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

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

p. 55P. 36. For although they allow our Churches to be true, and that it is lawful to communicate with them, which is the moſt plauſible plea they have, this is ſo far from extenuating, that it doth aggravate the fault.] Then it ſeems, the Donatiſts were more excuſable, for that they confined the Church to their own party, and would not acknowledge other Churches to be true Churches. But the Doctor once condemned the monopolizing of Churches to Parties. (Preface to Irenic. p. 5.) From this monopolizing of Churches to parties hath proceeded that ſtrange uncharitableneſs towards all who come not up to every circumſtance of their way and method. Now doth this aggravate their fault, that they do not what he there condemns? Then he liked not, that men ſhould account only that the Church, where their own method of Government is obſerved, ibid. But now it ſeems, Parochial Churches that follow the eſtabliſh'd Rule, are the only Churches in England, that thoſe who come not up to every circumſtance of their way and method, are falſe Churches, Anti-churches. Ab initio autem non fuit ſic.

P. 36. But whatever may be ſaid as to other pleas— My Text ſeems to afford the ſtrongeſt of all, viz. that men are to be preſſed to go no farther than they have already attained, and not to be ſtrained up to an Ʋniformity beyond the dictates of their Conſciences, &c.] So Mr. Hales, that man of Note and Renown, though (Of Schiſm, p. 215, 216. p. 56218.) So the Reverend Doctor thought, (Prefac. to Iren. p. 8, 9.)

P. 37. Men are bound in conſcience to go as far as they can.] And how far they would have gone, for peace-ſake, and to enjoy their publick liberty, methinks the Doctor ſhould not forget. (See Petition for peace, p. 9. ſect. 10.) And ſuppoſe, that through weakneſs, they could go no further; yet Mr. Hales (in the place laſt referred to) hath this remarkable paſſage, which I heartily wiſh at this day was ſeriouſly thought on, that to yield a little to the imbecillities of Inferiors is a thing which S. Paul would never have refuſed to do. Is there no obligation upon the governing part in ſuch a caſe, to do what in them lieth for preſervation of the Churches Peace; that now we hear not a word of that from the Doctor: but rather the contrary, (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 268.)—In ſuch matters required by a lawful authority (ſuch as that of our Church is) there is an advantage on the ſide of authority, againſt a ſcrupulous conſcience, which ought to over-rule the practice of ſuch who are the Members of that Church. But nineteen years ſince, he would have the world know, that Chriſtians were once known—by their mutual love, forbearance, and condeſcenſion towards one another: (Preface to Irenic. p. 6.) That condeſcenſion, a ſtooping to the weakneſs and infirmities of others, is the indiſpenſible duty, and a characteriſtical note of thoſe that have more than the name of Chriſtians, (ib. p. 7.) That Chriſt's deſign was to eaſe men of their burdens, and not to lay on more, &c. (ib. & p. 8.) Why are ſuch things now kept up as a mighty ſecret, which if taught, applied, and practiſed, would ſo very much tend to the Churches Peace, which I will not ſay he pretends, but ſeriouſly profeſſes to be zealous for.

P. 37. His ſharp cenſure in the words following, [And I cannot ſee how it is conſiſtent with the tenderneſs of Conſcience which our Brethren pretend to, &c.] I paſs it over.

Ib. I dare ſay, if moſt of the Preachers at this day in the ſeparate Meetings were ſoberly asked their judgments, whether it were lawful for the people to joyn with us in the publick Aſſemblies, they would not deny it, and yet the people that frequent them generally judge otherwiſe.— But why then is this kept up as ſuch a mighty ſecret in the Breaſts of their Teachers, why do they not preach it to them in their Congregations?

Anſw. 1. So I ſuppoſe they would not deny it to be lawful to joyn with a Dutch Church, or a French Church. I would not deny it to be lawful to joyn with the Lutheran Churches, ſuppoſing one caſt among them. And if he could joyn with no other, for any thing I know, it would be his duty.

p. 572. The people I have moſt converſed with generally judge otherwiſe than the Doctor ſays. They think it lawful to joyn with Conformiſts, and Non-conformiſts both, and accordingly they practiſe.

3. I know not that this hath been kept as a mighty ſecret. I have Preached, and you know what I have written for the lawfulneſs of it. And ſo have other Non-conformiſts preached too.

P. 38. It is leſt they ſhould ſeem to condemn themſelves, while they preach againſt Separation in a ſeparate Congregation.]

Anſw. They look upon Churches, or Congregations under the eſtabliſh'd Rule, as parts of the true viſible Church, and ſo do they look upon the Congregations they preach unto. When Licenſes were granted, ſome ſober Conformiſts came to the Lectures of Non-conſormiſts, who yet were far from principles of Separation, and could preach ſtill againſt Separation, without being ſelf-condemned. And ſo may Non-conformiſts preach againſt principles of Separation in their diſtinct Aſſemblies, and not be ſelf-condemned. Again, it ſeems, in the Doctor's Judgment, none that own their Churches to be true Churches, ſhould preach to ſuch as are for Separation: but if they do, they are ſelf-condemned. Now methinks (though I know divers of them would be very ſhy, and backward to hear us) it is a pity that ſuch ſhould be quite expoſed, and ſuffered to run into greater and more dangerous errors ſtill, as they are laid open, if no ſound Teachers muſt preach to them. I think, it can never be proved, that all cauſleſs ſeparation is a fundamental error, and inconſiſtent with a ſtate of Salvation, that by the very act ſuch evidence themſelves to have a form of Godlineſs, but deny the power thereof (as one, and a good man (I believe) in his zeal was ready to aſſert) I find the Doctor more moderate than ſo, (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 183.) where he ſays, Nothing of this nature can be objected againſt our Church by Diſſenters, that excludes none from a poſſibility of ſalvation meerly becauſe not in her Communion. And many of the ancient pious Catholicks had other thoughts of ſome of the Novatians. And yet ſuppoſe the error of cauſſeſs ſeparation was of a more deſperate conſequence, than the Doctor hath affirmed there, I ſee not, but ſuch as are taken with it, have more need of the means to recover them out of it. And if it be their duty to hear God's Word, methinks it ſhould not be a Miniſters ſin to preach to them. If hundreds of them (hearing the report of the Doctor's Sermon) out of curioſity would go to hear him, I know not what authority he hath to bid them depart, p. 58be gone. I am ſure the Apoſtles would not have ſcrupled Preaching to a company of Idolaters, who were as bad as theſe can be ſuppoſed to be.

But I hope the generality of thoſe that frequent thoſe more private Meetings, now called ſeparate Congregations, are not Separatiſts truly ſo called, but of more ſober principles. And many of them ſuch as thirſt after God's Word and Ordinances, and perhaps many of them neglected, and wrongfully barred by others. And why it ſhould be made queſtionable, whether Miniſters may not lawfully preach to ſuch? is a thing that in following times may be a little wondred at.

P. 38. (For I know not how it comes to paſs, that the moſt godly people among them, can the leaſt endure to be told of their Faults.) I ſhould have thought, this Parentheſis might have been ſpared. It ſounds very harſh. If the moſt godly among them be ſuch, then one would be apt to conclude, there can be very little godlineſs among them. I would hope yet, it was not the Doctor's deſign here to gratiſie thoſe that love to gird at the godly. Too many ſuch there are that would have hummed the Doctor for ſuch an expreſſion as this. Though I am more taken with that of Biſhop Reynolds, (Means and Method of Healing, p. 19.) They who hurt them, hew at the Bough whereon they ſtand, dig under the foundation which holds them up. But I wonder how the Doctor came to know this of them. If he had it only by the report of others, is that a ſufficient ground for ſuch a poſitive charge and accuſation? Or hath he had to deal with them himſelf? Here I muſt ſay, that of all I ever had to deal with, I could generally obſerve the contrary. And thoſe that are the moſt forward to cenſure others, and willing to overlook their own faults, and unwilling to hear of them, we cannot take for the moſt godly among us; for there are others that give far better and greater evidence of their godlineſs.

P. 38, 39 If the bare diſſatisfaction of Mens Conſciences do juſtifie the lawfulneſs of Separation, and breaking an eſtabliſhed Rule, it were to little purpoſe to make any rule at all.]

Anſw. 1. Though the bare diſſatisfaction of mens Conſciences juſtifie not ſeparation, ſuppoſing Conſcience erroneous, yet ſeparation in caſe of diſſatisfaction may be a leſs ſin, than the impoſing of thoſe things about which mens conſciences are diſſatisfied, or then joyning in communion againſt the Dictates of their Conſciences. Would the Doctor have them joyn in the Liturgy, &c. againſt their Conſciences? Surely, that would not be like honeſt and conſcientious p. 59men. (Ser. p. 43.) No man that hath any Conſcience will ſpeak againſt the power of it.

2. To make Rules about things unneceſſary, and ſuſpected (to ſay no more) which it is known the Conſciences of many ſcruple, and are diſſatisfied at, would indeed ſeem to be to very little purpoſe, (cui bono?) if not to ill purpoſe. Chriſt and his Apoſtles left the Church no ſuch Rule. And can any Church now mend the Rule they left? Are not all Churches bound to walk by that ſame Rule? Whatever Rule men ſet down, can oblige only ſo far as it contains nothing repugnant to the Rule of the Word. Thoſe whom the Doctor probably thinks he pinches here, have the ſame thoughts which he had once; (Preface to Irenic. p. 9. And p. 415.) That Form of Government is the beſt—(And ſo by a parity of Reaſon, that Orderand Rule about God's Worſhip) which comes neareſt to Apoſtolical Practice, and tends moſt to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God. And thus what is neceſſary in genere, (by the light of Nature, and Rule of Scripture) being prudently determined in ſpecie; it would ſeem beſt, as tending moſt to advance the peace and unity of the Church of God, that what Chriſt and his Apoſtles left at liberty, ſhould be left ſo ſtill. As Biſhop Reynolds (Author and Subject of Healing, p. 34, 35.) Shew all poſſible tenderneſs and indulgence towards the infirmities, eſpecially the Conſciences of men of humble and ſober, of quiet and peaceable Spirits. The ſtrong are taught to bear the infirmities of the weak, Rom. 15.1. Be careful to ſecure and ſettle the Fundamentals, the Vitals and Eſſentials of Doctrine, Worſhip and Duty, that you may be ſure of ſound and orthedox Miniſters to go in and out before the Flock; and if in ſmaller and more problematical things, men cannot be all of one mind (as we never ſhall have perfection of judgment till we come to Heaven:) Let not the ſtrong deſpiſe the weak; nor the weak judge the ſtrong: whom God receives into his favour, let not us ſhut out of ours, Rom. 14.3. And again the ſame worthy perſon, (Means and Method of Healing, p. 41.)—There ought to be all tenderneſs to preſerve for God's people the liberty wherewith the Lord hath made them free. God forbid any reſtraint or abridgement ſhould be upon that. Thus he. Now how many would be ſatisfied with a Rule, not exceeding ſuch right meaſures as God's Word is clearly for. And ſee Petition for Peace, p. 20. Where alſo the objection, that ſome would ſtill be unſatisfied, is cut off.

P. 39. The Doctor returns again to the Aſſembly, and what paſſed betwixt the Presbyterians and the Congregational Men. Though p. 60tenderneſs of Conſcience may juſtifie Non-communion in the thing ſcrupled, yet it can never juſtiſie Separation.]

Now as I would not ſay that Conſcience, if erroneous, juſtifieth Non-communion, but only excuſeth à tanto; ſo though an erroneous Conſcience cannot juſtifie ſeparation; yet it may in part, and ſomewhat excuſe it. As they that are not ſatisfied to joyn with the publick Congregations, ſuppoſing them in an error here, yet (though then it muſt be ſuppoſed an error for them to ſet up ſeparate Meetings, notwithſtanding) I ſhould think, they are more to be excuſed, in that they keep up God's Worſhip in their proper Meetings, then if becauſe they could not joyn with the publick Worſhip, therefore they would wholly neglect to worſhip him. Even thoſe Meetings, that may be very diſorderly, as to ſeveral circumſtances, may yet be looked upon as Religious Meetings. And I durſt not ſay, that profane Ale-Houſe Meetings are more allowable and commendable than they, as ſome of our young Clergymen (if I have not been miſinformed) have publickly determined of all private Meetings for the worſhip of God.

2. There ſeems to be a difference betwixt that ſeparation which they diſallowed, and the preſent practice, which the Doctor will have to be ſeparation, as appears, I think, by what hath been ſaid. And had thoſe diſſenting Brethren been cauſleſly put out of their places, I know not but that there was need of their Miniſtry, and that they ought to have employed themſelves therein, as they had opportunity; though men had called it ſeparation. On the other hand, could the Doctor procure this favour for his diſſenting Brethren, that they may be taken into publick places, where they may be diſcharging their office unto which God hath called them, he ſhall have no more occaſion offered by them (I believe) of preaching againſt their ſetting up ſeparate Congregations. Yea, though the terms were much harder, than any put upon the former diſſenting Brethren. They look upon the preſent Aſſemblies (very probably) but as temporary Aſſemblies, upon a preſent exigence, their Office, and the neceſſity of Souls calling on them to follow the work of their Miniſtry. They would not chuſe a ſeparate ſtate. Some of them have moved, and generally would deſire to be taken into communion with the Churches under the eſtabliſh'd Rule, upon terms conſiſtent enough with neceſſary and due order in the Church.

P. 40. That it is endleſs to hope to give ſatisfaction to erring Conſciences.)

p. 61But the Doctor hath not yet evinced (that I can find) that his diſſenting Brethren are kept off from complying with the eſtabliſhed Rule by an erring Conſcience.

It yet remains a controverted point, on which ſide the error is. The Doctor ſays (Several Conferences, p. 165.) We think the requiring doubtful things for certain, falſe for true, new for old, abſurd for reaſonable, are ground enough for us not to embrace the communion of a Church, unleſs it may be had on better terms than theſe. And—We have often proved, that impoſing of unreaſonable conditions of Communion, makes the Church ſo impoſing guilty of the Schiſm.]

And ſome cannot be ſure yet, that none of this is now impoſed. And it is poſſible ſome may think, that if it can be proved an unreaſonable condition that Miniſters muſt declare Aſſent and Conſent to a Book in Eolio, and to all things contained in it, upon Aug. 24. 1662. before many of them could poſſibly have a ſight of it, and before others that had it, could diligently peruſe it: then the Doctor here lays the guilt of Schiſm on the Church.

Again, the Doctor ſays, (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 178.) He muſt think me a very eaſie man to yield, till I be ſatisfied firſt that God hath appointed ſuch to be my Guides. And he grants (p. 265.) Men may have reaſon to queſtion, if not the skill, yet the ſincerity of their Guides, and though they muſt have ſome, may ſeek new ones. And hereupon ſome may think, it is an error, to hold, men muſt not leave their Pariſh-Church, though a blind, or unfaithful Guide be ſet there. As the Doctor farther ſays, (ibid.) The ignorant follow their Guides only upon the opinion of their skill and integrity; and when they ſee reaſon to queſtion theſe, they know of (N.B.) no obligation to follow their conduct over rocks and precipices.

Again, the Doctor grants, an abſolute ſubmiſſion cannot be due to the Guides of the Church (that would ſuppoſe them to be infallible.) So far we are agreed then, that men are not bound to ſubmit to them in all things they may require. As he ſays (Irenic. p. 119.) If that be not uſurpation and dominion over others faith in them, and the worſt of implicit faith in others, it is hard to define what either of them is. Now to go on a little farther with him there: If they be bound to obey only in lawful things; I then inquire who muſt be judge what things are lawful in this caſe, what not? If the Governors ſtill, then the power will be abſolute again; for to be ſure, whatever they command, they will ſay is lawful, &c.

But (ſays he, Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 179, 180.) The great diſſiculty now is, ſo to ſtate theſe things, as to ſhew that we had reaſon p. 62not to ſubmit to the Guides of the Roman Church, and that thoſe of the ſeparation have no reaſon not to ſubmit to the Guides of our Church.—Let the things in diſpute be proved to have been the practice of the Chriſtian Church in all ages, we are ready to ſubmit to them. Now may not Diſſenters ſay the ſame? When (p. 181.) he ſends that noble challenge, We challeng thoſe that ſeparate from us to produce one perſon for fifteen hundred years together, that held Forms of Prayer to be unlawful, or the Ceremonies which are uſed in our Churches. Granting him that Forms of Prayer are lawful, and have been very anciently uſed in the Church; yet ſome will be as ready to challenge him (perhaps) to ſhew (if he can) out of all his reading (which muſt be acknowledged very great) that the Forms of Prayer now enjoyned are of fifteen hundred years ſtanding in the Church. That the primo primitive Church had a ſtated Liturgy, after the example of the Jewiſh Synagogues, I ſuppoſe he cannot prove. That Paſtors had liberty of compoſing Forms in after-times for their own Congregations, I ſuppoſe he will not deny. That Forms of Prayer were impoſed upon Miniſters (and that with an Aſſent and Conſent required to all and every part) that this hath been the practice of the Church in all ages, is ſo evidently untrue, that no man of common ingenuity, (much leſs ſuch a worthy perſon as the Doctor is) would aſſert. Let us go to the Scripture, the primitive, and Reformed Churches, (three Judges the Doctor would ſend us to in doubtful caſes) and we ſhall hardly find any of them determining for ſuch a practice.

Again, the Doctor hath theſe words, (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 282.) The Primitive and Apoſtolical Church? That we have always appealed to, and offered to be tryed by. The truly Catholick Church of all Ages? That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing againſt the Church of England. Now let it be proved, that the Primitive and Apoſtolical Church was for the Re-ordination of Miniſters ordained by lawful Presbyters, and that this has been the practice of the Chriſtian Church in all Ages (when there hath been occaſion offered) let this be proved I ſay, and (as the Doctor ſays before) we are ready to ſubmit.

As for the Ceremonies uſed, and ſtrictly injoyned, the Doctor formerly diſtinguiſhed betwixt Ceremonies properly taken for Actions ſignificative, and matters of orders and decency (Irenic. p. 68.) yet now I ſee he would have them confounded, (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 268.) where the ſecond thing he ſuppoſes the authority of Church-Governors to lie in, is, Making Rules and Canons about p. 63matters of order and decency in the Church. Not meerly (ſays he) in the neceſſary circumſtances of time and place, and ſuch things the contrary to which imply a natural indecency; but in continuing and eſtabliſhing thoſe ancient Rites of the Chriſtian Church, which were practiſed in the early (he does not ſay firſt) times of Chriſtianity, and are in themſelves of an indifferent nature. Here he would make them both one. Yet how it can be, I do not underſtand. Prudent Rules, that all things in the worſhip of God be done decently, and in order, are not indifferent, but ſomething more; but rules eſtabliſhing ſignificant Ceremonies (which the Doctor would hook in here under the terms of order and decency) its feared, are not indifferent, but ſomething worſe. Though the Doctor is pleaſed to call them trifling Objections that are brought againſt them; I could never yet meet with ſatisfactory Anſwers to them. I wonder how S. Auſtin and the Doctor parted: for they were very great (Irenic. p. 68, 69.) That Sine ulla dubitatione reſccanda exiſtimo, ſoundeth like an heavy ſentence againſt ſuch Rites and Ceremonies, which the Doctor ſeems now for having continued and eſtabliſhed; which ſentence with the reaſon of it he would then have referred to the moſt impartial judgment of cvery true ſober-minded Chriſtian. I have not yet ſeen the Doctor clear it, that the Ceremonies uſed in our Churches are contained in the Holy Scriptures, or determined by a lawful general Council, or Councils, or confirmed by the cuſtom or practice of the Catholick Church. I know not of any one, that hath proved croſſing in Baptiſm the practice of the Chriſtian Church in all Ages, the ſame I may ſay of the reſt.

The Doctor further ſaith, (Anſw. to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 180, 181.) Then we are no Separatiſts: ſee the ſecond Plea for Peace, ch. 12. All things are lawful which are no way forbidden expreſly, or by conſequence. Thoſe who ſeparate from the Church of England make this their Fundamental Principle as to worſhip, (wherein the difference lieth) that nothing is lawful in the Worſhip of God, but what he hath expreſly commanded; we ſay all things are lawful which are not forbidden, &c.]

This ſeems not to be the ſenſe of all that ſeparate, that nothing is lawful, but what there is an expreſs command for in Scripture. How many are there that hold the baptizing of Infants lawful, though it be not expreſly commanded? An expreſs Text of Scripture they think not neceſſary here. And the Non conformiſts (who now begin to be ranked with Separatiſts) would be ſatisfied, could they ſee any general warrant in Scripture, authorizing Church-Governors to add to that engaging Sign of Baptiſm of p. 64Chriſt's Inſtitution, another dedicating ſign of mens inventing, and other ſignificant Ceremonies beſides what the Lord hath appointed. Such general warrant they cannot yet find. And ſee Q. Elizabeth's Injunctions, ſect. 3. That the works deviſed by mens fantaſies beſides Scripture—have not only no promiſe of reward in Scripture, but contrariwiſe, &c. And Biſhop Bilſon (Chriſtian ſubject. part. 4. p. 345.)—If we alter that which he hath appointed for himſelf, or add any thing unto it, he rejecteth all our ſervice, as done not unto him, but to the conceit of our hearts, which by nature is no God.

And if ſuch Ceremonies be not forbidden (in any ſenſe) and therefore lawful, it will follow, that the Governors of the Church have authority, after thoſe three, to bring in threeſcore more, yea, three hundred, if they pleaſe, which are no more forbidden. We ſay (ſays the Doctor) all things are lawful which are not forbidden.

And (ibid.) We defend the Government of the Church by Biſhops to be the moſt ancient and Apoſtolical Government.] Here poſſibly you will again be put in mind of that (Irenic. p. 414.) The Epiſcopal Men will hardly ſind any evidence in Scripture, or the practice of the Apoſtles for, &c.)—which hath been ſo univerſally received in all Ages ſince the Apoſtles times.] Yet not univerſally. As here probably you will think of what was cited before (Irenic. p. 374.)—We may find ſome Churches without Biſhops for a long time, &c. And ſee the practice of the Reformed Churches, which part they generally embraced, (Iren p. 408.)

Again, the Doctor ſaith (Anſwer to ſeveral Treatiſes, p. 182.) The Guides of our Church never challenged any infallibility to themſelves.—It is to no purpoſe to propoſe terms of Accommodation between thoſe who contend for a Reformation, and ſuch who contend that they can never be deceived, &c.]

But here ſome may think, that though Church-Guides pretend not to Infallibility, yet (as it has been ſo) it is like to be to very little purpoſe, to propoſe terms of accommodation unto thoſe that are not for any condeſcenſion, but ſtand upon their own authority. And when ſome are really diſſatisfied at, and cannot but ſcruple ſome things injoyned and yet can hear nothing but [You are factious, and ſchiſmatical, and proud, as if you muſt inſtruct your Governors, whoſe duty it is to obey them, and to follow your Guides.] Such may carry, as if they would not allow men to think them fallible. Little hopes of peace and union in the Church, while ſuch things are ſo rigidly inſiſted on. Which (as Con-non and Non-con ſays (In Introduction, p. 5.) Rigid Conformiſts confeſs to be but trifles comparatively, p. 65the Church might be without them, and yet do well; and moderate Conformiſts confeſs them to be burdenſome, and the Church might be, and do better without them, or if they were leſt to each mans choice and will. If (as he ſays) it is in it ſelf a great and dreadful ſin to ſilence the Non-conformiſts, and do by them as hath been for theſe many years, and yet no thoughts of Reformation, or condeſcenſion can be entertained, it is much at one, as if they challenged Infallibility. The Church of Rome requires ſubmiſſion upon the pretence of her Infallibility, others require it (where men cannot be ſatisfied it is lawful) upon account of their Authority. So it is little relief or ſatisfaction to doubting minds, to tell them (as Anſwer, &c. p. 268.) That the Authority of the Church (in ſuch matters) hath been not only aſſerted in the Articles of our Church (which will not challenge Infallibility, but acknowledgeth ſhe may err) but ſtrenuouſly defended againſt the trifling objections of her Enemies, from Scripture, Antiquity and Reaſon. And I freely grant (though ſuch have no reaſon to thank him for what he grants here, for he gives them nothing) not only that ſuch an authority is in it ſelf reaſonable and juſt; but—in ſhort, the authority of the Church ſhould over-rule ſcrupulous Conſciences. So the Church (if ſhe pleaſeth) may ſatisfie ſcrupulous Conſciences, (that doubt of the lawfulneſs of the preſent Ceremonies) with injoyning thrice as many more of thoſe ancient Rites of the Church, ſo we may have an anointing with Oil; ſo we may have Milk and Honey after Baptiſm; ſo we may have croſſing, not only once at Baptiſm, but in faſhion upon all occaſions, as in Tertullian's time. And if the Church ſhould thus pay them home for their ſcrupuloſity, the Doctor may ſtill ſay, It is in it ſelf reaſonable and juſt. But is this [doing as much as in them lies, to reclaim Diſſenters?] As he ſays (p. 289.) It is very well known, that we do indeavour, as much as lies in us, to reclaim Diſſenters; but God never wrought miracles to cure incorrigible perſons—] And does he now account ſuch incorrigible? And without any diſtinction? Then I could wiſh ſome would mind him of that expreſſion he hath, (Preface to Irenic. p. 2.) And yet that hath been the aggravation of our diviſions, that thoſe whoſe duty it is to lift up their voices like Trumpets, have ſounded rather an allarm to our contentious ſpirits, than a Parley or Retreat, which had been far more ſuitable to our Meſſengers of Peace.

Further the Doctor ſays (Anſw. &c. p. 183. ſpeaking of thoſe who diſſent) None of them charge our Church with any error in doctrine. I cannot ſay ſo. I ſuppoſe the Church of England owneth the preface to the p. 66Book of Ordination, &c. which ſays, [It is evident to all men, diligently reading Holy Scriptures, and ancient Authors, that from the Apoſtles time there have been theſe orders in Chriſt's Church, Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons, as ſeveral Offices.] And the Doctor ſays a little before, We defend the Government of the Church by Biſhops to be the moſt ancient and Apoſtolical Government. But here ſome may ſay, Dector St. did diligently read Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors before he wrote his Irenicum; yet no ſuch thing was evident to him, that from the Apoſtles time there were thoſe three ſeveral Offices in Chriſt's Church: Therefore it is not evident to all diligently reading the Holy Scripture, &c. Or thus, The Apoſtles Government was conformed to that of the Jewiſh Synagogues: (as the Doctor lays that for a Foundation) but the Jewiſh Synagogues had no ſuch Government. Ergo that cannot be the moſt anclent and Apoſtolical Government.

To what follows in the ſame page, it may be ſaid, If the Church of England excludes none from a poſſibility of Salvation meerly becauſe not in her Communion, why does ſhe not ſet aſide things not neceſſary to Salvation to take Diſſenters into her Communion, rather than urge them ſo as may be prejudicial to their Salvation.

Again, the Doctor ſaith (Anſw. &c. p. 184.) Ours challenge no more than teaching men to do what Chriſt had commanded them, and in other things, not commanded or forbidden, to give rules, which on the account of the general commands of Scripture, they look on the members of our Church as obliged to obſerve. So that the authority challenged in the Roman Church encroacheth on the Prerogative of Chriſt, being of the ſame nature with his, but that which our Governors plead for, is only that which belongs to them as Governors over a Chriſtian Society.]

1. Governors have authority to give ſpecial Rules about order and decency in God's Worſhip, upon that general command, Let all things be done decently, and in order. So much Diſſenters readily grant. Only they think, that ſuch as pretend not to an immediate authority of obliging mens Conſciences, ſhould not ſtand as ſtrictly upon their own orders, though according to general Rules of Scripture, as on the obſervation of the plain and poſitive commands of God.

2. That the Governors of a Church have authority to give Rules for the obſerving of Religious Ceremonies in God's Worſhip, which he has not commanded, needs further proof, than the Doctor hath offered (that I can ſee.) Such are not meer matters of order and decency. Diſtinguiſhing betwixt parts, and circumſtances of p. 67Worſhip here (as Conferences, &c. p. 101.) will ſcarce ſalve the matter. To inſtance in the Sign of the Croſs, hath the Church power to appoint any other dedicating Sign, beſides what Chriſt hath inſtituted? If ſo, then (it ſeems) ſhe may appoint not meerly what is ſubſervient unto, but what is of the ſame nature too with what Chriſt hath inſtituted, without encroaching on his Prerogative. And if the Sign of the Croſs be an allowable circumſtance, becauſe not expreſly forbidden, may not the ſame be ſaid of a Load of Ceremonies, if the Church pleaſe to bring them into God's Worſhip?

3. Is it no encroaching on the Prerogative of Chriſt, no intrenching on his authority, to make new Laws, and Rules for Communion, and for the exerciſe of the Miniſterial Function, which Chriſt hath not made, or allowed in his word? Or does it indeed belong to Governors of Churches to eject Miniſters, and Chriſtians out of communion for ſuch things, for which by the Rules of Chriſtianity men ſhould not deſpiſe or judge one another?

Further the Doctor ſays (Anſwer, &c. p. 185.) Whether our Churches impoſing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by thoſe who require them, can be thought by any men of common ſenſe ſo great a burthen to their Conſciences, as all the load of ſuperſtitious fopperies in the Roman Church, &c. which particulars make the difference ſo apparent between the ſeparation of our Church from the Church of Rome, and that of Diſſenters from our Church, that it ſeems a very ſtrange thing to me, that this ſhould be objected by our Enemies on either ſide.]

Now it is eaſily granted, that the Church of Rome hath given far greater cauſe for ſeparating from her, than the Church of England can hitherto be charged with; yet it will not therefore follow, that none can ſeparate from her, but it muſt be a cauſleſs ſeparation, unleſs her impoſitions were equal to thoſe of the Roman Church.

And upon the ſame grounds, that thoſe three Ceremonies are impoſed (ſcil. that all things are lawful which are not forbidden, and becauſe the Church has authority of continuing and eſtabliſhing thoſe ancient Rites uſed in the Church) ſhe may bring in a whole load of Ceremonies, and among the reſt many of thoſe Fopperies uſed in the Roman Church, which are no more forbidden in Scripture, than the three pitched upon, and therefore muſt be concluded lawful.

