the materiality of Schiſm; the ſomality of it muſt be fetched from the grounds on which it is built.

Now to the grounds on which theſe diſtinct Societies are built. 1. They are not the ſame with thoſe on which the Separatiſts heretofore went. The Separatiſts held the publick Congregations to be Babyloniſh Synagogues. The Church of England was Sodom and Egypt to them, an Whoriſh and Idolatrous no true Church. They held our Miniſters to be Antichriſtian, both their Entrance into, and excerciſe of their function Antichriſtian. They held that ſet-forms of Prayer were Abominable in God's ſight. They held there was no truly conſtituted Church upon earth but themſelves, and thoſe that might be found of their way, (Wherein they were like the Donatiſts.) On ſuch grounds as theſe they ſeparated, which the preſent Non-conformiſts do not hold. Now if the formality of Schiſm, or Separation muſt be fetch'd from the grounds of it, then does not the Doctor forget himſelf (Ser. p. 33.) ſaying, Do they not do the very ſame things, and in the ſame manner, that the others do? How comes it then to be Separation in ſome, and not in others?

Thus in the negative, thoſe diſtinct Aſſemblies the Doctor would batter down, are not built on the ſame grounds, that the proper Saparatiſts ſtood on. Now,

2. I come to ſhew poſitively on what grounds I conceive they may ſtand. Et quae non proſunt Singula, juncta, juvant. And if any of them prove firm, So far what is built upon the ſame will ſtand good, whoſoever calls it a Miſcheivous and Deſtructive piece of work.

1. The Teachers (I ſuppoſe) will ſay, as the Old Non-conformiſts (Grave Confutat. p. 35.) We deſire to know by what warrant they can be accounted to be no Miniſters now, that have given no juſt cauſe of Deprivation, ſince the time they were ſo Sufficiently called to the Miniſtry. They think, it is not in Mens power to degrade them from that office, without juſt cauſe. They have their office and Authority to Preach the Goſpel from Chriſt, Eph. 4 11, 12. They were not made Miniſters pro tempore. And the Doctor hath not proved that I can ſee, that they have given Juſt cauſe of Deprivation. And then it would ſeem, they have Authority from Chriſt ſtill to preach the Truth, which none upon earth can lawfully deprive them of. Fuller in his Abel Redivivus, tells us, that Bradford ſaid, If God ſhould deliver him out of Priſon, He would Preach ſtill, though ſecretly, p. 35as the times would permit him. And that Bilney after his Recantation, and repentance for it, Preached firſt privately in Houſes, and then in the fields, till he was apprehended and taken to Priſon. And ſo the Old Non-conformiſts when ſilenced by the Biſhops, ſcrupled not Preaching in private Houſes, or in another Dioceſs, where they could be admitted, as their practice ſhewed.

2. The Teachers think there is great need of their ſervice and pains ſtill in Miniſterial work, as well as when they were in place. Sure, there is work enough for all the ſober Conformiſts, and Nonconformiſts too. Indeed if they can find nothing elſe to do, then to fill the people with greater Prejudices againſt Communion with the publick Congregations (a thing laid to their charge. p. 22.) for ought I know, it would be as well; if they would for ever hold their peace. And ſo I hope the Doctor is miſtaken as to that, having been Miſinformed: or however, that there are not many ſuch. But generally they are better employed. Sure I am, that many Nonconformiſts have indeavoured, and have been the means to keep many to the publick Congregations, and to keep up in them a due eſteem of ſober conformable Preachers, who otherwiſe in all likelihood had been quite turned off.

But if indeed they aim at the ſame end, the Glory of God in the Salvation of Souls, (which there is no Miniſter of Chriſt, that underſtands his work, and his faithful in it, but deſigneth, and deſireth the promoting of) ſhall their Brethren quarrel with them for this? Or would the Apoſtle Paul have done it, who when ſome Preached Chriſt even of envy and ſtrife, yet did, and would rejoyce however that Chriſt was Preached, Phil. 1.15, 16, 18. But I hope, it cannot be thought of theſe without uncharitableneſs, but that they preach Chriſt of good will. And methinks, it had been better, if the Doctor, before he ſo ſeverely Cenſured and Condemned their Practice, had ſtaid to ſee all the Churches in London, &c. provided of ſuch Miniſters and of ſuch ſtore of them too, that there was no need for any to repair to their Old Miniſters, and others like them, that they could ſtand for no more then Cyphers. But when all the Pariſh-Miniſters, are not near Sufficient for ſo Populous a City, when ſuch as deſerve encouragement in their Places (as I am informed) have full Congregations, can the Doctor ſay in ſober ſadneſs, that it was better for all the reſt to be untaught, then to be taught by ſuch as do not conform? Are the ſouls of ſuch multitudes of no more value, but that it p. 36is fit to deprive them of the ordinary means of Salvation, unleſs they can have them, and will be content with them juſt in ſuch a mode? And is it better that they ſhould not worſhip God together at all, then that they ſhould not do it juſt in ſuch a way, as yet, would not make the Worſhip more acceptable unto God, nor more Profitable to themſelves, while they could not attend on it without much diſſatisfaction, and therefore probably not without more diſtraction ſhould not the ſence of their Duty (having been ſolemnly devoted, and ſet apart to the office and work of the Miniſtry) together with the neceſſity of ſouls, engage them to hold on in their Work; not in oppoſition to thoſe in place, but as Fellow-ſervants, lending them the beſt aſſiſtance they can? How dare they do other, when they think of that account they have to make to their great Lord and Maſter, though Men be angry at them, though their Fellow-ſervants will not thank them for their pains?

3. As for thoſe Non-conforming Teachers in London, who with their Aſſemblies (as I ſuppoſe) were eſpecially in the Doctor's eye, and under cenſure here, it is not unworthy of conſideration how loudly many of them were called on to their more ſtated Work, and ſolemn Meetings, by God's Thundring Judgments of Plague and Fire (as I remember Mr. Baxter takes notice, in his Plea for Peace) when many Conformable Preachers thought the ſervice too hot for them, and left it. And how the Lord was pleaſed at that time to own, and Encourage them with his preſence, and ſucceſs in their Labours, I think ſhould not, and hope will not be forgotten. Neither can I wonder, if many then wrought upon, fear to forſake the means which God did ſo ſignally own, and bleſs to their ſouls, leſt a worſe Plague ſhould come unto them, leſt the Lord ſhould be provoked again to ſend Meſſengers of wrath to them for their ſo ill entertaining of thoſe Meſſengers of Peace.

