Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 2 · Section 5
SECT. V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion.
HAving Stated the Question, he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters: And 1st. against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty, where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful. 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful. He insisteth on the 1st. Sect. 16. &c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question; which I have done above; and here resume it briefly: Occasion…l Communion is either in some Duties, or in all Duties; and so is constant Communion. I hope he doth not mean, that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances, as Preaching, Prayer, &c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances; because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances, and not to others. The Question then is, whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly, and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin; and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin, set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end: whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly, where there is no Sin in their joining in. To make the thing plainer by Instances; we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists; and do not shun to do it occasionally; but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments; and sometimes even to their Preaching, by their second Service at the end, as well as the first at the beginning, that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments; and but seldom other Ordinances, in purity; and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity. Now the Question is, whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly, rather than in our private Meetings. The Dr. is for the Affirmative; we are for the Negative.
Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion; I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us. 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication; all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto, on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth; though he labour to palliate the Matter, Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us; yea, most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name; and Prosecuted with such Severities, that we may not be seen in Publick: It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion, and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion. 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use, can neither satisfie the Laws of the State (which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters) nor of the Church: There is no Law for hearing of Sermons; but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments; from which they have excluded us by their Impositions. Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them, which themselves lay so little weight on, while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion, so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be? 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances; we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings, and from those Pastors; than in the Assembles, which we are so necessitated to leave, or rather are driven from, for a time.
Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion, the Dr. undertaketh to make out. 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation. 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him; we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation, that he layeth on us: Neither do I see how that by it self could do it. If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion, we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church, by Communion with her now and then. It is no wonder that the Presbyterians (as he saith) were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren, because they saw no just cause of their denying constant. Communion; which if we cannot shew in our case, we are indeed faulty. I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church, and how not: And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member, but I hope it will not be denied, but that, with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it, will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church; and it may excuse from the tantum, though not from the totum of Separation, as I believe it did in the Independants, compared with the Brownists, in reference to the Presbyterians, which the Dr. instanceth. For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament, and yet Preaching, What Evil is in it, or in other instances of this nature, will be charged on his Party, who deprive us of the Ordinances of the Lord with them, by their sinful Impositions; and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise, by their Persecutions; many things of that nature are our Affliction, and their Sin; but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship.
Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking, and come to attend him in his second; to wit, That constant Communion is a Duty, where Occasional Communion is lawful. This he manageth, Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this, as it is here set down; to wit, joining with other Parishes in a Journey, at a Lecture, &c. but I am willing to understand it, with the Dr. of Communion with a Church, whereof we have been or should be Members; and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions; where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties; for his opinion in this, he bringeth two Arguments; the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church. This he inforceth, by proving this Obligation; which none of us ever denied; but do with more reason retort all that can be said, on that he…d, on themselves, who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity; they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies: …or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity; but the Dr. should have proved, 1. That our coming to their Sermons, as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it, and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication, and C…pi…ndo's, would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Vnity. 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God; it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away, to desert these Meetings, and wait on so much of their Administrations, as they should be pleas…d to allow us. Our Hearts do not reproach us, as this Learned Author doth, That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists, that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done, with a good Conscience: He meaneth toward Communion with the Church.
Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument, and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it, is built on a mistake; to wit, That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments. If Mr. B. or any other, are of that opinion, I know not why they should be Non-conformists: If I were convinced of it, I should not deny constant Communion with the Church, whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere; only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth, p. 159. when they speak of some cases, where joining with the Church, would do more harm than good. Was ever Schism, saith he, made so light of? And the Peace and Vnity of Christianity valued at so low a rate? Ans. Yes, to wit, by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony, for the Peace that they so much talk of; but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force, to the dividing of the Church, the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers, and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls. Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians, than these men do, if you believe their deeds, and yet value it more highly, if ye regard their words? He asketh, p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies? Ans. We read part of that Service-Book daily in our Assemblies; to wit, the Scriptures therein contained, we read them out of the Bible; but for using the Book, or any part of it, as in that composure, we find no obligation on us to that; both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church, more than Preaching of the same Doctrine, and praying for the same things, is counted by them; also, we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service, as a humane device, that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship. A…d lastly, because having once par…ed with them, in the matter of worship; we think we should take our Rule for manageing our Worship, from the Scripture, rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions.
Sect. 6. All his Arguments, Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake; to wit, that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful: If that were true, Communion with them sometimes for peace, might well inferr constant Communion, for the same good design. Neither do I say, that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies; however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere, then where we are Members of a Church. I look not on our Lords Communion with the Jewish Church, as only Occasional, but Constant, so far as the Wo…k that he was sent into the World for, did permit; but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship, as the Dr. alledgeth, p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication, as other Jews were, is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground; and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it; and therefore his bare asserting it, should not have been thought enough to set it off. All that the Scripture saith of this, is, That he walked in Solomon's Porch, Joh. 10. 22, 23. Did none of the Jews more than this, at that Feast? Is it not to be thought, that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings, and other religious Observations, on account of the want of Institution; and defended the Non-conformity of his Disciples to these Observations; would himself observe a Religious Solemnity, that had no other warrant nor foundation, but what those other things had, which he condemneth? It is then rational to think, that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse; as the Apostles after did, when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated, and not fit to be observed.
Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument, Sect. 19. from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule; let us mind the same things: To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty; for, saith he, from hence appeareth evident, that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Vniformity, and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity. This Argument is but lamely proposed, and this Scripture but weakly improved (by what the Dr. saith) to prove his design. Two things, it seems, he would inferr from it; to wit, