The Rector of Sutton Committed, Letter (1 of 3)

The Rector of Sutton Committed · Letter (1 of 3)

p. 5SIR,

I Now return you Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon, which the other Week you would needs thruſt into my Hand, deſiring me to peruſe, and give you my Notes upon it. To the latter of your Deſires (though I then promiſed nothing) upon the reading of the Sermon, I ſoon inclined; in part to ſatisfy your Deſire, and in part to ſatisfy my own Mind. You cannot but look for many Imperfections in ſuch an haſty Birth. As (it may be) ſome parts wanting, ſome redundant, ſome miſplaced. But not having further leiſure at preſent, you will take it as it is, and cover its Defects with a candid Interpretation. I hope you know me ſo well, as to be perſwaded, that though I may err, I would neither be Heretick nor Schiſmatick.

Epiſt. Dedic. The Doctor ſays, His only deſign was to prevent any occaſion of the Perſecution of Diſſenters, by finding out a certain Foundation for a laſting Ʋnion among our ſelves.

Anſw. They that deſign ſuch a thing, ſhould plead for, and endeavour (in their places) the taking off of thoſe Impoſitions, which are the known Cauſe of our Diviſions, and have made ſo many Diſſenters. As he ſays, Irenic. pag. 121. Were we ſo happy but to take off things granted unneceſſary by all, and ſuſpected by many, and judged unlawful by ſome; and to make nothing the bounds of our Communion, but what Chriſt hath done, viz. one Faith, one Baptiſm, &c. allowing a Liberty for matters of indifferency, and bearing with the Weakneſs of thoſe who cannot bear things which others account lawful, we might indeed be reſtored to a true primitive Luſtre far ſooner than by furbiſhing up ſome antiquated Ceremonies, which can derive their Pedigree no higher, than from ſome ancient Cuſtom and Tradition. God will one day convince Men, that the Union of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection, than in Uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies. (How like Mr. Corbit of Church-Unity, p. 6pag. 30.) The Bond of Church-Communion ſhould be ſomething common to ſtrong and weak Chriſtians, &c. (ibid. pag. 122.) But not a Word of this found here in all the Sermon.

2. Though we hold Communion with them, as far as we can, yet if we come not up fully to their eſtabliſhed Rule, (as, if we are not ſatisfyed to receive the Sacrament kneeling, to bring Children to be Croſſed, as well as Baptized, &c.) we are ſtill liable to be proſecuted in their Courts, and troubled. That unleſs the Doctor hoped by this Sermon to win Diſſenters to a full Conformity, his Deſign was not likely to have ſucceſs.

Ibid. But, if after themſelves are pleaſed with Condeſcenſions to their own Minds, any think it fit that others ſhould be tyed up, notwithſtanding their diſſatisfaction, the World will judge it too great partiality in them.

Anſ. They would not preſcribe Terms to others: but think, that none ſhould preſcribe other Terms of Communion, than Chriſt hath made neceſſary by his Laws; and that all Chriſtians ſhould look upon themſelves as obliged to ſuch Terms. Preface to Iren. p. 8, 9. It would be ſtrange the Church ſhould require more than Chriſt himſelf did; and make other Conditions of her Communion, than our Saviour did of Diſciple-ſhip, &c.

Pag. 2. Although our differences are ſuch as the wiſer Proteſtants abroad, not only condemn, but wonder at them; yet it hath hitherto puzzled the wiſeſt Perſons among us to find out ways to compoſe them.

Anſ. 1. If we are condemned by others abroad, we may thank our Friends at home, who have miſrepreſented us to the World; while we have not been allowed to plead for our ſelves.

2. Yet poſſibly ſome Proteſtant Churches abroad may wonder, that ſuch Propoſals as have been made for an Accomodation, ſhould be rejected. See Petition for Peace, pag. 9. §. 10. The French Churches (if they be of the ſame temper, as the Doctor deſcribes them, Irenic. p. 122.) muſt needs wonder more at them, than at us. And ſo would our Reformers, that compoſed the Liturgy, if they were alive. As he telleth us (ibid.) Certainly thoſe holy Men, who did ſeek by any means to draw in others, at ſuch a diſtance from their Principles as the Papiſts were, did never intend by what they did for that end, to exclude any truly tender Conſciences from their Communion. That which they laid as a Bait for them, was never intended by them as a Hook for thoſe of their own Profeſſion. But the ſame reaſon which at that time made them yeild ſo far to them then, would now have perſwaded them to alter and lay aſide thoſe things which yeild matter p. 7of offence, to any of the ſame Profeſſion with themſelves now. (p. 125.)

3. The way to compoſe our Differences is not ſo hard to find out. Zanchy thought himſelf wiſe enough, to give Counſel in ſuch a Caſe. See his long Epiſtle to Queen Elizabeth, Epiſt. l. 1. Col. 241, &c. The way was, Non propter veſtes totum corpus Eccleſiae perdere, not to deſtroy the Body of the Church for Garments ſake, &c. Not to diſturb the Peace of the Church by urging indifferent things. Col. 245. Ita certe rebus adiaphoris urgendis, turbare pacem Eccleſiae, & bonos cum impiis, aut etiam bonos inter ſeſe committere, uſque adeo iniquum eſt, ut defendi nullo modo poſſit, ut non immeritò victorem Epiſcopum Romanum hoc nomine reprehenderit Irenoeus, &c. Yea, the Doctor when he recollects himſelf, knows the way exactly to the compoſing of our Differences. Firſt, he hath found out the cauſe of our Differences and Diviſions. (And ſometimes when the Cauſe of a Diſeaſe is known, it is half cured.) See Preface to his Irenicum p. 9. Without all Controverſy, the main In let of all the Diſtractions, Confuſions and Diviſions of the Chriſtian World, hath been by adding other Conditions of Church-Communion than Chriſt hath done. Now as to the perfect cure thereof, See Irenic. p. 122. And therefore, were there that Spirit of mutual Condeſcention, which was moſt certainly in Eccleſiâ primo primitiva, as Gratian ſomewhere ſpeaks, in the firſt and truly Primitive Church in the Apoſtles times, our Breaches as to this thing too might ſoon be cloſed up, and the Voice of Schiſm be heard among us no more. So here he hath diſcovered to us the way to that, Than which nothing ought to be more in our Wiſhes (as he ſays pag. 1. of his Serm.) 'though nothing ſeems more remote from our Hopes, even the Univerſal Peace of the Chriſtian World.

Pag. 3. All Parties pretend to a zeal for Peace; ſo they may have it in their own way.

But ſurely all that would ſhew themſelves good Chriſtians, ought to ſeek it, and ſhould be content with it in Chriſt's way. Which is excellently ſet forth by this Learned Doctor, in the Preface to his Irenic. p. 8. What Ground can there be, why Chriſtians ſhould not ſtand upon the ſame terms now, which they did in the time of Chriſt and his Apoſtles? — What Charter hath Chriſt given the Church to bind Men up to, more than himſelf hath done? Or to exclude thoſe from her Society who may be admitted into Heaven? Will Chriſt ever thank Men at the great Day for — And p. 9. Whether do they conſult for the Churches Peace and Unity who ſuſpend it upon p. 8ſuch things (as indifferencies?) How far doth the Example of our Saviour or his Apoſtles warrant ſuch rigorous Impoſitions? Now hath the Doctor upon ſecond thoughts found out a better way, than that which he there commends?

2. Some indeed have made it appear, that it is not Peace they aim at but Victory, as the Doctor ſaith; yet I cannot ſee, that this is juſtly to be charged upon thoſe, who have been willing to yeild ſo far, who have made ſo fair Propoſals, and have earneſtly petitioned for Peace, that could bear with many things in the Conſtitution of the Church, (as Ser. p. 47, 48.) for Peace-ſake, which they cannot approve. What though ſome only pretend a Zeal for Peace, muſt we ſay, There are no true Men in the World, becauſe there are ſo many Apes that imitate them; or that there are no Jewels, becauſe there are ſo many Counterfeits? As the Doctor, Orig. Sacr. Epiſt. Ded. p. 10.

P. 4. And we may juſtly hope for a greater Bleſſing of God upon us, when we offer up our joint Prayers and Devotions, &c.

But (Irenic. p. 123.) It cannot but be looked upon as a Token of God's ſevere diſpleaſure againſt us, if any, though unreaſonable Propoſals of Peace between us and the Papiſts ſhould meet with ſuch entertainment among many; and yet any fair offers of Union and Accomodation among our ſelves, be ſo coldly embraced and entertained.

P. 9. Wherein the Apoſtle ſuppoſes — 1. The neceſſity of one fixed and certain Rule —

But (Irenic. Preface p. 9.) We never read the Apoſtles making Laws but of things ſuppoſed neceſſary. — Act. 15.28. It was not enough with them that the things would be neceſſary when they had required them, but they looked on an antecedent neceſſity either abſolute, or for the preſent State — There were after this great diverſities of Practice, and varieties of Obſervations, among Chriſtians, but the Holy Ghoſt never thought thoſe things fit to be made matters of Laws, to which all Parties ſhould conform; All that the Apoſtles required as to theſe, was mutual Forbearance and Condeſcenſion towards each other in them. The Apoſtles valued not indifferencies at all — And what reaſon is there why Men ſhould be ſo ſtrictly tyed up to ſuch things, &c. From all which we may clearly infer, that the Rule ſpoken of [let us walk by the ſame Rule] cannot be a Rule of unneceſſary Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies.

P. 10. All the queſtion is, what the Apoſtle means by this Rule, whether only a Rule of Charity and mutual Forbearance, with a liberty of different p. 9practice; or ſuch a Rule which limits and determines the manner of practice, &c.

Anſ. 1. That of Charity and mutual Forbearance is but part of that ſame Rule Chriſtians are to walk by: But a part it is certainly. And therefore,

2. Without queſtion, the Apoſtle meaneth no ſuch Rules, or Canons Eccleſiaſtical, as are contrary to the Rule of Charity and mutual Forbearance, with a Liberty of Practice different in ſome things.

3. This Rule for Uniformity of Practice is the Scripture Rule. This is the Rule to which Chriſtians muſt conform. And as for other things, we have the Doctor's Word for it, (in that place laſt cited) The Apoſtles valued not indifferencies at all — And what reaſon is there why Men ſhould be ſo ſtrictly tyed up to ſuch things, which they may do, or let alone, and yet be very good Chriſtians ſtill? So that unleſs the Doctor's Mind be changed, he cannot ſay, the Apoſtle meaneth a Rule limiting and determining the practice of ſuch things.

P. 11. By what follows, the Doctor ſeems to underſtand ſome Directions and Rules of Government and Order, given them at Philippi, when a Church was firſt formed among them. Which is a private Interpretation, but fitteſt for the Doctor's purpoſe. And yet it will fall ſhort too of proving it Mens Duty to walk by the Rule ſet up by a Church, till it be proved that ſuch a Church's Rule is conſonant and agreeable to the Apoſtle's Rule. But I cannot meet with any Man of Note, giving ſuch a Senſe of the Word [Rule] here, as the Doctor would put upon it. That Perſon, who he ſays (p. 28.) is of great and deſerved reputation among us, underſtands it of the Doctrine and Rule of Faith before laid down. (Vid. Calv. in Phil. 3. v. 15, 16.)—Sed ante poſuit doctrinam in qua conſentire, & Regulam ad quam ſe formare debeant. And Zanchy, eſt Canon fidei, & delectionis, (ſo the Rule of Charity, and mutual Forbearance comes in) vitaeque Chriſtianae ad praeſcriptam formam in ſacris literis, conformandae. And Grotius, Regulam hîc intelligit à Chriſto & Apoſtolis ejus praeſcriptam. Here he underſtands the Rule preſcribed of Chriſt and his Apoſtles. Theodoret, (who was long before them) Regulam autem appellavit Evangelicam praedicationem. And ſo Chemnitius (Exam. Conc. Trid. par. 1. pag. 33. b.) Quis autem eſt ille Canon? Where he puts the Doctor's Queſtion, what is that Rule? And anſwers, Sine omni dubitatione illa doctrina, &c. without all doubt (or Controverſy) that Doctrine, which the Apoſtle, being preſent, delivered to them vivâ voce. Even as the Doctor ſays, When the Apoſtle mentions a Rule, without declaring what it was, we have reaſon to believe, it was ſuch a Rule which they very well knew, which he had given to them before.

p. 10I only add, (which is more perhaps than the Doctor would have,) Yea, and we all know, or may know, what Rule that was, the Apoſtle plainly affirming, v. 1. that he wrote foreign the ſame things, As Chemnitius further adds, Quis igitur ſit Canon Pauli, habemus in ipſius ſcriptis, idque ipſius teſtimonio: dicit enim ſe foreign ſcribere. What therefore is the Apoſtle Paul's Rule, we have in his Writings, and that by his own Teſtimony; for he ſays, that he did write the very ſame things (he preached.) I ſhall take notice but of one more, ſcil. the learned and pious Biſhop Reynolds, (Serm. on Phil. 3.15, 16. in his Works, laſt Edit. p. 932.) Who ſpeaks both like a learned Critick, and a found Divine, thus, foreign, to walk by the ſame Rule. There ſeemeth to be a double metaphorical Alluſion in the Original Words: The one to a Military March, wherein a Souldier keeps his proper Rank and Station, obeying the Order and Rule which his Commander gives. The other to an Agoniſtical or Athletical Rule, wherein was drawn a White Line, by which the running of the Horſes was to be guided, as the learned Civilian, Petrus Faber, in the ſecond Book of his Agoniſticon, hath obſerved, c. 7. This Line or Rule in our Chriſtian Race is the Word of God, the Rule of Faith, Love, and a Chriſtian Life (juſt as Zanchy before cited) called walking in the Spirit, Gal. 5.16. Walking according to Rule, Gal. 6.16. Thus he. And I hope his Biſhoprick did not alter his Mind as to this Matter. Though howſoever Men change, ſure it is, God's Word, and Truth is ſtill the ſame. And ſurely that Phraſe foreign, Where the ſame Words are uſed by the Apoſtle, Gal. 6.16. aimeth at higher Matters than Conformity to Church-Orders.

It is to be conſidered, whether the Doctor, arguing from this Text, doth any thing more than beg the queſtion. And thoſe whom he mainly oppoſeth, are for keeping to Scripture-Rule (here intended.) If they cannot come up to the Doctor's eſtabliſhed Rule, it is becauſe to them it ſeems croſs to that ſame Rule all good Chriſtians deſire, and all ought to walk by. So then this Text ſeems to be ill applied to the Doctor's Purpoſe. Which indeed is a thing, I ſhould leaſt have expected from him, finding him again and again blaming others, in his Diſcourſe of the power of Excommunication, for hanging it upon ſome doubtful places of Scripture (p. 4.) imprudently fixing the Original of the Power on ſome ambiguous places of Scripture, which may, and (it may be) ought to be taken in a different Sence, (p. 15.) Is it not as much amiſs in him, when the Apoſtle is exhorting us to walk by the ſame Scripture-Rule, the Rule of Faith, &c. to draw it to a Conforming to Church Rules, as if this was the main thing intended? p. 11Turpe eſt Doctori, &c. And methinks it looks the more oddly, (to uſe his own Word, Serm. p. 38.) when he hath told the World over and over again, that the Apoſtles and primo-primitive Chriſtians had no ſuch eſtabliſhed Rule, nor would the Apoſtles have eſtabliſhed ſuch a Rule, as he urgeth us from this Text to come up to, I wonder how he can believe himſelf, or can hope to perſwade any, that will but a little exerciſe their thinking Faculty, That the Apoſtle can mean by the ſame Rule here, ſuch a Rule as was never eſtabliſhed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, nor ever would have been to this day, had they ſtill continued upon Earth.

P. 11. The Apoſtles did not leave all Perſons to act as they judged fit, but did make Rules determining their Practice, and obliging them to Ʋniformity therein. For might not Men pretend that theſe were not things in themſelves neceſſary, and might be ſcrupled by ſome Perſons, and (p. 12.) therefore were not fit to be impoſed upon any? But I do not find that the Apoſtles on this account did forbear giving Rules in ſuch caſes, and to oblige Chriſtians to obſerve them; and that not on the meer Authority of Apoſtles, but as Governours of Churches, whoſe buſineſs it is to take care of the welfare and preſervation of them.

Anſ. 1. Can the Doctor ſay, the Apoſtles made Rules determining their practice, and obliging them to Uniformity in unneceſſary and indifferent things? Surely, he hath told us the contrary (Preface to Iren. p. 9.) They would lay no other burthen foreign, Acts 15.28, 29. The things there decreed were neceſſary either in ſe, or propter aliud, in themſelves, or by conſequence, in ſome other reſpect. Though not all of them neceſſary, ſemper & ubique, perpetually and every where; yet at that time neceſſary, in regard of the preſent ſtate of things then. Either neceſſary to prevent their returning to the Sins of their Gentiliſm, or to prevent their giving offence to the Jews. Not meerly made neceſſary by the Decree of that Council, but in ſome reſpects neceſſary antecedently to that Decree, as the Doctor there obſerves. And let it be remembred, what he ſays of other things, that The Holy Ghoſt never thought them fit to be made matters of Laws, to which all Parties ſhould conform. Then, can we believe the Apoſtles would oblige Chriſtians to Uniformity in ſuch things?

2. Much leſs would they have impoſed things unneceſſary, that were ſcrupled too. The Doctor ſhall never find that. They that would not the weak ſhould be offended by their own, or others practice (as Rom. 14.13, 21. 1 Cor. 8.9, 13.) would not have burthened them with ſuch unneceſſary Rules, which they knew, either they could not bear, or muſt cauſe them to offend.

p. 123. And it is plain, they had no ſuch power given them. They could not do it lawfully. The Power and Authority given to the Apoſtles, was for Edification, and not for Deſtruction, 2 Cor. 10.8. & 13.10. Ad juvandum, & non ad officiendum; ad utilitatem & commodum, non ad damnum Eccleſiae. There is modus & certus finis hujus poteſtatis. And I hope, no Church-Governors (now in the World) have more Authority, than the Apoſtles had, that they may go further in their Impoſitions. The Doctor ſays well of the Governours of the Churches, that their buſineſs is to take care of the welfare and preſervation of them. And then, how making Rules about unneceſſary things, ſcrupled by many, obliging all to Uniformity therein, and thereby cauſing rents and diviſions in the Society, I ſay, how this can be for the Welfare and Preſervation of it, I am not able to underſtand. The Doctor ſays, Irenic. p. 47. The leaſt Peg ſcrued up too high in the Church, ſoon cauſeth a great deal of Diſcord —and quickly puts Mens Spirits out of tune. And when he telleth us, p. 53. That in things wholly indifferent in both reſpects, that is, in a thing neither commanded nor forbidden by God, nor that hath any apparent reſpect to the Peace and Order of the Church of God, there can be (N.B.) no rational account given, why the nature of ſuch indifferencies ſhould be altered by any humane Laws and Conſtitutions. If yet he can give us a rational account, why they may be impoſed, when they apparently tend to diſſention, diſunion, and putting things out of order, I ſhall think he hath a Reach beyond the Moon. If the Church hath power to make ſuch Rules, it is more than he grants to the Magiſtrate, (ibid. p. 44, 45.) The Magiſtrate hath the power of determining things (undetermined by the Word) ſo they be agreeable to the Word of God. This laſt Clauſe is that which binds (I ſuppoſe it ſhould be bounds) the Magiſtrates Power, that it is not abſolutely Architectonical, becauſe all his Laws muſt be regulated by the general Rules of the Divine Law. Would the making of ſuch Rules be found agreeable to the Word of God? What! when they apparently tend not to Peace, but to Breaches, and Diſſentions; not to Order, but to Confuſion? Would ſuch tend to Edification?

And further it may be conſidered, whether this would not be found contrary to ſome of the Doctor's own Rules. Iren. p. 63. Secondly, That nothing be required, nor determined, but what is ſufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature. And p. 64. That no Sanctions be made, nor Mulcts or Penalties be inflicted on ſuch who only diſſent from the uſe of ſome things, whoſe lawfulneſs they at preſent ſcruple, till ſufficient time and means be uſed for their information of the nature and indifference of the things, &c. Obſerve, p. 13The things themſelves muſt be ſufficiently known to be indifferent. And no Judges ſo fit to decide this Controverſy, as the ſenſe of the primitive Church in the firſt four Centuries, with the Judgment of the reformed Churches, p. 63. Or thoſe three Judges, p. 62. The Authority of the Scriptures, the Practice of the primitive Univerſal Church, and the tendency of the things to reform mens lives. Now if ſuch care muſt be taken, ſuch means uſed to clear up the indifferency of things, it would ſeem to follow neceſſarily, they may not be impoſed, while they are ſcrupled, and are not by any of the aforeſaid means to be proved indifferent.

P. 12. The wiſdom of Governours lies in preventing the danger of little things —

And ſo I think no leſs in diſpenſing with more minute things, when great evil and danger attends the ſtrict impoſing of them.

Ib.—And keeping the zeal of well-meaning Perſons within its due bounds.

It would be known what are thoſe due bounds? Whether it is better to reſtrain zealous well-meaning Perſons from worſhipping God at all together, unleſs they were ſatisfied to conform to the particular by-Rules of Governours; or indeed to ſuffer them peaceably to worſhip the true. God in Ordinances of his own appointment, though without following the Governours accidental Rule and mode of worſhip? But more touching that matter afterwards.

P. 12. 'Thoſe who are engaged below in the valley, fighting in ſmall Parties, and purſuing their advantages, do run into their Enemies Camp before they are aware, &c.

The Doctor knows this is but a popular Argument. Similes may illuſtrate a thing, but prove nothing. But why may not ſuch ſmall Parties do ſome Service, as heartily and reſolvedly bending their little force againſt the common Enemy? And otherwiſe they are like to do none, while the main Body is drawn up within ſuch Banks and Trenches, as rather ſerve to divide and keep off many of its Friends, than to defend it from its Enemies. 'Tis in vain to talk of ſuch retreating into the Body of the Army, while ſuch Canons are planted againſt them, ſuch Rules as cut them off. O that it was ſeriouſly conſidered, whether the ſtrict impoſing of thoſe things, which keep many at a diſtance, and hinder their joining with the Body of the Army (to uſe the Doctor's terms) be indeed of as great conſequence, as the Churches Peace, and the preſervation of Religion it ſelf? Or whether it be wiſdom perdere ſubſtantiam propter accidentiâ? And they who ſtand on the higher ground now, ſhould remember, yea, often think of that day, when they ſhall be ſet on level ground with others, and have their cauſe tried p. 14by the Rule of God's Word. Methinks there ſhould be no harm in wiſhing, that ſuch would have a tender ſenſe, as to the doing any thing that tends to exclude from the Miniſtry, and from Church-Communion any whoſoever, that are not to be excluded by any Rule laid down in God's Word.

P. 13. It were extreamly deſirable that all good and uſeful Men ſhould enjoy as much ſatisfaction as might be, —

Now thanks to the Doctor for this, if he do not unſay it again.—But if it cannot be attained without running greater hazards of unſetling all, it is then to be conſidered, whether the general ſafety, or ſome Mens particular ſatisfaction be the more deſirable.

Now if he thinks, that to indulge many good and uſeful Men as to ſome ſmall matters (if they may be accounted ſmall matters, that have occaſioned ſo great miſchiefs; therefore I will ſay) things not commanded by God, not neceſſary in themſelves, but many ways of very ill conſequence, being rigorouſly injoyned; things not pertaining to the neceſſary order and decency required in God's Worſhip, (ſo as that the want thereof would render it diſorderly and undecent) and things that would really burthen or wound the Conſciences of many good and uſeful Men; I ſay, if the Doctor thinks, that to condeſcend to ſuch Men in ſuch things as theſe, would be to run great hazards of unſetling all; then what he ſays before would ſeem to be a meer Complement. And then Quantum mutatus ab illo? Then he would make ſuch things neceſſary. Yet Irenic. p. 62, 63. He tells us what bounds muſt be ſet in the reſtraint of Chriſtian Liberty. And the firſt is, That nothing be impoſed as neceſſary, but what is clearly revealed in the Word of God.—Laqueus eſt quicquid praecipitur ut neceſſarium quod liberum eſſe debot. And p. 64. Diſtinguiſhing betwixt things indifferent in their own nature, and indifferent as to their uſe and practice; Thereupon he ſays thus, And when the generality of thoſe who uſe them, do not uſe them as indifferent, but as neceſſary things; it ought to be conſidered whether in this caſe ſuch a uſe be allowable, till Men be better informed of the things they do. Now if there be ſuch danger of unſetling all, ſuppoſing they ſhould be indulged as to the uſe and practice of ſuch things, then it would ſeem they are made neceſſary: but then for that reaſon, we may queſtion whether the uſe of them be allowable, till we are better informed. If they be not made neceſſary, methinks good and uſeful Men might weigh againſt things indifferent, or unneceſſary, or elſe ſure, they are but of little uſe.

But what danger there would be of unſetling all, by giving juſt ſatisfaction to ſuch Men, I cannot diſcern. Why might not peaceable, p. 15good and uſeful Men, that are diſſatisfied as to ſome by-matters, but agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith, and ſubſtance of God's Worſhip, have liberty to ſerve their God in the Valleys, and they on the higher ground (as the Doctor's Word is) ſtill poſſeſs their Dignities and Benefices? And if moving in an higher Sphere, they are of more uſe, and diffuſe their light farther, no good Men ſhould envy at that.

P. 13. What the Doctor obſerves from Acts 15.28. I take to be anſwered before, yea, he hath anſwered himſelf. Irenic. in Preface p. 9. & p. 11. The ſame we hope may remain as the moſt infallible evidence of the Conformity of our Church of England to the Primitive, not ſo much in uſing the ſame Rites that were in uſe then, as in not impoſing them.

P. 14. Where he ſpeaks of the Judaizing Chriſtians, if he would have his diſſenting Brethren compared with them, the Compariſon ſeems to be unequal. They were for laying the Yoke on others Necks. Poor Diſſenters would think themſelves well, if others would not endeavour to bring their Necks under the Yoke. Theſe deſire to keep cloſe to the Goſpel-Rule, the other in their zeal for the Ceremonies of the Law, were in great danger to be removed from the Goſpel.

Ibid. Notwithſtanding all their diſſatisfaction, the Apoſtles continued the ſame Rule.

Let us enquire what ſcruples and diſſatisfaction the Doctor meaneth. Either it muſt be, that the Gentile-Believers were diſſatisfyed, that they were bound up by that Decree: And then the Anſwer is, Thoſe things were neceſſary, as before explained. And if nothing was impoſed upon us, but what is alike neceſſary, then the World might juſtly blame us for not yeilding to ſuch Impoſitions. Or it muſt be that the Judaizing Chriſtians were diſſatisfied. And indeed of theſe the Doctor ſeems to ſpeak. But then I think, it is againſt himſelf. For how were they diſſatisfied about the things decreed? Certainly, it was becauſe the Gentile-Believers were left ſo much at liberty from the obſervation of the Ceremonies of the Law. But notwithſtanding, the Apoſtles continued the ſame Rule, becauſe they would lay on them no unneceſſary burthen. There was no neceſſity for impoſing Jewiſh Ceremonies on them; and therefore they would not do it. Thoſe Judaizers thought there was a neceſſity of Circumciſion, and keeping the Law of Moſes, directly contrary to the Doctrine and Deſign of the Goſpel. The Doctor may ſay, they ſcrupled, and were diſſatisfied; but plainly they were leavened with ſuch a corrupt Opinion as was by no means to be born with, which would have made Chriſt and his Death in vain. And therefore there was great neceſſity for that Decree. p. 16Yea, the Apoſtle thought not that enough, but again and again in his Doctrine ſets himſelf againſt it with might and main, ſhewing the dreadful conſequences of it. If Men will call ſuch groſs errors, directly contrary to Chriſt and the Goſpel, ſcruples; yet ſurely the Doctor cannot but grant, that the ſcruples of good, honeſt, well meaning Souls about the lawfulneſs of ſome things Men bring into God's Worſhip, without his Warrant, for any thing they can apprehend, are quite of another Nature. And poſſibly the Doctor may have occaſioned ſome of their ſcruples, (and therefore is the more obliged to be favourable towards them) who ſays, Iren. p. 36. But as for the way, manner, and circumſtances of Worſhip, we are to follow the poſitive Laws of God. And p. 43, 44. Firſt then we ſay not, that the Magiſtrate hath a power to revoke, repeal, or alter any Divine poſitive Law, which we have already ſhewn. Secondly, we ſay nor, that the Magiſtrate by his own Will may conſtitute what new Laws he pleaſes for the Worſhip of God. This was the fault of Jeroboam, who made Iſrael to ſin. Who p. 67, 68. diſtinguiſheth betwixt Ceremonies, and matter of meer Decency and Order, for order ſake. Saying, matters of order and decency are allowable and fitting; but Ceremonies, properly taken for Actions ſignificative, their lawfulneſs may with better ground be ſcrupled.

Lay theſe things together, and the reſult is this in ſhort, That Apoſtolical Council, Acts 15. made a Decree of things neceſſary, that was diſſatisfying to Judaizers, as being croſs to their pernicious Opinions and Practice: Therefore Governors now may decree things unneceſſary, that may with better ground be ſcrupled. But when it is certainly unlawful for private Perſons to put a ſtumbling-block, or an occaſion to fall in their Brethrens way, I would fain know how it comes to be lawful for Rulers and Church-Governours ſo to do.

P. 14. To what the Doctor notes on Rom. 14.3. where he grants a Rule of mutual Forbearance, notwithſtanding that Decree made, Acts 15. I cannot apprehend the leaſt inconſiſtency betwixt theſe; as if the one was ſet aſide, where the other took place. And if the Apoſtle acted here like a prudent Governour—the Church of Rome at this time conſiſting moſt of Jews—he perſwades both Parties to Forbearance and Charity (for preſerving the Churches Peace, p. 15.) Methinks, by a Parity of reaſon, where Non-Conformiſts are more numerous (as in London, &c.) more Forbearance might be ſhewn, to preſerve the Churches Peace. But indeed we find, that Charity ſhould as well be exerciſed towards a ſingle Brother, 1 Cor. 8.13. p. 17The Apoſtle (who was a Governour in the Church, and not an ordinary Governour) would not offend a weak Brother. Again, the Doctor ſuppoſeth here, that there were none in the Church of Rome that went about to impoſe the neceſſity of keeping the Law of Ceremonies on the Gentile-Chriſtians. But that there were falſe Apoſtles in Rome at that time, ſeems to be intimated, Rom. 16.17. [Now I beſeech you, Brethren, mark them which cauſe Diviſions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.] Notat hîc eos, (ſays Grotius) qui cùm ipſi Judaei non eſſent, vocatis gentibus imponere volebant Legis Moſaicae jugum, contra & praecepta Chriſti pacem commendantis, & praeceptum Apoſtolicum, quod ubî que Paulus ſervandum docuit. Acts 16.4. And the Apoſtle might thus exhort them to mark and avoid ſuch falſe Teachers, and yet in the ſame Epiſtle lay down a Rule of mutual Forbearance, and require them to ſhew Charity towards thoſe who in ſome points had been ſeduced by ſuch falſe Teachers, by which means indeed they might be brought nearer to the Truth, and one to another. As we have it in the Verſe before the Doctor's Text. [And if ye be in any thing otherwiſe minded, &c.] As for thoſe that did not yet ſo clearly underſtand the Doctrine of the Goſpel, but did ſtill in part adhere to the aboliſhed Ceremonies of the Law, the Apoſtle would not have them rigorouſly dealt with, but would have them (as Beza ſays) Turbas non moveri & benignè tolerari, in hopes they might come to have the truth further diſcovered to them. And here it is to be noted, (as Mr. Corbet of Church-Unity, p. 19. obſerves) There was a greater appearance of Reaſon (then, and in thoſe caſes) for deſpiſing, cenſuring, or offending others, than there can be for ſome Impoſitions now in queſtion among us, viz. on the one ſide a fear of partaking in Idolatry, or of eating Meats that God had forbidden, or of neglecting days that God had commanded, as they thought; on the other ſide a fear of being driven from the Chriſtian Liberty, and of reſtoring the Ceremonial Law.

P. 14, 15. Where the falſe Apoſtles made uſe of this pretence of the Levitical Law being ſtill in force, to divide the Churches, and to ſeparate the Communion of Chriſtians; there the Apoſtle bids them beware of them, and their Practice, &c.

The Apoſtle had a zeal for Truth, as well as Peace; for the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, as well as for the Communion of Chriſtians. [Mark thoſe which cauſe Diviſions, contrary to the Doctrine—] See Gal. 5.1, 2.

P. 15. To what the Doctor ſays there, I return thus, To argue from an obligation lying upon the beſt Chriſtians to walk by the ſame p. 18Rule (which the Apoſtles laid down) to an obligation to comply with another Rule ſet up, before it be proved agreeable to the Apoſtle Rule, (to uſe the Doctor's Words, Power of Excom. p. 14.) is a ſhortneſs of Diſcourſe, I cannot but wonder at.

P. 16. I ſhall endeavour to ſearch to the bottom of this dangerous Miſtake, to which we owe ſo much of our preſent Diſtractions and Pears.

Whether we owe more here to the neceſſary diſſent, and diſtance of thoſe that cannot in Conſcience conſent and comply; or to the Will of thoſe that force them to it, and to thoſe arbitrary Impoſitions which are indeed the Bar to a full Communion, is the Queſtion now, which will at laſt be fully decided at God's Bar. The Doctor once thought our Breaches irreparable, without retrenching all exorbitances of Power, and reſtoring thoſe Presbyteries which no Law hath forbidden, but only through diſuſe have been laid aſide. See the laſt Page of his Preface. And whether are theſ. things done? Whether (as he ſays there, p. 2.) [the Church it ſelf be not made a Partition-Wall to divide the Members of it.]

P. 16. I ſpeak not of the ſeparation or diſtinct Communion of whole Churches from each other—By whole Churches I mean the Churches of ſuch Nations—

Yet theſe whole Churches (as the Doctor calls them) are but parts of the Church Catholick. And the Doctor cannot hanſomely deny, but the Church Catholick is primarily in God's intention, and particular Churches (whether National, or Parochial) ſecondary and accidental; Becauſe of the impoſſibility of all Mens joyning together (as he ſays) for the convenient diſtribution of Church-Priviledges, and adminiſtration of Goſpel-Ordinances. (But otherwiſe) If the whole World could joyn together in the publick Worſhip of God, no doubt that would be moſt properly a Church. See Irenic. p. 154, 155. Now obſerve, if the matter ſtands thus, as the Doctor hath ſtated it, then either particular Churches ought not to have different eſtabliſhed Rules for Communion, ſuch as all good Chriſtians cannot lawfully comply with; (for if all could, all have a right to joyn together) or if any National Church (for inſtance) hath ſuch a different eſtabliſhed Rule, therein it is guilty of making a ſeparation from the Catholick Church: but if any Members of it, hold Communion with it ſo far as they can, upon true Catholick Principles, though they cannot comply with the ſaid eſtabliſhed Rule wherein it goes beyond, ſuch cannot be juſtly charged with ſeparation. Here I think, we have gained a great Point.

p. 19Or elſe thus, The Doctor hath nothing to ſay againſt the ſeparation or diſtinct Communion of National Churches, though they have their different Rules of Order and Government eſtabliſhed. Here he would not charge the one, or other with the ſin of ſeparation. As he ſays, Irenic. p. 65. He muſt be a great Stranger in the primitive Church, that takes not notice of the great diverſity of Rites and Cuſtoms uſed in particular Churches, without any cenſuring thoſe who differed from them; or if any by inconſiderate zeal did proceed ſo far, how ill it was reſented by other Chriſtians. As Victor's Excommunicating the Quarto-decimarii, for which he is ſo ſharply reproved by Irenaeus, who tells him, that the primitive Chriſtians who differed in ſuch things, did not uſe to abſtain from one anothers Communion for them. foreign. & as Socrates tells us, Thoſe that agree in the ſame Faith, may differ among themſelves in their Rites and Cuſtoms, as he largely ſhews in a whole Chapter, &c. And p. 66, 67. We ſee the primitive Chriſtians did not make ſo much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies; nay I ſcarce think any Churches in the primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things obſerve the ſame Cuſtoms: which might be an argument of moderation in all as to theſe things, but eſpecially (N.B.) in pretended admirers of the primitive Church. And ſo he concludes with that known ſaying of Auſtin, Indignum eſt, &c. It's an unworthy thing for Chriſtians to condemn and judg one another for thoſe things which do not further us at all in our way to Heaven (as the Doctor;) or, which cannot render us more worthy, or unworthy to God. Now hoc ſuppoſito, and indeed it is undeniable, it will follow, I ſay, it will follow, If Rulers do but once ſay, That Miniſter and Congregation that agree with the true Catholick Church in the ſame Faith, though they differ as to ſome Mode or Rites not neceſſary, (which their Conſciences are not ſatisfied in) are not guilty of the ſin of Separation. And then what a charitable Word would that be? And ſo if I was with the Doctor now, I would be ſo bold to ask him, How he, and others of his way, that look upon the ſin of Separation as ſo heinous, (as I think ſome would make it inconſiſtent with a ſtate of Salvation) can poſſibly ſatisfy themſelves that they are not acceſſary to the ſame, not having endeavoured to the uttermoſt, to perſwade Rulers to ſpeak that good Word, which would have prevented the ſin and danger of ſo many Souls? Would they be thought ſuch as are wholly ſwayed by a private intereſt, and ſo uncharitable, that they care not what becomes of others Souls, and ſo careleſs of the Peace and Unity of Chriſtians, which they cannot but ſay, is a Duty incumbent upon all, ſo far as poſſibly p. 20they can, to promote? This I look upon, as a very healing Principle, (I wiſh it was more taught and improved,) That Chriſtians may be looked upon as of the ſame Communion, agreeing in the ſame Faith, and all that is neceſſary, though they vary ſomething, as to ſome Mode, and Rites not neceſſary. Particular National Churches may differ, as to theſe, without a Breach of Communion, and of the Peace of the Church; and why not ſome particular Congregations, within a National Church, if Men would? I ſhould think, it muſt needs be a very prepoſterous Courſe to prefer the meer accidentals of Religion and God's Worſhip, before the ſubſtantial parts of the ſame, or but to make them equal, as they are at leaſt made equal, if we muſt not have the one without the other.

P. 17. Here I agree with the Doctor, that the notion of a Church does not barely relate to Acts of Worſhip. And yet when he ſays, If this held true, the Church muſt be diſſolved aſſoon as the Congregation is broken up.

Perhaps ſome may be ready to argue ad hominem, and put him in mind of his own Words (before cited) If the whole World could joyn together in the publick Worſhip of God, no doubt it would be moſt properly a Church. Yet would not the Doctor ſay, the Church was diſſolved as ſoon as ſuch Worſhip was ended.

P. 17, 18. And if there be one Catholick Church, conſiſting of multitudes of particular Churches conſenting in one Faith; then why may there not be one National Church from the conſent in the ſame Articles of Religion, and the ſame Rules of Government and Order of Worſhip?

Anſ. 1. The Doctor will grant, a Catholick Church ſubſiſts by a Divine Law, and poſitive Inſtitution of Chriſt. And if he can ſay, and prove it, that the National Church of England, as it is now eſtabliſhed, ſo ſubſiſts, his diſſenting Brethren will thank him for it. They could never yet find Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum, Lay-Chancellors, &c. Ordinary Officers in the Church by the poſitive Inſtitution of Chriſt. Now he tells us (Power of Excom. p. 6.) That the Exerciſe and Adminiſtration of this Power belongs to the ſpecial Officers and Governours of the Church, none elſe being capable of exerciſing this Power of the Church, as ſuch, but they on whom it is ſetled (N.B.) by the Founder of the Church it ſelf. And p. 13. I here ſuppoſe that Chriſt hath by a poſitive Law eſtabliſhed the Government of his Church upon Officers of his own appointment, which I have largely proved elſewhere (Iren. par. 2. c. 2.) Now lay this together with what he ſaith (Power of Excom. p. 17.) having occaſion to cite 1 Tim. 5.17. I intend not to prove an office of Rulers diſtinct from Teachers from p. 21hence, which I know neither this place nor any other will do: And I doubt it will follow that no Lay-Perſons can of Right have Power of Government in the Church, and that the preſent Conſtitution is not by the poſitive Law of Chriſt.

2. I ſhall not deny a National Church from conſent in the ſame Articles of Religion, and Rules of Government, and Order of Worſhip. Such a Church there may be: but then it muſt be noted, ſuch Articles and Rules ought to be agreeable to the eſtabliſhed Rule of the Holy Scriptures. And for any Church to make ſuch things terms of Agreement and Communion, which are not agreeable to that ſame Rule by which all Chriſtians ought to walk, ſome tell us it is a ſchiſmatical Practice. And ſo it may happen, that they that ſo far ſeparate from ſuch a dividing National Church, though they comply not with its eſtabliſhed Rule, may yet be found walking by the ſame Rule, in the true ſenſe of the Doctor's Text. And whether indeed it be agreeable to Scripture Rule, to ſet down ſuch terms of Communion, as would exclude any, that have a right to Communion, let it be examined. See Iren. p. 122. Certainly the primitive Church, that did not charge Mens Faith with ſuch a load of Articles, as now in theſe latter Ages Men are charged with, would much leſs burthen Men, with impoſing doubtful Practices upon them, as the ground of Church-Communion. Yea, but what if Junior-Churches think themſelves wiſer than the Primitive Church in theſe matters? See p. 119, 120. Let Men turn and wind themſelves which way they will, by the very ſame Arguments that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful, becauſe ſhe required unlawful things, as conditions of her Communion, it will be proved lawful (N.B.) not to conform to any ſuſpected or unlawful practice, required by any Church Governour upon the ſame terms, if the thing ſo required, be after ſerious and ſober enquiry, judged unwarrantable by a Man's own Conſcience. And withal it would be further conſidered, whether when our beſt Writers do lay the imputation of Schiſm, not on thoſe who withdraw Communion, but on them for requiring ſuch conditions of Communion (whereby they did rather eject Men out of their Communion, than the others ſeparate from them.) So then it is not ſeparation, if Men are ejected by others putting ſuch conditions: they do not by the ſame Arguments, lay the imputation of Schiſm on all who require ſuch conditions of Communion, and take it wholly off from thoſe who refuſe to conform for Conſcience-ſake. Whereunto he ſubjoyns the judgment of Mr. Hales, in his excellent (though little) Tract (as he ſays) concerning Schiſm. He ſpeaking of the p. 22Schiſm about Image-Worſhip, determined by the ſecond Council of Nice, ſays, In this the Schiſmatical Party was the Synod it ſelf (whom a little before he calls that Rout) and ſuch as conſpired with it. For concerning the uſe of Images in Sacriz, Firſt it is acknowledged by all, That it is not a thing neceſſary; Secondly, It is by moſt ſuſpected; Thirdly, It is by many held utterly unlawful. Can then the enjoyning of the practice of ſuch a thing (ſays he) be ought elſe but abuſe? Or can the refuſal of Communion here, be thought any other thing than Duty? Thus the learned Hales, (lately reprinted with Miſcellan. p. 211.) ſo then if there may be a National Church from conſent, in the ſame Articles of Religion, Rules of Government, Order of Worſhip, it ſeems theſe ſhould be clear from ſuſpected and unlawful things, that it incur not the cenſure of a Schiſmatical Church.

P. 19. I do not intend to ſpeak of the Terms upon which Perſons are to be admitted among us to the exerciſe of the Function of the Miniſtry, but of the Terms of Lay-Communion.

I confeſs, Sir, theſe are not to be confounded. You know my mind, by what I wrote about 17 years ſince, and at leaſt have heard, what has been my practice. I could be ſatisfied to join in that Worſhip, wherein I could not officiate as a Miniſter. You have had my Reaſons heretofore. But I conceive the matter which the Doctor drives at in this Sermon, cannot be fully decided without a due conſideration of the caſe of the ejected Miniſters, which you ſee me led to towards the end of theſe Papers.

P. 20. In the judgment of ſome of the moſt impartial Men of the Diſſenters at this day, although they think the caſe of the Miniſters very hard on the Account of Subſcriptions and Declarations required of them; yet they confeſs very little is to be ſaid on the behalf of the People, from whom none of thoſe things are required. So that the People are condemned in their Separation, by their own Teachers.

Anſ. And would not the Doctor himſelf have thought it an hard caſe with Miniſters heretofore? See Irenic. p. 64. I am ſure it is contrary to the primitive Practice, and the Moderation then uſed, to ſuſpend or deprive Men of their Miniſterial Function for not conforming in Habits, Geſtures or the like. Was he ſure of it, when he wrote this, and can he be ſure of the contrary now? Or would the primitive Church by no means have ſuſpended or degraded Miniſters for not comforming in an Habit, or Geſture; did the Primitive Church never think it worth the while to make any ſtanding Laws for Rites and Cuſtoms that had no other original but Tradition, (as in Preface to Iren. p. 10.) and yet would it have been thought worth the while then p. 23to have impoſed a great deal more than the uſe of an Habit, Geſture, or old Cuſtom, things the lawfulneſs whereof might have been much more ſuſpected, and then ſuſpend and degrade thoſe, that would not ſubmit unto them? Surely, we ſhould have better thoughts than ſo of the Primitive Church.

One thing had almoſt eſcaped me, (beginning of p. 20.) I will not ſay, there hath been a great deal of Art uſed to confound theſe two, (and it is eaſy to diſcern to what purpoſe it is.) But thus the Doctor in effect ſays, what he ſays, I will not ſay, there hath been a great deal of Art uſed—As if being crafty we caught People with guile, I hope it is not ſo. As for my ſelf, many know what my Principle and Practice hath been. I have never uſed any Art to draw off any from attending on the Miniſtry of the legal publick Preachers. At my firſt turning out I did ſeriouſly bend my Studies, to ſatisfy my ſelf and others of the lawfulneſs of joyning ſtill with the publick Congregations, and thereupon I wrote on that Subject, and was willing my Papers ſhould go into the hands of any that deſired them, not only Conformiſts, but thoſe of the Congregational Perſwaſion too, beſides diverſe others. When the King's Licences came forth, I having opportunity (at that time in a Journey) to ſee and converſe with diverſe Miniſters in my Predicament, made it my Buſineſs where I came to perſwade to ſuch an uſe of that Liberty, as might give leaſt offence to our Conforming Brethren. And ſtill to this day, I would ſo time my work, as not to hinder others of any benefit they might get under their Miniſtration. And I think I may ſay, the greateſt part of thoſe that go under the Name of Diſſenters, or Non-Conformiſts, are of the ſame Mind, and do practiſe accordingly. I know many Miniſters in one little Town (if we may call ſuch a number as four, a many) not one of whom would be employed there, while the legal publick Preacher is officiating, but would rather chooſe to hear him. How many of us that have been almoſt 18 years out of Place, that can appeal to God, the ſearcher of all Hearts, we have not uſed any Art to take People off from publick Miniſters by Law allowed, if they had any tolerable fitneſs for Miniſterial Work. No, rather we wiſh, and ſhould be heartily glad (I hope) to ſee them more ſerviceable, more ſucceſsful, than ever we have been. Truly, I am more pierced with ſuch an uncharitable Inſinuation of the Doctors, then with the dint of any of his Arguments.

Yet I muſt confeſs we are not all of a mind. Some do not think it lawful to join with them. Now ſuppoſe them to be in an error, yet I queſtion whether it would not be uncharitable to ſay, They uſe a great deal of Art—and it is eaſy to diſcern to what purpoſe it is. What p. 24they do, or do not, under thoſe apprehenſions they have at preſent, is in the ſimplicity of their hearts. Poſſibly, another method than hath been taken, might reconcile them to that Church-Communion, which at preſent they dare not own.

P. 20. But how they can preach lawfully to a People, who commit a fault in hearing them, I do not underſtand.

I hope, it will be found neither unlawful for them to preach (being true Miniſters ſtill) nor unlawful for others to hear them. But I am not come to that yet. At preſent I ſay but this, The Doctor no doubt knows, he hath divers that come out of other Pariſhes ordinarily to hear him, which is a thing contrary to his eſtabliſhed Rule. Then do they not in his judgment commit a fault in hearing him? Then how does he ſatisfy himſelf that he can preach lawfully to them? I am ſumus ergo pares. Now may not he and his Diſſenting Brethren ſhake hands? If they are not warning their Hearers in every Sermon to take heed of the Principles, and Sin of Separation, is the Doctor in every Sermon he preaches warning the People to take heed of leaving their Pariſh-Church, and charging any that belong to another Pariſh to depart?

P. 20. I do not confound bare ſuſpending Communion in ſome particular Rites, which Perſons do modeſtly ſcruple, and uſing it in what they judge to be lawful; with either total or at leaſt ordinary forbearance of Communion in what they judg to be lawful; and proceeding to the forming of ſeparate Congregations, i. e. under other Teachers, and by other Rules than what the eſtabliſhed Religion allows. And this is the preſent caſe of Separation which I intend to conſider, and to make the ſinfulneſs and miſchief of it appear.

Bona verba, quaeſo. Here is the ſtating of the caſe the Doctor hath determined in his Sermon.

Here 1. I obſerve, the Doctor ſeems to allow a partial Separation. That is, a bare ſuſpending Communion in ſome particular Rites, which Perſons do modeſtly ſcruple, while they uſe it in what they judg lawful. For which (becauſe he ſays ſo little here) See Iren. p. 117, 118. withdrawing Communion from a Church in unlawful or ſuſpected things, doth not lay Men under the guilt of Schiſm. Which becauſe he knew it might meet with oppoſition from thoſe Men, who will ſooner call Men Schiſmaticks than prove them ſo, he there offers reaſon for it. Now ſome modeſtly ſcruple a particular Rite, and Communion in the Liturgy, as being impoſed: but what the Doctor will ſay to that I know not; though this I know, he hath ſaid ſomething that would ſeem to favour them And his ſo much commended Hales ſays, 'Whereſoever falſe or ſuſpected Opinions are made a piece p. 25of the Church-Liturgy, he that ſeparates is not the Schiſmatick. Miſcellan p. 218.

2. Methinks, thoſe Diſſenters (as they are called) that do ordinarily hold Communion with them in God's Worſhip, ſo far as it is his Worſhip, ſhould not fall under the Doctors laſh here; though they have other occaſional Meetings beſides.

3. A total forbearance of Communion with them, I confeſs, has a deep ſound. As if one would not have Communion with them at all, though never ſo fair an opportunity offered it ſelf. I would hope the far greateſt part of the publick Congregations in England may ſtill be looked upon as parts of Chriſt's viſible Church, that have the ſubſtantials of God's Worſhip, ſuch as at leaſt upon occaſion Chriſtians might lawfully join in. But if there be an ordinary forbearance, it is much what the ſame, as if it was total, with the Doctor. And yet indeed till more forbearance and condeſcenſion is ſhewn, or better ſatisfaction given than I can find in this Sermon before me, I muſt forbear paſſing ſo ſevere a cenſure in the caſe, as I ſee others do. Yea, ſome whom I hope to meet in the General Aſſembly at laſt, that would refuſe to hear me for that very cauſe the Doctor ſpeaks of ſometimes, that I own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches; yet could I be ſatisfied upon occaſion, to join with them, having one that I could look upon as called and ſeparated to the work of the Miniſtry among them. Though ſome would count me a Fanatick for it, yet I hope I am a Catholick.

4. The Doctor takes in a proceeding to the forming of ſeparate Congregrations, i. e. under other Teachers, and by other Rules than what the eſtabliſhed Religion allows.

Now 1. I would not underſtand the Doctor ſo▪ as if he was for a compliance with any Religion that is uppermoſt, whatever it be, true or falſe. I do not look upon him as ſuch a Latitudinarian, that would plead for Mr. Hobs his publick Conſcience [of whom the report goes, that when ſome ſerious counſel was given him concerning his Soul, and his everlaſting State a little before his Death, he ſware. If I was at Heaven, what a fall ſhould I have? As if he would have the World know, he lived and died an Atheiſt. Quilis vita, finis ita.] But I ſhould do the Reverend Doctor a man feſt wrong, if after all he has written againſt the Papiſts, and for the juſtifying of our ſeparation from Rome, I did ſuppoſe, that he would not be for ſeparation in this caſe, ſhould the Romiſh eligion ever come to be eſtabliſhed. He knows when under Arrian Biſhops, many both of the Clergy and People, who reſolved to adhere to the true Faith, withdrew from the publick p. 26Meetings, and had private Aſſemblies of their own, Iren. p 115. As he very well knows what the renowned Hales hath written, p. 230, 231. In times of manifeſt corruptions and perſecutions, wherein Religious aſſembling is dangerous, private Meetings, howſoever beſides publick Order, are not only lawful, but they are of Neceſſity and Duty—All pious Aſſemblies (in ſuch times) are indeed, or rather alone the lawful Congregations; and publick Aſſemblies, though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing elſe but Riots and Conventicles, if they be ſtained with corruption and ſuperſtition. So he.

Sure the Doctor cannot think, as Mr. Hobs, that any Aſſembly, forbidden by the Civil Sovereign to aſſemble, is an unlawful Aſſembly, that without his Authority a Church ought not to aſſemble.

2. Therefore the Doctor muſt be underſtood of forming Congregations under other Teachers, and by other Rules than what the true Religion eſtabliſhed allows—.

Now if this be the ſtate of the caſe; 1. Thoſe Congregations the Doctor aims at, are of the ſame Religion. I hope the Doctor is not got ſo high as to place Religion in thoſe things wherein Parochial Congregations differ from them, to make the things neceſſary.

2. They doubt not but it is eaſy to prove, they have true Miniſters, ſuch Teachers as the Word of God, the certain Rule of Religion, allows.

3. And that they have divine Ordinances diſpenſed, and no other Worſhip of God than the Word of God allows. Yea, I ſee an able Lawyer, in his Advice to a Juſtice of Peace, p. 5. concluding, that it cannot be proved other. Worſhip than the eſtabliſhed Religion (or the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England) allows.

4. And may it not be a Queſtion, whether they can properly be ſaid to erect new Churches, or to proceed to the forming of ſeparate Congregations, who were true Miniſters, and had their Congregations before others came into their places? If they had done nothing worthy of ejection, or excluſion from their Miniſtry, whether they have not ſtill a right to exerciſe their Function? And conſequently, whether others may not as juſtly be ſaid to draw away their People from them, as they are charged with the ſame Practice?

5. And whether if any Rules are eſtabliſhed to bar ſuch Miniſters as God hath allowed, and tending to deprive multitudes of Chriſtians of the benefit of his publick Worſhip, and Ordinances of his own appointment, whether ſuch Rules can be ſtrictly binding, or whether they are not an encroachment upon the Authority of God and Jeſus Chriſt?