4. Further, as concerning the People that aſſemble with ſuch Teachers, they may have ſuch grounds as theſe. That there is an antecedent Obligation on Conſcience to aſſemble together on the account of Chriſtianity, whether humane Laws command, or prohibit it. (As the Doctor hath an Expreſſion ſomewhat parallel to this, in Power of Excom. p. 12.) And that they are not ſo ſtrictly confined to their own Pariſhes by the Law of God, but if they are not provided for at home, they may and ought to look out for their Souls abroad. That ſome Pariſh-Churches are not ſufficient to contain all, nor half of the Pariſhioners, that all p. 37cannot hear, if they would, and yet the Eccleſiaſtical Rules or Canons forbid their going to another Pariſh. That ſome Pariſh-Miniſters are not to be owned as Miniſters of Chriſt. There are ſome ſuch blind Guides, as they that would go right, may juſtly fear to follow: Some like the falſe Prophets of old, that cauſed the People to err; their Doctrine ſo unſound, that it is dangerous for People to hear them. Some as if they were the Miniſters of Satan, bend their Wits to pervert, and miſapply the Holy Scriptures, and ſet themſelves to ſtrengthen the Hands of the Wicked, and to make the Hearts of the Righteous ſad; that inſtead of perſwading Men to follow after Holineſs, rather preach it down. And ſome of the People are excommunicated by the Eccleſiaſtical Courts, and as they judge wrongfully, for ſuch things as will not bear ſuch a cenſure. And ſome again look upon themſelves as excommunicated ipſo facto by the Eccleſiaſtical Canons. And ſuch being wrongfully caſt out of Communion with the Parochial Congregations, by what the Doctor hath granted (Irenic. p. 124.) are neceſſitated to ſeparate, and join with others that dare not deny them the priviledges which by the poſitive Laws of Chriſt are their right, thus unavoidably becomes their Duty. Again, divers judg it their Duty to cleave to their old Miniſters. They are not ſatisfied, that that Act which turned them out of their Livings and Pulpits, did, or could quite null their Miniſtry, and immediately deſtroy the Relation betwixt them and their People. They were lawful Paſtors before, and had done nothing that they know worthy of degrading and deprivation, and ſo for ought they know, they are rightfully ſtill what they were before. Hence they make it a queſtion, whether thoſe ejected Paſtors, or ſuch as without any conſent of theirs, and the People entred into their charge, be the Encroachers? And whether thoſe that quite deſert their old Miniſters, or they that ſtill adhere to them, do better? They doubt not but ſuch are true Miniſters of Chriſt ſtill, ſuch as he hath qualified, and called to the Office, and whoſe Miniſtry he hath owned, and bleſſed with ſucceſs, and ſtill doth. They dare not but own them as Miniſters of Chriſt, and cannot but bewail it as a Sin of the Times, that they have been, and are ſo much diſowned. They conclude, that if they are true Miniſters ſtill, it is their duty ſtill to preach the Goſpel, as they have opportunity, and conſequently that it may be the duty of ſome to hear them. Again, one thing more, it may be ſome have met with that which the Doctor ſaith (Iren. p. 109.) upon the Queſtion, Whether in a time when Churches are divided, it be a Chriſtians duty to communicate with any of thoſe Parties which divide the Church?—A caſe not hard to be decided (ſays he)—By p. 38vertue of his general Obligation to Communion, he is bound to adhere to that Church which appears moſt to retain its Evangelical Pority.—But ſuppoſing (them alike impure) either he hath joyned formerly with one of them, or (not)—If he be joined already with that Church, and ſees no other but as impure as that, he is bound to declare againſt the impurity of the Church— Now they will think this Rule, or Advice of the Doctor's impracticable, that they ſhould declare againſt the impurity of the Church, and ſo continue Communion with it; for if they judg any of its impurity lying in the Book of Common-Prayer, the Church hath provided, that whoſoever declares againſt it, ſhall be cut off immediately from her Communion. So Canon 4. ſaith, Whoſoever ſhall hereafter affirm, that the Form of God's Worſhip in the Church of England, eſtabliſhed by Law, and contained in the Book of Common-Prayer and Adminiſtration of Sacraments, is a corrupt, ſuperſtitious, or unlawful Worſhip of God, or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated ipſo facto. Thus ſuch would be excommunicated forthwith by the Sentence of the Church in her Canons, without any need of further Sentence in her Courts: how then can a Man declure againſt the impurity of the Church, and yet hold Communion with her? And further they may think, it follows from the Doctor's own Words, that if a Man ſees another Church not ſo impure, (and that comes nearer to the primitive Conſtitution, as p. 110.) he ſhould chuſe to join with that Church. But here it may be the Doctor would ſay (as Conferences, p. 148.) There are many things in it [his Irenicum] which if Dr. Stilling fleet were to write now, he would not have ſaid; for there are ſome things which ſhew his Youth, and want of due Conſideration: others which he yeilded too far, &c. And I am content that this ſhould not be admitted without due caution, and conſideration, that it ſhould have ſome limitations. But thus you have ſome of the grounds, whereon theſe diſtinct Aſſemblies ſtand, Et valeant quantum valere debent.

And when the Doctor aggravates the Crime, that it ſhould be thus [in ſuch a juncture of Affairs,] methinks, it might have been expected of him, having ſuch a zeal for the Churches Peace, and an happy Union, that he could be contented to be made a Sacrifice, if thereby he might cloſe up the Breaches among us (as he ſays in Epiſt. Dedic.) I ſay, it might have been expected, that in ſuch a juncture of Affairs when he preached before the Parliament, he would put in ſome good Word, for the taking off thoſe unneceſſary Impoſitions, which are indeed the Apple p. 39of Contention, the main cauſe of our Diviſions. And ſuch a Motion (eſpecially had it taken) might have procured him as great Renown as his Irenicum.

P. 23. When he ſays of the Proteſtant Religion, I never expect to ſee it ſurvive the deſtruction of the Church of England.

I doubt not, his meaning is, that it would not ſurvive here amongſt us. But if by the Church of England, he meaneth the Church under the preſent Form, and eſtabliſhed Rule (as his word is:) as if there could be no alteration of that, without the deſtruction of the Proteſtant Religion, I would only have theſe two things enquired into here, viz. Whether had we not the Proteſtant Religion in England ſometime without, and before this eſtabliſhed Rule (which was ſince his Majeſty's Reſtauration?) many Years we were without any ſuch Rule eſtabliſhed. And whether the Proteſtant Religion hath not been preſerved in other Countries, without having this ſame Rule eſtabliſhed?

P. 24. The Doctor citeth Mr. Baxter there, and elſewhere, whereof I ſhall take little notice, concluding that he will anſwer for himſelf, unleſs it be judged that the Doctor is anſwered already in what is written, In Sacrilegious Deſertion, Plea for Peace, and Way to Concord.

P. 25. And what Ground can they have to ſeparate and divide thoſe Churches?—

Perhaps they may be ready to retort here, Dr. Manton's Church, Mr. Calamy's Church, &c. before Aug. 24.62. were true Churches, and what ground had others to ſeparate and divide thoſe Churches? Not ſuch as are neceſſitated to withdraw, but they that force them to it, are the great Church-dividers.

P. 26. It is poſſible, at firſt, there might be no more Chriſtians in one City than could meet in one Aſſembly for Worſhip, &c.

So particular Congregations ſeem firſt, Ordine Naturae Conſtituentis; as Families before Cities, and Kingdomes. Yet I am not againſt a ſub-ordination of Particular Congregations unto their Authority as regularly conjoyned, and exerting it ſelf according to Scripture-Rule.

P. 27. Why then ſhould not Churches be reduced to particular Families, when by that means they may fully enjoy the Liberty of their Conſciences, and avoid the Scandal of breaking the Laws?

p. 40But their conſciences tell them, that Family-Worſhip is not all the Worſhip God requires. And the Doctor himſelf has told them (Iren. p. 109.) Every Criſtian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-Society with others. And as touching the Scandal of breaking the Laws, that Able Lawyer before Praiſed (whoſoever he was) tells them that the words of the Law cannot with reaſon and Charity be underſtood and conſtrued, as intended againſt a real truly Chriſtian exerciſe of Religion (p. 3.) His reaſon is, Becauſe I ſuſpect (ſayes he) that ſuch an Interpretation would make the Statute a Nullity (N. B.) in it ſelf; for that all Caſuiſts, Lawyers and Divines do agree, That every Law made againſt the Law of God, is null (ipſo facto) as to any obligation of Conſcience. And how harſh would it be (as he ſayes) to make ſuch a conſtruction of the words, If any perſon or perſons above the number four, ſhall worſhip God truly and ſincerely in other manner, &c. ſhall incur the Penalty of the Act.

P. 27, 28. The Doctor would make the world believe, that it is paſt controverſie, when the Apoſtles planted a Church, they put the ſame under the care and government of a Biſhop and Presbyters: Whether he thought ſo when he wrote his Irenicum, let any man of reaſon read and judg. He had not then diſcovered any ſuch diſtinction of officers, in the Jews Synagogues. And this he lays there as a foundation (p. 239.) that the Apoſtles in the forming of Churches did obſerve the cuſtoms of the Jewes Synagogues. For he cites Grotius, Totum Regimen Eccleſiarum Chriſti conformatum fuit ad Synagogarum Exemplar, with others. And (p. 252.) All order is not power nor power juridical, nor all juridical power a ſole power, therefore it is a meer Paralogiſm in any from order to infer power, or from a Delegated power by conſent, to infer a Juridical power by divine right; or laſtly, from a power in commnon with others, to deduce a power excluding others. All which they are guilty of, who meerly from the name of an Archiſynagogus would fetch a perpetual neceſſity of Juriſdiction in one above the Elders joyned with him, &c. And I cannot ſee that what is here ſaid, did either ſhew his youth, or want of due Conſideration. Methinks, it is very gravely ſpoken, not unbecoming a Doctor of the Chair. And ſee what he ſayes, (p. 276.) As to the matter itſelf, I believe upon the ſtricteſt enquiry Medina's judgment will prove true, That Jerome, Auſtin, Ambroſe, Sedulius, Primaſius, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius his Judgment as to the identity of both name and order of Biſhops and Presbyters in the primitive Church, &c.

If I thought this would not ſuffice, you ſhould have p. 41more. How few of his diſſenting Brethren yet, with Aerius would ſeparate from the Church, meerly upon this account, that it hath Biſhops? An Epiſcopus praeſes would generally be allowed of; though an Eccleſiaſtical order of Presbyters, that are not Biſhops, is not found in Holy Scripture, (as Mr. Corbet. Church-Ʋnity, p. 3.)

Pag. 29. If we look over the ancient Canons of the Church, we ſhall find two things very plain in them. 1. That the notion of a Church was the ſame with that of a Dioceſs; or ſuch a number of Chriſtians as were under the inſpection of a Biſhop.] I have not time to look over the ancient Canons now: but if we look over all the Books of the New Teſtament, we ſhall not find a Dioceſan Church there. The Doctor could find no ſuch thing in the Text, Act. 20.28. Take heed to your ſelves (ſpoken to the Elders of the Church of Epheſus, v. 17.) and to the flock over which God hath made you overſeers, foreign, Biſhops: which the Doctor improves againſt our Congregational Men. (Irenic. p. 349.) But I cannot ſee how it makes for Dioceſans, who are for one Biſhop in a Dioceſs. They are for many Churches under the inſpection of one Biſhop; whereas this Text ſpeaks of one Church under the inſpection of many Biſhops. I think no ſuch thing will be made appear from the Government of the Jewiſh Synagogues, which the Doctor would have laid as a foundation. And ſpeaking of the increaſe of the Churches power, he ſaith, (Irenic. p. 374.) Nothing can be more evident, than that it aroſe not from any divine inſtitution, but only from Poſitive and Eccleſiaſtical Laws, &c. And as to Church-Government, we may find ſome Churches without Biſhops for a long time, ſome but with one Biſhop in a whole nation, many Cities without any, where Biſhops were common; many Churches diſcontinue Biſhops for a great while where they had been; no certain rule obſerved for modelling their Dioceſſes where they were ſtill continued. Will not all theſe things make it ſeem very improbable that it ſhould be an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, that no Church ſhould be without a Biſhop.

2. P. 29. That thoſe Presbyters who rejected the authority of their Biſhop, or affected ſeparate meetings, where no fault could be found with the doctrine of a Church, were condemned of Schiſm.] Now 1. The Doctor ſetting this down with approbation, muſt grant, when fault may be found with the Doctrine of a Church, ſeparate Meetings are not to be condemned of Schiſm. 2. If he will allow of ſeparate Meetings when the Doctrine of a Church is corrupted, by a parity of reaſon, he ſhould allow them, if the Worſhip be corrupted: and then there may be ſome other account and reaſon to juſtifie ſeparate Meetings, beſides that which the Doctor here takes notice of. Yet I p. 42will not ſay, that any the leaſt corruption in Worſhip, or Error in Doctrine is a ground for ſeparation; though if our aſſent to the leaſt error, or approbation of the leaſt corruption be required, as a condition of having communion, that will warrant Separation. 3. Sometimes Biſhops were ſet up againſt Biſhops, and each party ſtriving for their own, would not have communion with the other. This is that which Cyprian calls Erigere Altare contra Altare, as the Learned Hales ſays, (p. 222.) In which caſe it might happen, that neither part were free from the guilt of Schiſm. 4. The Doctor cannot ſay of his diſſenting Brethren, that they affect ſeparate Meetings; but indeed are driven to them. It is no joy to them to be in ſtatu ſeparato: but they do more deſire, than hope to have dividing terms and impoſitions taken away. I could wiſh a due comprehenſion was offered them, to try whether they affect ſeparate Meetings. 5. If the Doctor ſhould look over the ancient Canons of the Church again, I very much queſtion whether he can find ſuch things impoſed upon the Presbyters, as are now impoſed, without ſubmitting to which, they might not exerciſe their office.