Again, the Church declaring the things to be indifferent, it ſeems a very ſtrange thing to me, that they ſhould ſtill be impoſed, when they are found of ſo evil conſequence, which one would think, might alter the nature of their indifferency.

p. 68And further, though I like not comparing the Church of England to the Church of Rome, I would not call them Idolaters; neither do I think, they do well, that call all Diſſenters Schiſmaticks. Some poſſibly may plead that which the Doctor ſaith (Conferences, p. 158.) —A Chriſtian is bound to joyn with other Chriſtians in the Acts of God's publick Worſhip: but withal he adds immediately, that he is bound to chuſe the communion of the pureſt Church.—Where there are diſtinct communions, the beſt is to be choſen. And (Anſwer, &c. p. 177.) A man who would ſatisfie himſelf in this divided ſtate of the Chriſtian Church, what particular communion he ought to embrate, and what Guides he muſt follow,—he muſt not only exerciſe his own judgment in particular controverſies, but muſt proceed according to it, and joyn with that Church which upon enquiry he judges to be the beſt.

Now to return from this Digreſſion: we ſee, it may be a queſtion, whether the error be in the Diſſenters, or no? And then, though it be end leſs to hope to give ſatisfaction to erring Conſciences; yet I hope it will not follow, that therefore men ſhould not ſeek to give ſatisfaction to thoſe, that for ought they know, are not in an error, that deſire no more than it is but juſt and reaſonable, they ſhould be ſatisfied in. And yet further, becauſe there is no hope of ſatisfying all erring conſciences, are none therefore to be conſidered? no, not ſo far, as by forbearing to impoſe indifferent things upon them, when they (through error and miſapprehenſion) take them to be unlawful? Then there can be no ſuch thing as condeſcenſion and Chriſtian forbearance ſhewn to any the moſt tender conſciences. But the Doctor cannot ſay, that thoſe with whom he there compares Notes, did look upon the Rules they propoſed, as but concerning things indifferent, or that they would not ſatisfie others in ſuch things as were but indifferent to them.

P. 40. They conceive the cauſes of ſeparation muſt be ſhewn to be ſuch as ex natura rei will bear it out.]

And ſo Diſſenters think ſtill. And that there is a juſt and warrantable ground for thoſe diſtinct Aſſemblies ſome of them are employed in, where they hope they are doing God and his Church ſome ſervice, which they dare not decline; though they would be more glad, if it would pleaſe him to open a door for them, to be imployed in the more publick Congregations, in hope that ſo they might be more ſerviceable. The cauſes of their preſent practice have been ſhewn before.

Ib. And did not the Apoſtles bind the burden of ſome neceſſary things on the Churches, &c.]

p. 69This hath been taken notice of before, which pleads nothing for mens impoſing things unneceſſary, which they ſay are but indifferent, and others think unlawful. As the Doctor hath told us formerly, the Apoſtles valued not indifferencies at all. Their Rules of Uniformity were about things neceſſary. And ſhould the Church now value two or three Ceremonies, with other things not neceſſary, above many hundred preaching Miniſters, and thoſe many thouſands of Souls that have need of them, and might have been getting good by them?

P. 41. That the Apoſtle by this Rule in the Text, did not intend to allow Brethren, who agree in all ſubſtantials of Faith and Worſhip, to ſeparate from one another, in thoſe very ſubſtantials wherein they agree.]

Nor did the Apoſtle intend to allow others to ſet up ſuch Rules as would not ſuffer ſound Teachers agreeing in all Subſtantials of Faith and Worſhip, to hold publick communion with their Flocks, to whom they had been lawfully called, and ſuch as would bring in many leſs likely to care for the Flocks. If they that agree in all Subſtantials of Faith and Worſhip, ſhould not ſeparate from one another, let us pray, that there may be ſuch an accommodation, that Conformiſts and Non-conformiſts may freely joyn one with another, as thoſe that walk by the ſame Rule, and mind the ſame things in the main, as thoſe that ſerve one Lord and Maſter, and carry on the ſame deſign, that notwithſtanding ſome difference in leſſer matters, they may heartily accord, and concur in what may be for the promoting of true Religion, the Worſhip and Honour of God, and the ſalvation of mens ſouls. And that they may love and honour thoſe moſt, not who are moſt zealous for their own party, and exactly of their own opinion, but who are the beſt Chriſtians, and moſt zealous for the common intereſt of Chriſtianity.

P. 41. That there is a great deal of difference between Tyranny over Mens Conſciences, and Rules of Ʋniformity.]

Yet ſome Rules of Uniformity may be Inſtruments of Tyranny, and Engines of Cruelty. As for that pretty Simile of ſtretching a low man to the ſame length with a taller, or cutting a tall man to the ſtature of one that is low, for Uniformity's ſake; ſee the Doctor making uſe of it, preface to Iren. p. 10. Ib. That they do not deſire Ʋ niformity for the ſake of Tyranny, but only for order, and order for edification.] So the Doctor muſt not plead for thoſe (if there be any ſuch, as God knows whether there are) that are for Uniformity, as a means of cutting off, caſting and keeping out many conſcientious men, that they conclude cannot be ſatisfied to conform, p. 70whoſe excluſion they deſire, and are glad of. This looks like Uniformity for the ſake of Tyranny. And if the preſent Uniformity and order be for edification, it would ſeem, that thoſe three Ceremonies, declared to be indifferent, with thoſe other things that have caſt and kept out ſo many hundred Miniſters almoſt theſe eighteen years, are more for peoples edification, than all their pains would have been.

What follows there, the Doctor hath ſpoken enough unto (prefac. to Irenic. p. 10.) pleading that men ſhould not be denyed the liberty of their Conſciences in ſuch matters of practice. And (p. 11.) he hoped the ſame of the Church of England, that in conformity to the primitive Church, ſo much would be allowed us.

P. 42. From whence we ſee the Church of Englands indeavour after Ʋniformity, is acquitted from Tyranny over the Conſciences of men by the judgment of the moſt learned of the Aſſembly of Divines.]

But hold a little. The matter muſt be ſtretched out upon Procruſtes Bed, before both theſe meet. That Aſſembly was for Uniformity, therefore for the preſent Uniformity, which requires a great deal more, and quite other things, than they propoſed: this will by no means follow: unleſs the Church of Romes indeavouring after Uniformity in their way be acquitted by the Church of Englands indeavouring Uniformity. Now I am ſorry to ſee the Doctor ready to impoſe upon us too.

Ibid. A willful error or miſtake of Conſcience doth by no means excuſe from ſin.]

To this I readily aſſent: as the Doctor proves it well from Act. 26.9. I verily thought with my ſelf, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jeſus of Nazareth. And John 16.2. They ſhall put you out of the Synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whoſoever killeth you will think that he doth God ſervice. But as the Doctor ſays, it was a horrible miſtake. And ſome may think it queſtionable, whether God will take it as a good piece of ſervice done to him, that which hath been done among us to ſo many of his Servants.

P. 44. If the error be wholly involuntary, i.e. if it be cauſed by invincible ignorance, or after uſing the beſt means for due information of his Conſcience, though the act may be a fault in it ſelf, yet it ſhall not be imputed to him as a ſin.]

Now here is the moſt comfortable word I can find in all the Sermon for many of his poor diſſenting Brethren. Here is wounding and healing from the ſame hand: a good Weapon-Salve. After ſome hard words and cenſures, he ſpeaks a comfortable word here p. 71to ſuch as after uſing the beſt means for due information of their Conſciences, that is, laying aſide prejudice, and paſſion, and intereſt, examining things fairly on both ſides by the Laws of God, the Rule of Conſcience, praying for divine direction, &c. yet after all cannot be ſatisfied, that the things impoſed are lawful for them to ſubmit unto, or that it is lawful for them wholly to lay aſide their Miniſtry thereupon; though their not conforming, or their preaching ſtill (notwithſtanding they do not conform) may be a fault in it ſelf (ſuppoſing them in an error here) yet it ſhall not be imputed to them as a ſin. Though men may condemn them for it, God will not. He cannot ſay [in this caſe) that ſuch are willful and damnable ſins. And if God will pardon ſuch, methinks men ſhould, who have as great need of forgiveneſs themſelves. And as Con-non ſays, He that over cenſureth, may be more guilty than the error he cenſureth. To what the Doctor lays down there, and p. 45. I would ſubjoyn what follows, (out of The Plea for Peace, p. 235.) Some of us are able to ſay that we have with a willingneſs to ſee the truth, ſtudied the caſe of the old Conformity above forty years, and the caſe of the new Conformity now above ſeventeen years, and read almoſt all that hath been written for them, which we thought might add to our information, and prayed earneſtly that God would not ſuffer us to err, and the longer we ſtudy it, the more we are confirmed: In this caſe we ſuffer publick and private obloquy and reproach:—And in reaſon, its as caſie to think, that they that hold their opinion on ſuch terms, are like to be as impartial in their ſtudies, as they whoſe way leadeth to preferment, wealth and honour; of which we were capable of a part.—And they that ſay, God will not condemn men for that which they were not able to avoid or help, ſhould not do otherwiſe themſelves.

P. 45. While we keep to one Rule, all people know what it is to be of our Church—]

But why ſhould none be thought of the Church, but thoſe that in every thing conform to ſuch a Rule? Shall the defect of a Ceremony diſmember the Church? A little before the Doctor, Let us ſtudy the Ʋnity and Peace of the Church. And would there be ever the leſs peace and unity in a Church, if a diverſity were allowed as to practices ſuppoſed indifferent? yea, there would be ſo much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condeſcenſion, as to ſuch things, (Preface to Irenic. p 9, 10.) P. 45. If men ſet up their own fancies above the Rule, they charge it with imperfection; if they do not obey the Rule, they make themſelves p. 72wiſer than thoſe that made it.] Though men ſhould not ſet up their own fancies, I hope they may be allowed to ſet up the Holy Scriptures above any other Rule, and to try other Rules thereby, Church-Rules are not inſallible. The nine and thirty Articles grant ſo much. We muſt not ſuppoſe men to be as wiſe as God. Whatſoever corruptions at any times may be introduced, if any boggle at them, the like may be objected, that ſuch make themſelves wiſer than their Rulers. Muſt not men be allowed a private judgment of diſcretion? Would the Doctor have them led by an implicit Faith to a blind obedience? Here it was worth the while viewing over again, Irenic. p. 118, 119.

P. 46.—Such the wiſdom, and order, and piety of its Devotions, that none who are true Friends to any of theſe, can be Enemies to it.] Like that (Conferences, p. 100.) The beſt Church in Chriſtendom. Yet I ſuppoſe, not ſo good as to need no reforming.

Ibid. —If themſelves were in place, or thoſe they love and eſteem, then the Government is a good thing, if it be in good mens hands. Thus do mens judgments vary, as their intereſts do.]

Does he think ſo of all? Might not ſome Non-conformiſts have got as high a place in the Church, as he is in, and perhaps a ſtep higher, had they been ſatisfied to conform? But the Doctor's advice there is good: Let us take heed we do not give too much occaſion to our Enemies to think the worſe of our Church for our ſakes. Such a Friend I am to the Church, and to Epiſcopacy, I heartily wiſh, it may take with all concerned. And the better they are, the better it may be for us all. Some have queried, whether a people might do better under good Laws and bad Judges, or under but indifferent Laws and good Judges? They that take on them to guide and govern Souls, are under the greateſt obligations to be good. An eminent Lawyer, when he was put to his choice, what courſe he would follow, choſe to apply himſelf to the ſtudy of the Law, ſaying, If I ſhould be a bad Phyſician, I might deſtroy many mens Bodies; ſhould I be a bad Miniſter, I might ruine mens Souls; but if I ſhould prove a bad Lawyer, I ſhall only prejudice men in their Eſtates.

P. 46. We ſind Ʋniformity and Order condemned as Tyrannical, till men come into power themſelves—] Herewith compare that in the laſt Page of the Preface to Irenic. Nay, I dare not harbour ſo low apprehenſions of perſons injoying ſo great dignity and honour in the Church, that they will in any wiſe be unwilling of themſelves to reduce the form of Church-Government among us to its primitive ſtate and order, by retrenching all exorbitances of power, &c.

p. 73Ibid. & 47. Thoſe who now plead for Toleration, did once think it the Mother of Confuſion, the Nurſe of Atheiſm, the inlet of Popery, the common ſink of all Errors and Hereſies.]

And men may ſtill have ſuch thoughts of an unlimited Toleration. And if the Doctor and ſome other of his Brethren were ſoberly asked, whether it were not lawful for Rulers to Tolerate ſuch in the Church, as his Diſſenting Brethren, and allow them to Preach publickly, that hold no more dargerous Errors, and carry peaceably, they would ſcarce deny it. I think the Doctor cannot, ſeeing what he ſayes (Anſwers to ſeveral Treariſes, p. 282.) The Primitive and Apoſtolical Church? That we have alwayes appealed to, and offered to be tried by. And may not his Diſſenting Brethren Appeal to, and offer to be tryed by the Primitive Apoſtolical Church, whether ever ſhe ſuſpended, and ejected Miniſters (agreeing with her in the Subſtantials of Faith and Worſhip) for ſuch things? And yet one would think by the courſe that hath been taken with them theſe eighteen years, or very near, Rulers were otherwiſe perſwaded, and have not been minded of it. Now to uſe ſome of the Doctors own words. (Ser. p. 37, 38.) Why is this kept up as ſuch a mighty Secret in their Breaſts? Why have they not Preached it to Rulers? Is it for fear? —But is it not plainly written, If I yet pleaſe men I ſhall not be the Servant of Chriſt? Or ſhould we not be uncharitable if we ſuppoſed that worthy men who upon all occaſions profeſs ſuch zeal for Peace and Unity in the Church, do yet prefer ſome petty private Intereſt before ſuch a publick good? If therefore they would acquit themſelves like honeſt and conſcientious men, let them tell Rulers plainly that they look on it as very lawful to Tolerate ſuch, and allow them Liberty of Preaching publickly, ſuch as the Primitive and Apoſtolical Church would have allowed; and we may have ſome hope, that if Rulers are made ſufficiently ſenſible, that ſuch a thing is Lawfull, they may in time judge it to be a Duty, all things conſidered. And this might do more towards the calling back of thoſe ſeparate meetings the Doctor is ſo offended at, then all that he hath ſaid here in his Sermon. It muſt be granted, All perſons and things are not to be tolerated. Yet methinks, ſuch may be tolerated, who indeed ought to be incouraged.

P. 48.—Cutting off all Rules of Order and Decency, as incroachments on the Inſtitutions of Chriſt.]

Rules of Order and Decency are allowed. There is a general Rule in Scripture for them. But there is no ſuch general Warrant p. 74for men to appoint Religious myſtical Rites and Ceremonies in the worſhip of God. That theſe ſeem to be encroachments. Gods Worſhip may be as orderly and as decently performed without them; therefore they pertain not to Order and Decency. And if Rules of Order cannot be binding, when contrary to the end for which they are to be appointed, that is, Edification, much leſs are Rites and Ceremonies of mens deviſing, that have leſs to be ſaid for them, when they really obſtruct that end.

P. …9. The Doctor would have us diſtinguiſh between approbation of the uſe and of the choice of things. But whether Aſſent, with Conſent imply not a little more than bare approbation of the Uſe, I am ſtill in doubt. And beſides, if this Diſtinction were to be admitted, it would not relieve thoſe, who are not ſatisfied of the lawful uſe of ſome of thoſe things. But it ſeems this diſtinction would not be admitted. (plea for Peace. p. 159, 160.) To put all out of doubt, the Parliament-men long ago told us (none contradicting it to us) that to another Bill the Houſe of Lords added a proviſo, that the Declaration in the Act of Uniformity ſhould be underſtood but as obliging men [to the Uſe of it] and that the Houſe of Commons refuſing, at a conference about it, they gave in ſuch reaſons againſt that Senſe and proviſo to the Lords, upon which they did acquieſce, and caſt it out.

P. 50.—Forbearing one another in love, &c.] And ſayes one, If it may not take place [in things that may be left at liberty without apparent prejudice to purity, peace, and order,] I cannot apprehend to what purpoſe that precept, [Eph. 4.2.] is in our Bible. And yet as the Doctor very ingeniouſly obſerves (Irenic. p. 38.) And which ſeems ſtrange; the things men can leaſt bear with one another, in are matters of liberty; and thoſe things men have divided moſt upon, have been matters of uniformity; and wherein they have differed moſt, have been pretended things of indifferency.

Ibid. & p. 51.—The moſt Sober and Learned Non-conformiſts of former times—utterly condemned Separation from our Churches as unlawful, &c.]

That Separation which the old Non-conformiſts condemned, I hope, Diſſenters generally do not allow now. And they conceive, their preſent practice to be quite another thing. See Corbet (of Church Ʋnity, &c. p. 52.) The caſe of thoſe that are neceſſitated to—Yet ſeeking Union would gladly imbrace a reaſonable accommodation, is much different from theirs, who upon choice, and wilfully ſever themſelves, becauſe they love to be ſevered, ſo he. p. 75The old Non-conformiſts when ſuſpended, though they ſorbare Preaching in their own places, yet would not be idle; but were glad of opportunities of Preaching elſewhere, and rather than fail Preached in private houſes, notwithſtanding their ſuſpenſion ab officio.

Doctor Gouge (who is cited p. 51.) I took to be a conformiſt. An holy man, and Reverend Divine he was, whoſe memory is ſtill precious. But let the queſtion be, whether ordinary Miniſters have not warrant by Gods word to hold on and Preach ſtill, (as they have opportunity) though forbidden by the Laws and Government they live under, if forbidden for no cauſe, that will juſtly bear ſuch a Cenſure and Sentence. And it is poſſible we may find an Orthodox Biſhop ſpeaking ſomething to it. (Biſhop Bilſon of Subject. p. 236.) Princes have no right to call or confirm Preachers, but to receive ſuch as be ſent of God and give them liberty for their Preaching and ſecurity for their Perſons: and if Princes refuſe ſo to do, Gods Labourers muſt go forward with that which is commanded them from Heaven; not by diſturbing Princes from their Thrones, &c. And here conſult Mr. Baxter (Chriſtian Directory, p. 854. upon Queſt. 80.) A Moral Duty (as he ſayes) of ſtated neceſſity to the Church, and mens Salvation is not ſubjected to the will of men for Order ſake, &c.

That the Apoſtles continued to Preach the Goſpel, though forbidden by Rulers, is paſt all doubt or queſtion. But then it is ſaid, There is a difference between the Apoſtles caſe, and the caſe of ordinary Miniſters. And indeed a great gradual difference betwixt them muſt be granted. Thus the Apoſtles being ſo extraordinarily called, and qualified for the work, and there being a greater neceſſity for their Preaching, and greater benefit to the Church by it, had they left off preaching, their ſin had been cloathed with ſpecial aggravations, above what it had been in ordinary Miniſters. Yet magis & minus non variant ſpeciem. Ordinary Miniſters may be ſuppoſed under an obligation to Preach the word ſtill, (though men forbid them to Preach, though not under ſuch a ſpecial obligation as the Apoſtles were. Mans Prohibition cannot make void Gods command. If God chargeth them to attend to their Miniſtry, men cannot diſcharge them. As the Doctor well noteth. (Irenic. p. 44.)

When two Laws are contrary the one to the other, the obligation to the higher Law takes away the obligation to the other. If men, cannot at their wills make thoſe to be no Miniſters, whom God hath called to the Miniſtry, neither can they at their Wills diſcharge them from p. 76the work of the Miniſtry. And if ſtill God would have all men to be ſaved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, there would ſeem to be a neceſſity of ſuch forbidden Miniſters preaching ſtill, when without it many are not likely to come to the knowledg of the truth, and way to ſalvation. Though there be not ſo high a neceſſity of theirs, as of the Apoſtles Preaching. Shall we ſay, that they may ſuffer poor Souls to periſh for whom Chriſt died, rather than relieve them (when they beg for ſome relief) contrary to Law? There had been a greater wo to the Apoſtles, and to the world (it is true) had the Apoſtles neglected, and laid down their work: yet that will not prove, there is no wo to ordinary Miniſters, no wo to others, if they lay aſide their work, when there is real need for them to be at work ſtill. And what if the found and orthodox had deſerted their work, when the Arrians were ſet up againſt them? I know many urge the example of Solomon's depoſing Abiathar from the Prieſthood, 1 Kings 2.26, 27. To which ſome anſwer, That Abiathar had no right, it belonged to another Line (Though that may be queſtioned: ſee 1 Sam. 2.30. and Doctor Lightf.) But then it is further ſaid, Abiathar was put out by two Princes that were inſpired by God, who might do it by extraordinary direction, (1 Chron. 29.22. 1 King. 2.27.) And it is obſerved further, when Abiathar was thruſt out, Zadok (not Hophni and Phinehas) ſucceeded. But that which is ſpecially to be noted; is, that Abiathar was not depoſed, but for a criminal matter. He was a man of death, worthy of death, as the Text ſays; ſo he deſerved that and more. But it will not hence follow, that Miniſters may be degraded from their office for no crime. I am thinking here of what the Doctor ſays (power of Excom. p. 30.31.) That a Magiſtrate cannot repeal a juſt cenſure in the Church as to its ſpiritual effects; but he may ſuſpend the temporal effect of it, in which caſe it is the duty of Paſtors (n. 8.) to diſcharge their office, and acquieſce.