6. And let it be conſidered, whether if the poor Proteſtants now under the Power of France, who are deprived of their Temples, and p. 27places of publick Worſhip, ſhould flee into England for the free exerciſe of their Religion here, whether I ſay, they ſhould be obliged in all things to ſubmit to the Eſtabliſhed Rule and Order among us, or elſe be held guilty of a ſinful and miſchievous courſe of Separation, not to be tolerated and endured?

7. If Forreigners ſhould be allowed a liberty of aſſembling for the Worſhip of God, without being ſtrictly bound up to the preſent Rule eſtabliſhed (in all things); or cenſured and taken for Separatiſts, why might not the ſober, peaceable Chriſtians among us be allowed the ſame liberty, without being laid under that charge and cenſure? Shall the Church of England think, that all her Charity and forberance is owing to ſtrangers, that ſhe ſhould ſhow none to thoſe, who are in ſome reſpect nearer to her?

8. Whether it will not be ſaid the eſtabliſhed Religion is the ſame now, it was in King Edward the ſixth's days, when a Rubrick left it to the diſcretion of the Miniſter, what and how much to read, when there was a Sermon?

9. Whether there are not ſome publick places, that are not very well ſatisfied with what they have done, and come not up (in every punctilio) to the eſtabliſh'd Rule? As ſome read not all the Common Prayer they are enjoyned; ſome uſe not the Surplice; Some omit the Croſs in Baptiſm; ſome dare not put away any from the Sacrament meerly becauſe they are not ſatisfied to receive it kneeling. Now are ſuch to be accounted ſeparate Congregations (in the Doctor's ſence?) If it be ſaid, Though they vary a little from the eſtabliſh'd Rule, yet they keep to their Pariſh-Churches, and have Preachers Epiſcopally ordained, and publickly allowed.

Anſ. 1. The Aſſembly, not the place, makes a Chriſtian Congregation. And ſuch Congregations were before Pariſhes were known in the world. The diſtribution into Pariſhes was only accidental, convenient but not of neceſſity. The Doctor ſayes, (Ser. p. 28.) After ſometime (but not till after ſome time) in the greater Cities they had diſtinct Places allotted, and Presbyters fixed among them; and ſuch Allotments were called Titles at Rome, and Laurae at Alexandria, and Pariſhes in other places. And how Common is it in London for men to go Ordinarily to other Churches and Miniſters? Now will it be ſaid, that ſuch (leaving their own Pariſh-Church) make the Congregations with whom they joyn, Separate Congregations? Beſides, there ſhould be no difference here, if it might be as the Non-Conformiſt's would have it, they would be for preaching in Pariſh-Churches to chuſe, if they might.

p. 282. If the moſt of them were Ordained by Presbyters, yet that invalidates not their Ordination. Iren. p. 379. After Epiſcopal Government was ſettled in the Church, yet Ordination by Presbyters was looked on as valid. And p. 381. Biſhop Bancroft himſelf (as is to be ſeen in Spotſwood) would not have it called in queſtion. An Acquaintance of mine being upbraided with it, that he was ordained by none but a company of Presbyters, quickly returned thus; You were ordained by a Biſhop, I was Ordained by many Biſhops together, and ſuch Biſhops as may be proved Scripture Biſhops. But there are ſome ancient Men, yea, ſome that are younger too, who had Epiſcopal Ordination. And may it yet be ſaid of theſe, that they are other Teachers, then the Eſtabliſhed Religion allows?

3. If they are not allowed, that is the thing in queſtion, whether Men have power to forbid them to preach, and exerciſe the office of the Miniſtry, who have been duly called, and ſet apart to it, and have not deſerved degrading from it?

10. If Men have power to eſtabliſh Rules; excluding from the Miniſtry thouſands, not to be excluded by any Rules laid down in God's Word, whether the Church be not left in a Woful caſe, who by ſuch means may be deprived of all, or the greateſt and ſoundeſt part of her Miniſters, and conſequently of God, Ordinances at mens pleaſure? When about 2000 Miniſters are ſuppoſed to have been turned out together, what if all the Miniſters in place had been of the ſame Judgment, not ſatisfied of the lawfulneſs of their ſubmitting to the Eſtabliſhed Rule, if thereupon they muſt all have laid down their Miniſtry, then how ſad a ſtate had Multitudes of Chriſtian Congregations been left in, even as Sheep having no Shepherd? Can we think that Chriſt has left his Church at ſuch miſerable uncertainties, at ſuch a loſs, that ſhe ſhould have no Miniſters, if Rulers ſay at one time, there ſhall be no Miniſters but ſuch as declare their aſſent and conſent to ſuch forms, and modes of Worſhip to another Book beſides the Bible, and all things contained in it? and at another time, None ſhall be Miniſters, but ſuch as declare their aſſent and conſent to the utter aboliſhing of all forms? If thouſands of his Miniſters ſhall be cut off with a Rule for Conformity on the one hand, and as many cut off with a Rule againſt it on the other hand?

5. Take notice here what the Doctor ſayes elſe where, ſo he would have no penalty inflicted, till it may be ſeen whether they diſobey out of wilful contempt and obſtinacy of ſpirit, not only out of weakneſs of Conſcience and Diſſatisfaction concerning the things themſelves. And if it be made evident to be out of contempt, yet that p. 29only ſuch penalties be inflicted as anſwer to the nature of the offence, Iren. p. 64. And p. 42. As for the derivation of the power and authority of the Function (of the Miniſtry) that is from Chriſt. But for the Adminiſtration of the Function, two things belong to the Magiſtrate: Firſt, to provide and take care for due Adminiſtration of it; and to ſee that Miniſters preach the true Doctrine, though he cannot lawfully forbid the true Doctrine to be taught; and that they duely adminiſter the Sacraments, though he cannot command them to adminiſter them otherwiſe then Chriſt hath delivered them down to us. Secondly, in caſe of male-Adminiſtration of his Function, or Scandal, rendring him unfit for it, it is in a Magiſtrate's power, if not formally to depoſe, yet to deprive them of the liberty of ever exerciſing their function within his Dominions. But I conceive, the Doctor will be hard put to it, to prove the ejected Miniſters guilty of ſuch male-Adminiſtration, or Scandal, for which the Magiſtrate might juſtly deny them the liberty of exerciſing their Function within his Dominions. If it be within the Magiſtrat's power to forbid Miniſters Preaching true Doctrine, and duly adminiſtring Sacraments, without any cauſe rendring them unfit, the conſequence would be very ſad, as was ſhewed before: if it be not within their power, then ſuch may go on in the exerciſe of their Miniſtry notwithſtanding Mens command to the contrary. And if ſuch are not diveſted of their office, they have authority to exerciſe it ſtill, as they ſhall have opportunity. As the Doctor (in his ſeveral Conferences, p. 122.) tells us, He could not imagine that any Perſons would ſuppoſe the Chriſtian Church would allow a validity of Orders, without lawful Authority to uſe and exerciſe thoſe Orders. And p. 123. Can any Man be ſo ſenſleſs to think—(And p. 132.) the Church never allowed one, but it allowed the other alſo? If you ſhould reply, that the Doctor. (p. 140.) ſuppoſeth, it may be actually taken away by the cenſures of the Church. My Anſwer is, Yet I hope the Doctor will not ſay, that the Church hath an unlimited power here, that ſhe may ſuſpend, degrade, and deſpoſe whom ſhe pleaſeth; but that ſhe muſt have juſt ground for proceeding to ſuch a cenſure. He that before boundeth the Magiſtrates power (as we ſee before) would not have the Churches power left unbounded. If the Church hath power to cenſure, ſuſpend, and depoſe the bad, for Scandal, Hereſy, Idolatry, it will not follow, that ſhe hath the like power to ſuſpend and depoſe the good too (when ſhe pleaſeth) for non-compliance in things ſuſpected, if not unlawful. This would be a power for Deſtruction, not for Edification. A power to Act p. 30againſt the Truth, not for the Truth: Such a Power as the Apoſtles would never claim, or exerciſe.