P. 29. So the Followers of Euſtathius Sebaſtenus, who withdrew from the publick Congregations on pretence of greater ſanctity and purity, in Paphlagonia, were condemned by the Council at Gangrae.] Yet he tells us, Irenic. p. 65. The Concilium Gangrenſe condemned Euſtathius Sebaſtenus for making a neceſſity of diverſity of habits, among Chriſtians, for their profeſſion; foreign. A worthy pretence of ſanctity and ſtrictneſs. But indeed the Council had more to ſay to Euſtachius and his Followers, than that which the Doctor takes notice of: As is to be ſeen in the Epiſtle prefix'd to the Acts of that Council (Carranza. p. 65, &c.) They condemned Marriages, and thereupon many Women left their own Husbands; and Husbands forſook their Wives, profeſſing continence, which when they could not retain, they committed Adultery. Indeed they deſpiſed common Garments, and took up new and ſtrange habits. Strange indeed, while the women went in mens Apparel: yea, they would cut their hair like men, and placed Religion in theſe things to boot. This and more is to be ſeen there. Their errors both in opinion and practice were very groſs, which the Council takes notice of, and condemns.

Ibid. So were thoſe who ſeparated from their Biſhops, though otherwiſe never ſo orthodox, by the Council at Conſtantinople, and the Council at Carthage.] If I had time to ſearch, I make no doubt but the caſes of thoſe condemned would be found vaſtly different from p. 43the caſe of the preſent Non-conformiſts, that are caſt out for no crime they know of, and then condemned for affecting ſeparation, when others have caſt them out ſore againſt their wills. The Doctor knows how long Chryſoſtomes Followers withdrew themſelves from communion with the Biſhops, and though he would not commend the act, yet he ſpeaks ſmall, and leaves it doubtful, Irenic. p. 110. But he was ſatisfied to clear Jerome there, who ſuſpended communion with three Biſhops for a time. But ſuch a Council as thought John Chryſoſtome deſerved to be depoſed, would no doubt condemn the Johannites, his Followers, that would ſtill flock after him. And if what Socrates relates of them be true, that they ſet the Church on fire, which ended not there, but alſo burnt down the Senators Court, ſuch an action none can juſtifie. But bleſſed be God, our Diſſenters cannot be juſtly charged with ſuch turbulency; neither will they be found the men that ſet the Church on fire.

P. 29. If the Doctor will have the practice of Diſſenters compared to the Novatian Schiſm (which he there mentioneth) Mr. Corbet hath obviated him, Of Church-Ʋnity, p. 42, 43.

Ib. & p. 30. To that which he ſaith there, [I do not remember one inſtance in Antiquity, wherein ſeparating from Orthodox Biſhops, and ſetting up Meetings without their authority, and againſt their conſent, was acquitted from the ſin of Schiſm.] I would turn that of Mr. Baxter, (Sacrilegious Deſertion, p. 45.) Prove you, if you can, that on Auguſt 24, 1662, they were degraded, or theſe true Churches diſſolved on any reaſon, which any Churches for ſix hundred years after Chriſt would own.

I only add this, that admitting what the Doctor would have here, it will unavoidably follow, that it is poſſible the Church may ſuffer moſt under Orthodox Biſhops. As if a Set of theſe ſhould ever happen to take a diſtaſte againſt preaching, and ſo injoyn only the reading of ſuch Homilies as they thought fit in Churches, and take ſuch order, that if any Miniſter preached, the Officers ſhould pull him down; now if it would be the ſin of Schiſm to ſet up other Meetings without their authority, and againſt their conſent, might it not be better for the Church that they were Hereticks, and for impoſing falſe Doctrine, whereby Miniſters and People might be excuſed in their ſeparation.

P. 30. The Doctor ſeems to allow of the ſeparate Meetings of the Joannites, or Followers of S. Chryſoſtom, after his Baniſhment, and the coming in of Arſacius, they being unſatisfied in his choice: but this he thinks far from juſtifying the willful ſeparation of Presbyters p. 44and people from the communion of their Biſhops, when they do agree in the ſame faith.] But the Doctor might have given it a ſofter term, than [willful ſeparation.] Arſacius had governed the Church of Conſtantinople before Chryſoſtom, (as Socrates:) ſo the people had trial of both. They were not ſatisfied with the depoſing of Chryſoſtom, or with the coming in of Arſacius. So are many uſatisfied with the putting out of their old Paſtors, and with the manner of the coming in of their Succeſſors. Might they ſee thoſe Miniſters reſtored to thoſe publick places, the world ſhould ſee then they were not for ſeparate Meetings. Acriores hoc ſeculo inter Eccleſiae Doctores lites fuerunt, quàm unquam antè (as Hottinger. ſaecul. ſeu cap. 5. ſect. 1. p. 238. 255, 256.) There were ſharper contentions among the Teachers of the Church in that age, than ever. Jerome writes againſt Ruffinus. Epiphanius grievouſly falls out with Chryſoſtom, becauſe he would not condemn Origen's Works. Jerome and Auſtin had a great conteſt about the Apoſtle Paul reproving Peter. Cyril, Biſhop of Alexandria, and John of Antioch depoſing one another. And a Council depoſed Chryſoſtom. Here was ſad work indeed: when the Guides and Paſtors of a Church divide, and go ſeveral ways, Schiſms cannot be avoided; but let them look to it, that are the cauſes thereof.

P. 30.31. As to what follows there, I am of the Doctors mind, that we ſhould not be for breaking all in pieces, if we cannot have all to our mind, and as we judge to be moſt agreeable to the Scripture-rule. But this makes nothing againſt thoſe who could ſubmit to a Form and Model of Government, they judge not agreeable to the primitive Plat-form; provided they be not required to profeſs and declare contrary to what they believe, and to practiſe what they doubt of, which in them would certainly be a ſin. And would not Diſſenters generally bear with the practice of others (for peace-ſake) might they be diſpenſed with, as to their own practice? where it would be no ſin for others to diſpenſe with them, but it would be a ſin for them to practiſe what they ſuſpect to be unlawful. This the Doctor ſhould have conſidered. And I would fain know, whether the like can be ſaid of thoſe Schiſmaticks of old, who ſeparated from their Orthodox Biſhops.