Now joyn iſſue with him here. The Magiſtrate cannot repeal a juſt cenſure of the Paſtors in the Church, and yet hath a greater power even to null the Paſtors Office, to make them no Paſtors. Is not this a little ſtrange? It is the duty of Paſtors to diſcharge their Office in paſſing juſt cenſures, though againſt the command of the Magiſtrate; yet not to preach the Goſpel, or to look upon themſelves as Miniſters of the Word, againſt his command. Though a little after he tells us, the Magiſtrates power in the Church is Cumulative, not privative. That is, it is not to take from the Church and Miniſters thereof, the power and privileges p. 77granted by Chriſt; but to put them in a better capacity of exerciſing and enjoying the ſame then they were in without it. And though we read of Biſhops depoſed, and Presbyters degraded by Biſhops, and many Canons concerning the ſame; yet ſuch degrading by the Churches power, if not according to Chriſt's Laws, (as the ancient Conſtitutions appointed, if a Biſhop or Presbyter (unjuſtly) ſeparated from his Wife, and in caſe of Fornication, Adultery, Perjury, &c. then ſuch a courſe to be taken with them, otherwiſe) it is a thing to be queſtioned. For it may be ſuppoſed, I would ſay, certainly concluded, that Chriſt hath given no ſuch power to the Church, or any Officers in it, as to deprive himſelf of it, or his own Laws of a binding force againſt theirs. As the Doctor hath a like expreſſion of the power God gives to Magiſtrates, (Irenic. p. 69.) And that good man, who ſeveral years ſince ſo zealouſly pleaded this ſame cauſe the Doctor proſecutes in his Sermon, yet had preached, that as many had heretofore been called to bear witneſs to Chriſt's Prophetical Office, and to his Prieſtly Office; ſo the Kingly Office of Chriſt calleth for the teſtimony of the Saints (ſays he) that the Government is on his Shoulders adminiſtred by his own Officers and Ordinances; and this muſt be atteſted in the greateſt tribulation, ſaddeſt ſufferings in Fire and Blood that can befal us. (See Mr. Cr. Caſe conſidered, p. 21.) If now others ſhall arbitrarily turn out Chriſt's Officers, without any order or warrant from him, will not this look like an encroachment on the Kngly Office and Authority of Chriſt? And what ſhould his Miniſters do in ſuch a caſe, but in as prudent and peaceable manner as they can, go on in diſcharging their Office under Chriſt, and patiently ſubmit to what may be the pleaſure of Rulers to inflict for their ſo doing? And otherwiſe it would be ſad with the Church ſometimes. If Rulers have power to make Laws, nullifying the Office of a thouſand Miniſters, whereupon they muſt all ceaſe from the work of the Miniſtry; then if they pleaſe, they may make other Laws to take off as many more; and thus it ſhould be in their power to deprive the Church of all her Teachers, or ſhe ſhould have none but ſuch as were the ſervants of men, and would do juſt what Rulers at any time pleaſe to command.

P. 52. Let me beſeech them to conſider the common danger that threatens us all by means of our Diviſions.]

Here I ſay (as Second Diſcourſe of the Relig. of Engl. p 43.) could the Proteſtant Conformiſts, or Non-conformiſts, either of them upon their own ſingle account, if one ſhould exterminate, or utterly diſable p. 78the other, be ſo well ſecured againſt Popery, as now they are by their common intereſt? —How much more in a ſtate of Union, might their ſtrength increaſe againſt their common Adverſaries? But further I wiſh it was ſeriouſly conſidered, whether they are moſt to be charged, as cauſing our diviſions, who would gladly unite, but cannot upon the terms impoſed without ſin; or they that will not abate them ſo much, where the impoſition may be ſinful, but a relaxation without doubt is lawful? They that will not abate ſuch terms for union with Diſſenters, do they not in effect tell the world, that they have no deſire of an union with them?

P. 53. Not to give encouragement to raſh intemperate zeal, is good advice. And have not ſuch as [Curſe ye Meroz] need of it too! I wiſh we had all a greater zeal for peace & unity; yea, a greater zeal for true piety, & the power of Religion, which would do more to cement us, than Uniformity in all our Rites and Ceremonies.

P. 54. Not to be always complaining of Hardſhips and Perſecutions; is another advice the Doctor gives us. And if I knew any of my Brethren, that had need of it, I would commend to them that late Piece of a Non-conformiſt, Mr. Hieron's Spiritual Rejoycing. Though there be ſome bitter Ingredients in the Cup of their Affliction (as the Pſalmiſt ſaid, it was not an Enemy that reproached me, then I would have born it, but—) that Proteſtants ſhould fall thus on Proteſtants, on ſuch as are one with them in all points that are neceſſary to Chriſtian Unity (ſee Irenic. p. 62.) this is a little ſad. Though ſometimes Loſers have leave to ſpeak, and tell their Loſſes; yet ſome the Doctor ſeems to point at under this advice are moved to ſpeak (I am perſwaded) more from a ſenſe of others ſin, than their own ſufferings. And they whom I moſt converſe with, would make light of paſt ſufferings, and prepare for greater trials. And what are we better than our Fathers?

As for thoſe the Doctor ſpeaks of, Whereas the ſeverity of Laws hath been tempered with ſo much gentleneſs in the execution of them, that others have as much complained of indulgence, as they of perſecution. (Where the Doctor ſeems not very much grieved or concerned for the affliction of Joſeph.) Thoſe others (I am afraid) forget Pſal. 109.16, &c. And that of our Saviour, With what meaſure ye mete, it ſhall be meaſured to you again. And that of the Apoſtle James, He ſhall have judgment without mercy, that hath ſhewed no mercy.

P. 55. They want the ingenuity of Adoni Bezek, to reflect on the Thumbs and the Toes, which they have cut off, and think themſelves bound to do again, if it were in their power.]

p. 79Here are keen words, but (I hope) few of his diſſenting Brethren will feel themſelves touched with them.

—P. 56. The true controverſie is not about the Reaſonableneſs of Ʋniformity; but who ſhall have the power of preſcribing the Rules of it.]

The true Controverſie betwixt him and his diſſenting Brethren is, Whether men have power of making Rules, that will caſt out of the Miniſtry, and caſt out of Chriſtian Communion ſuch as are to be admitted and taken in by the Rule of the Word? And whether that Uniformity be not the cauſe of diviſion, and indeed oppoſite to true Church-Unity, which caſts out any, which ought to be received as Miniſters or Members of the Church, according to Scripture-Rule?

P. 56. It is hard to underſtand, if occaſional communion be lawful, that conſtant communion ſhould not be a duty.

Enough hath been ſaid before (I hope) to clear this. And if a London-Merchant judgeth occaſional communion with a Dutch Church lawful, will it follow, that then conſtant communion with the ſame is a duty?

To what follows, others may ſay, if thoſe of the Doctor's way, inſtead of pleading for the removing of dividing terms, (which would prepare for a cloſe union indeed) Indeavour to darken and confound things, and caſt miſts before mens eyes, that they who might do moſt towards the healing of our breaches, cannot ſee their way clear before them; all underſtanding men will conclude, they prefer ſome little intereſts of their own before the honour of Chriſt, and the peace of his Church.

P. 58. An univerſal toleration is that Trojan Horſe, which brings in our enemies without being ſeen.]

This his diſſenting Brethren are not fond on, but greatly dread. They could be well ſatisfied with ſuch a liberty, as the Doctor pleaded for himſelf, (Irenic. p. 121.) and if we go to the merits of the cauſe, may be proved not unreaſonable for the one part to deſire, and for the other to grant.

P. 59. So that upon the whole matter, if we would conſult the honour of God and Religion, the peace and tranquillity of the Church we live in,—we ought to follow the Apoſtles advice, in walking by the ſame Rule, and in minding the ſame things.]

But ſure it is, the Apoſtle looks higher, and aims at greater matters there, than uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies deviſed by men. (As Irenic. p. 66.) We ſee the primitive Chriſtians did not make ſo much of any Ʋniformity in Rites and Ceremonies; nay, I ſcarce think any Churches in the primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all p. 80things obſerve the ſame Cuſtoms. And ſo upon a due conſideration of the whole matter, we may conclude, the honour of God and Religion may be as much promoted, the peace and tranquillity of the Church as well provided for, the great deſigns of our Enemies as ſurely prevented, and the true Proteſtant Religion as much ſecured and eſtabliſhed, without requiring uniformity in ſuch things, or preſſing men ſo much unto the ſame.

I conclude now with the Doctor's earneſt deſire, with which he cloſeth his Irenicum: (A Collect very ſuitable and proper for theſe times)

That the Wiſe and Gracious God would ſend us one heart, and one way, that he would be the Compoſer of our Differences, and the Repairer of our Breaches; that of our ſtrange Diviſions, and unchriſtian Animoſities, (while we pretend to ſerve the Prince of Peace) we may at laſt ſee

THE END.

Glory to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men: Luk. 2.14.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Barret, The Rector of Sutton Committed (1680)