Ibid. It is moſt certainly our duty to preſerve peace and unity among Chriſtians; and it is impoſſible ſo to do, if men break all orders in pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a primitive Plat-form.] O that it was ſeriouſly thought on by thoſe who are ſo ready to charge others with breach of Peace, Unity and Order, that it is their duty as p. 45well to do what in them lieth to promote the ſame. Then is it not their duty to do what they can to remove unneceſſary dividing terms? Men may pleaſe themſelves in talking for peace and unity; but how can we ever hope for peace in the Church, while unneceſſary things, to ſay no more, that to many conſcientious men ſeem unlawful, are enforced as if they were things highly neceſſary?

Such Orders are the cauſe of our Diſorders, and were better broken, and laid aſide, than kept up.

P. 31. It is a great fault among ſome who pretend great niceneſs in ſome poſitive duties, that they have ſo little regard to comparative duties: for that which may be a duty in one caſe, when it comes to thwart a greater duty, may be none.] And ſuppoſe it a duty for Church-Governours in ſome caſes to keep up their own Rules and Orders, yet may it not ceaſe to be ſo when it comes to thwart a greater duty? And is it not a greater duty to ſee that God's Worſhip be kept up, than to keep up their own Orders? And if all the Conformable Miniſters in London are not enough to inſtruct the people there, is it not a duty to ſuffer Non-conformiſts to preach, (who cannot, dare not conform) rather than becauſe of their not conforming, to hinder ſo many, who might be getting good by them? If God will have mercy, and not ſacrifice ſometimes; ſhould not thoſe that profeſs to rule for God, be rather for no Service-Book, no Surplice, &c. than that many ſhould have no publick Worſhip, no Preaching, none of God's Ordinances diſpenſed to them? Thus may not the Governors of the Church ſay, applying the Doctors words home to themſelves: Can we think that a duty lying upon us, which in our Circumſtances makes a far greater duty impracticable? Is it not more our duty, to take care, that the people may have ſound doctrine taught, and the way of Salvation held forth to them, and that they worſhip God as he has commanded; than that we ſo ſtiffly ſtand for our own Ceremonies, with other things, that he has not commanded?

P. 31, 32. Is there any thing Chriſt and his Apoſtles have charged more upon the conſciences of all Chriſtians, than ſtudying to preſerve peace and unity among Chriſtians?] If this be charged upon all Chriſtians, then I hope, they are concerned in the charge, as well as others. And then how do they ſtudy to preſerve the peace and unity of the Church, that lay the ſame on things unneceſſary, and ſuch, wherein it cannot be expected, that all good Chriſtians ſhould ever agree? Opinionum diverſitas & opinantium unitas non ſunt foreign. Without the ſtrict impoſing of ſuch things (which men either have no power to impoſe, or however might ſafely let alone, and forbear to p. 46impoſe) we might ſooner be at peace, and agreed.

Again, without doubt, it is no leſs a duty to indeavour to promote Faith and Holineſs, than to ſtudy to preſerve Peace and Unity. The wiſdom that is from above is firſt pure, then peaceable. If peace cannot be had, without the loſs of truth and purity, without offering violence unto, and defiling conſcience, there is no remedy in this caſe, but we muſt be content to bid farewel to peace. But indeed that is the beſt and ſureſt peace and unity, which is founded in the truth and purity of Religion. And I ſhould never hope for an happy peace to be obtained by ſuch a method and means, as have no tendency to Holineſs, but would debauch the Conſciences of many. As I ſhould greatly wonder, ſuppoſing all the Non-conſormiſts in England did now knock off from all Miniſterial Work for peace-ſake, if that peace could be bleſt, which would bring a curſe with it to the ſouls of many, thus deprived of the ordinary means of grace and knowledge.

Pag. 32. When the Doctor ſays that [For the ſake of peace and unity we are commanded to practiſe meekneſs, humility, patience, ſelf-denial, and ſubmiſſion to Governors.] It mindeth me of a paſſage in Mr. Corbet, Church-Ʋnity, p. 56. The Conſcientious that are willing to bid high for peace, (yet) cannot reſign their Conſciences to the wills of men; and humility and ſoberneſs doth not oblige them to act contrary to their own judgments out of reverence to their ſuperiors; they cannot help themſelves but their ſuperiors may. With which take along that which the Doctor hath, (Irenic. p. 118.) If it be ſaid, that men are bound to be ruled by their Governors, in determining what things are lawful, and what not? To this it is anſwered, firſt, no true Proteſtant can ſwear blind obedience to Church-Governors in all things. It is the higheſt Ʋſurpation to rob men of the liberty of their judgments, &c. And ſee more to the purpoſe, p. 119.

Ibid. As nothing tends more to unite mens hearts, than joyning in the ſame Prayers and Sacraments; ſo nothing doth more alienate mens affections, than withdrawing from each other into ſeparate Congregations.] And therefore the Doctor did well to propound it from Mr. Hales (Irenic. p. 120.) As a remedy to prevent Schiſm, to have all Liturgies and publick Forms of Service ſo framed, as that they admit not of particular and private fancies, but contain only ſuch things in which all Chriſtians do agree. And till then as much mutual forbearance and charity as can be, ſhould be ſhewed towards one another. And why might not the Congregations of Conformiſts, and thoſe of Non-conformiſts bear with one another, as the Churches of the Jews, p. 47and thoſe of the Gentiles were to do, that might happen to be diſtinct in the ſame City. As the Doctor ſays, Irenic. p. 237.) I deny not but at the meeting of Paul and Peter at Jeruſalem, when they obſerved how God did bleſs the one moſt in the Circumciſion, the other in the Ʋncircumciſion, there was an agreement between them for the one to lay out his pains chiefly upon the Jews, and the other upon the Gentiles; and in probability where they met in any City, the one gathered a Church of the Jews, and the other of the Gentiles. And what a pity is it, that Conformiſts and Non-conformiſts, ſuch as profeſs to aim at the ſame end as the propagating of the Goſpel, the good of Souls, cannot agree, that the work may be carried on to the beſt advantage, ſo as to gain the more? They that have their hearts alienated from their Brethren, that jump not with them in all things, I ſuſpect are more zealous for ſetting up a party, than for promoting the true Intereſt of Chriſtianity. I would love and honour ſober, ſerious Conformiſts, as I doubt not there are many ſuch, whoſe Religion lies not all in an outward form, and Ceremonies. And though I be no Congregational Man, yet though I know many of them could not be ſatisfied to joyn with ſuch as I am, I would not that my heart and affections ſhould be alienated from them, who I believe do many of them ſincerely ſerve God in their way. And I think they do better, than ſuch as would hinder them from ſerving God at all, unleſs in a way that is contrary to their Judgment; or ſuch as would yield to mens will againſt their own judgments here.

P. 32. Which tempts ſome to ſpiritual pride, and ſcorn and contempt of others.] Of which ſo far as any of us are guilty, I wiſh we may ſee our ſin, and be aſhamed. To pity and pray for others, whom we may think out of the way in ſome things, were a great deal fitter for Chriſtians, than to ſcorn and contemn them. And if we fear there is too much formality in many, have we not cauſe to reflect on our ſelves? How ſlighty dead and formal are we often in holy duties? If we ſuſpect ſome corrupt mixtures in publick Worſhip, have we not cauſe to look home, and to be humbled? Is there no mixture at all of pride, hypocriſie, or worldly diſtracting thoughts, with our Religious Services?

P. 33. — And provokes others to lay open the follies, and indiſcretions, and immoralities of thoſe who pretend to ſo much purity and ſpirituality above their Brethren.] As for thoſe who pretend to ſo much purity and ſpirituality above others, and yet are guilty of plain immoralities, for me let them be laid open. I have nothing to plead for them. But I ſhould have ſo much charity for the Doctor, that p. 48he would be very tender, how he laid open the weakneſſes of others, to expoſe Religion it ſelf to ſcorn. As he ſays (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 6.) Have I made the practice of true devotion ridiculous, and the real expreſſions of piety, the ſubject of ſcorn and deriſion? I wiſh thoſe that have been guilty this way, could ſee their error and recant.

P. 33.—For they ſay that cauſleſs renouncing communion with true Churches is Schiſm, eſpecially if it be joyned with ſetting up Anti-churches unwarrantably againſt them] For this Mr. Baxter is cited (Way of Concord, part. 3. ch. 1. ſect. 40. p. 13.) And it is a wonder how the Doctor could over-look what follows (in the ſame Page, ſect. 43. The greateſt and commoneſt Schiſm is by dividing Laws and Canons, which cauſleſly ſilence Miniſters, ſcatter Flocks, and decree the unjuſt Excommunication of Chriſtians, and deny communion to thoſe that yield not to ſinful, or unneceſſary ill-made terms of Communion, &c. This was ſpoken of before. They ſay, ſome, after breaking and robbing an Houſe, or the like, the better to make their eſcape, have cried out as loudly as any, Turn the Thief, turn the Thief. The Papiſts cry out againſt us as Schiſmaticks, when they are the Schiſmaticks themſelves.

Ibid. This is not dealing with us with that fairneſs and ingenuity which our former Brethren uſed; for they avow the fact of ſeparation, but deny it to be ſinful; theſe owning it to be ſinful have no other refuge left but to deny the fact, which is evident to all perſons.]

The Doctor had been newly before muſtering his Forces againſt thoſe of the Congregational Way; I am glad to ſee them part ſo fairly, that after all he can call them Brethren. Here now he is charging thoſe of the Presbyterian Perſwaſion, or ſo reputed. And he chargeth them home, that they deal not with that fairneſs and ingenuity as others. And yet I queſtion not, but he had newly before the penning of this Sermon, read Mr. Corbet; for he takes notice of his late Piece) whom conſult (Of Church-Ʋnity, p. 30, &c.) It is no Schiſm, as he ſays, but a Duty not to adhere to an unity of external order ſo ſet and urged, as that it tends to the deſtruction or notable detriment of Faith and Holineſs, which are the end of all Church-Order. The means are good in reference to their end, and muſt never be uſed in a way deſtructive to it. So he: and does not Reaſon and Religion both ſay the ſame? (And p. 33. 34.) There is a great difference between inimical Separation, like Sedition in a Common-wealth, and Segregation upon neceſſary cauſes without breach of Charity. —The ſcope hereof p. 49of is not to ſet up Churches againſt Churches, but either occaſional and temporary Aſſemblies, or at the moſt, but divers Churches diſtinguiſhed by their ſeveral places of Aſſembling, or by diverſity of external order, as the allowed Congregations of Foreigners in London, are diſtinguiſhed from the Pariſh Churches. Now may not others ſay, that the Doctor dealeth not here with the fairneſs and ingenuity, which might have been expected, to take no notice hereof?

But methinks, this is a marvellous ſtrange thing, that they ſhould be repreſented as not fair and ingenuous, for not being ingenuous. Is this a fault in them, that they are unwilling to make their differences with the Church of England appear greater than they are? A fault which the Doctor himſelf afterwards (p. 56.) adviſeth them to take heed of. And it is good advice. So methinks he ſhould forgive them this wrong. Or is this a fault in them, that they are at no further diſtance from the Church of England? I hope the Doctor cannot think ſo. Is it not an argument of their tenderneſs, candor and ingenuity, that they ſo readily acknowledge what is good even in thoſe they differ from, that they are for narrowing the difference all they can? This the Doctor would have.

P. 33. But ſays he, the fact of Separation is evident to all. For do they not do the ſame things, and in the ſame manner that the others do? How comes it then to be ſeparation in ſome and not in others?] Shall I tell you how it comes about? Why, thus; becauſe what they do is not upon the Separatiſts Principles. And therefore indeed it is not in the ſame manner. A meer local ſeparation cannot prove them guilty of a ſinful ſeparation. The Doctor cannot but ſay, that one Pariſh-Meeting is locally ſeparated from another. Nor will it be proved by their meeting in private houſes, and more obſcure places, when they can have no other. For ſo did ſome Pariſh-Miniſters after the dreadful Fire in London, 1666: whom yet I know the Doctor would acquit from the ſin of Separation. But he tells us a little before, "They preach when and where it is forbidden by Law.] Then it ſeems the Doctor holds, that the Law muſt determine what is Schiſm and ſinful Separation, and what is not. And then methinks it follows, that if they were not forbidden by Law, their practice would be lawful, not a ſinful ſeparation. Now what a good and charitable Law would that be, that would immediately deliver ſo many honeſt, well-meaning men from the guilt of ſinful ſeparation? And here what the Lawyer ſays, runs in my mind, ſcil. [If the worſhip in it ſelf be evil, it is intollerable in four; if good, fourſcore cannot make it evil.]

p. 50But the Doctor adds, "They worſhip God, and adminiſter Sacraments by other Rules, and after a different manner than what our Church requires.] Now to this I would ſay, either (as the Lawyer, who in ſome things ſpeaks alſo like a Divine) their Worſhip is not to be accounted after a different manner: as our Saviour taught his Diſciples to pray, Matth. 6.9. After this manner therefore pray ye, &c. And ſo we muſt think, their Prayers, Act 4.24. &c. were according to the Lords Prayer, agreeing for matter, though they uſed not the very words. Did the Diſciples of Chriſt pray in any other manner than according to the Lords Prayer? is his queſtion upon it, p, 5. Or elſe I would ſay, their worſhipping God, though after a different manner from that which the Church of England requires, will not neceſſarily prove them guilty of Separation. They may worſhip God according to Scripture-Rule, and after that manner which God allows in his word, though not juſt after the manner of the Church of England. Or elſe laſtly, it muſt be ſaid, that Foreigners coming to live amongſt us, ſhould be counted Separatiſts, a French Church, or a Dutch Church Separatiſts, if they did not worſhip God; and adminiſter Sacraments juſt after the mode of the Church of England: and ſo likewiſe ſome Parochial Congregations muſt be in part guilty of the ſin of Separation, not coming up fully to thoſe Rules, and that mode of Worſhip which the Church of England hath enjoyned.

P. 33. They are very unwilling to confeſs a Separation, becauſe they have formerly condemned it with great ſeverity; and yet they do the ſame things for which they charged others, as guilty of a ſinful Separation.] Here the Doctor ſeems a little uncharitable in his cenſure. They cannot ſee, nor hath the Doctor proved, that what they do is the ſame with what they condemned. It is their grief, that they are driven to any courſe, which may at all look like ſeparation. But who drive them to it? They dare not decline their duty for fear of mens taking offence, and counting it ſeparation. The Learned and Renowned Hales (Of Schiſm, oct. p. 230.) grants Religious Aſſembling beſides publick Order, in ſome caſes, not only lawful, but of neceſſity and duty. And there is not a little to be ſaid for it in the preſent caſe. And ſuppoſe another Order and Government ſettled by Authority, and thoſe things injoyned, which would bear as hard on their party, as theſe do upon Diſſenters, I would have better thoughts of ſome of them, than to imagine, that they would thereupon wholly lay down their Miniſtry, that whatever need there was of them, they would not keep up any Aſſemblies for God's p. 51Worſhip; becauſe the times did not allow it. If they were in the like circumſtances, ejected by authority for Conformity, as others for Nonconformity, if they would look upon it as ſinful ſeparation, for them to act any more as Miniſters, I am much miſtaken in many of them.

P. 33, 34. For 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; whereas they only deſired to enjoy ſuch liberty as to their ſeparate Congregations, as is now pleaded for by our diſſenting Brethren.] Thoſe Papers for Accommodation, Printed 1648, which the Doctor referreth unto, I have not, neither know I how, or where to procure them ſuddenly. But I have this to ſay: 1. I ſuppoſe his diſſenting Brethren think, there is more Scripture-Warrant for the Rules of Church-Government offered by that Aſſembly, than can be ſhewn for the eſtabliſh'd Rule now. And it was very ſtrange, if they who propoſed them thought not ſo; ſeeing they were generally Conformiſts before (very few of them excepted.) Other Churches, with whom they had correſpondence, took them not for Knaves, nor Fools. And what the Doctor thought once of ſuch a Rule of Government as is eſtabliſhed, may be ſeen, (Irenic. p. 414, 415.) The Epiſcopal Men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture, or the practice of the Apoſtles, for Churches conſiſting of many fixed Congregations for Worſhip, under the charge of one perſon, &c.—Then all ſuch things muſt be retrieved which were unqueſtionably of the primitive practice, but have been grown out of uſe through the length and corruption of times. Such are the reſtoring of the Presbiteries of the ſeveral Churches, as the Senate to the Biſhop—The contracting of Dioceſſes into ſuch a compaſs as may be fitted for the perſonal inſpection of the Biſhop—The conſtant preaching of the Biſhop—The Solemnity of Ordinations, with the conſent of the People—The employing of none in judging Church matters, but the Clergy. Theſe are things unqueſtionably of the primitive practice, and no argument can be drawn from the preſent ſtate of things, why they are not as much, if not more neceſſary than ever. And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the primitive Church, muſt condemn themſelves, if they juſtifie the neglect of them.

2. Let us ſuppoſe that Aſſembly too rigid in their principles, that cannot juſtifie or excuſe others who go beyond them. 3. Whatever was diſputed in thoſe times, no ſuch rigour was then practiſed. I ſhould think, the Doctor can ſcarce forget this, that many of our Pulpits were open both for Epiſcopal and Congregational Men, p. 52to preach with us. And how many Epiſcopal Men that in thoſe days held their Livings ſtill? And ſome well known to be ſo, who had the hands of Presbyterians to help them into Livings. And how many of theſe, who would have judged it a lamentable thing, had ſuch a Rule been ſet up in force, that people muſt have been untaught, and as Sheep without a Shepherd, rather than have ſuch as were of the Epiſcopal, or Congregational Perſwaſion to be their Guides? The Worceſterſhire Agreement, and Cumberland and Weſtmerland Agreement with others, and ſome that were never Printed, may bear witneſs how willing they were to have the aſſiſtance of their Brethren (though of a differing perſwaſion as to Church-Government, &c.) in that work, for which all their Forces united were too little.

P. 34. They thought no perſon was to be indulged as to any error or ſcruple of Conſcience; but with this proviſo, that in all other parts of Worſhip they joyn with the Congregation wherein they live.] Then will the Doctor plead for them ſo far, that they may have a Diſpenſation, or Indulgence, as to what they ſcruple? Many ſcruple impoſed Forms of Prayer, (ſuppoſe it to be their weakneſs, and an error; yet they really ſcruple, and doubt the lawfulneſs thereof.) And more ſcruple the Common Prayer, as not altogether ſound. And ſome think, their preſence would be an approbation of the Corruptions in it, unleſs they may have liberty to teſtifie againſt thoſe Corruptions. Which if they do, the Canon pronounceth them excommunicated, ipſo facto. Will the Doctor get that taken off? Many ſcruple the procuring of God-fathers, and God-mothers, as Sponſors for their Children in Baptiſm, and the addition of the Croſs to Baptiſm (which to them looks like a Sacrament of mens coining.) Many ſcruple kneeling in the receiving of the Lord's Supper (apprehending a Table-geſture moſt ſuitable to that Ordinance, and ſuppoſing that the Diſciples uſed ſuch a geſture, whom they would not pretend to excel in their Devotion.) It would eaſe many, might they be conſidered as to theſe Scruples.

Again ſome think, they have enough againſt the Miniſter of the place where they live. It may be, he is very vicious, and wofully debauched. It may be, he is continually flying out againſt true Sanctity and Piety, as Fanaticiſm, and fooliſh preciſeneſs, or as meer hypocriſie. It may be, if they ſhould come to him with their Doubts and Scruples, deſirous to be reſolved and ſatisfied, he could ſay nothing to them, or would but deride and diſcourage them. And how can they be ſatisfied to commit the care of their Souls to one, they know, has no care of them.

p. 53Again, muſt the people needs joyn in the Congregation where they live, when there are many Pariſhes ſo large, as the Churches could not poſſibly contain all that belong to them, no, not by thouſands? Should they meet together, yet the Worſhip to the far greater part of them would be no better than Latine Service.

And if people are no way tollerably provided for in the Pariſhes where they live, and yet they muſt reſt content, muſt we not ſuppoſe that thoſe things which have been pleaded for ſo much as lawful, and indifferent, are indeed the neceſſary things, and ſound Preaching the ordinary means of Salvation, with the Salvation of Souls, are but indifferent things? ſo it ſhould be neceſſary to keep to the Rules of the Church, but not neceſſary to learn how to walk by Scripture-Rule. Neceſſary to go to our Pariſh-Church; but not neceſſary to learn the way to Heaven. So it ſhould be indifferent, whether Souls attain to ſound knowledge and faith, indifferent whether they be converted and ſaved. While they keep to order here, it matters not what becomes of them hereafter.

P. 35. And that if they can hold occaſional communion without ſin, they know no reaſon why it may not be ordinary without ſin too, and then ſeparation would be needleſs. To which they ſubjoyn theſe remarkable words, which I heartily wiſh our Brethren at this day would think ſeriouſly upon, to ſeparate from thoſe Churches ordinarily and viſibly with whom occaſionally you may joyn without ſin, ſeemeth to be a moſt unjuſt ſeparation.]

Anſ. 1. Many Non-conformiſts have ordinarily joyned with them in the Parochial Congregations, where they have had opportunity; though withal they have had other occaſional Meetings: our bleſſed Saviour and his Apoſtles went to the Jews Synagogues, yet would not be abſolutely confined to them; but had other Aſſemblies beſides.

2. Where ſuch are put in the place of Miniſters, and publick Teachers, who evidently want the neceſſary qualifications required in Miniſters and Paſtors of Churches by the poſitive Laws of Chriſt, they may be in doubt, whether they ſhould do well to own and encourage ſuch. Here they may think, they cannot hold ordinary communion without ſin, and then withdrawing from ſuch is not needleſs, and unjuſt ſeparation. If the Church has power to ſet ſuch over Congregations, and to oblige others to hear them, then the Church has power with blind and perfidious Guides to ſend Souls to Hell. Such as would aedificare ad gehennam, are not true edifying Preachers. It were to be wiſhed, that ſuch as are a great reproach to the Miniſtry, p. 54through their ignorance and profaneneſs, &c. and for all their zeal for Uniformity, yet indeed cauſe diviſions and offences, who ſerve not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, but their own Belly, were removed. Are they not as Salt without its ſavour? may not ſuch be found more guilty as to the matter of Separation, than thoſe that withdraw from them?

3. As hath been noted before, they muſt neceſſarily divide into diſtinct Aſſemblies, where there are tolerable and profitable Preachers, if yet it be impoſſible for all the people to joyn with them in the Worſhip of God. And then what reaſon there is to call ſuch neceſſary diſtinct Aſſemblies Anti-churches, for ſome little diverſity of order, I ſee not: unleſs a French Church, or a Dutch Church among us muſt be ſo accounted. Some difference may be ſuppoſed to have been in the Churches planted by the Apoſtles, yet all agreeing in the main, and what was neceſſary, they were not to judge or deſpiſe one another. Would ſo many Miniſters of the Goſpel have been ſet aſide, as Supernumeraries, upon account of not agreeing with others in ſome unneceſſary diſputable points, when yet the Church had real need of them? So

4. Though I have not thoſe Papers, to conſult, the Doctor ſo much inſiſts upon; yet I caſt my eye upon what ſome about that time, who were very likely to know the others ſenſe, wrote: And all this you do (ſay they) voluntarily, not ſeparated, but ſeparating (non fugati ſed fugitivi) Now we know who are excommunicated ipſo facto by the Canons (and ſo ſeparated) and unwarrantably (ſay they) not having any ſufficient cauſe. But whether they have no more cauſe and warrant now, than thoſe had whom they charged with ſeparation, is the queſtion. And Z.C. who pleaded the Doctors Cauſe ſo zealouſly before him, grants, ſeparation that is not voluntary, but whereunto men are conſtrained, and ſeparation upon warrantable ground or reaſon, (the inevitable Contraction of Guilt, or ceſſation of Chriſt's True Worſhip, and Non-communion with particular Aſſemblies, to which we never ſtood related, and with which we cannot orderly and ordinarily communicate) is not Schiſm, but paſſionately and unjuſtly ſo reputed.

P. 35. And I muſt needs ſay, I never ſaw any Cauſe more weakly defended, no, not that of Polygamy and Anabaptiſm, &c.]

Then it ſeems there is as much to be ſaid for a man's having more Wives than one, as hath been, or is like to be pleaded for worſhiping God truly, for the preaching and hearing of his Holy Word, that is not according to the manner and order of the Church of England. p. 55Then the ordinary means of Salvation are not to be accounted of in any other way. Then Miniſters that are not ſatisfied to conform, had better ſuffer multitudes of Souls to periſh, than preach the Goſpel to them, which is called the Power of God unto Salvation. This is ſtrange Doctrine to me. Methinks, the Doctor over-looks his Brethren, and what they have ſaid for ſuch diſtinct, or (as he calls them) ſeparate Meetings. Think well of thoſe four Caſes Mr. Corbet puts (p. 30, 31.) wherein they would ſeem neceſſary. And ſo far as I am able to judge, he doth as clearly take off the objection ſome are ready to make, (p. 32, 33.) If it be ſaid, we may not do evil that good may come, nor break the Laws of unity for ſuch reſpects; The Anſwer is, that this is not to do evil, but a good Work, and a neceſſary duty, and here is no breach of Unity that is of God's making or allowing. The neceſſary means of ſaving Souls are incomparably more precious than Uniformity in external, accidental order, eſpecially when 'tis unwarrantably injoyned, and attended with ſuch evil Conſequents. If ſo much may be ſaid for Polygamy, that it is good and neceſſary, and no breach of Gods Law, I am quite out in my aim.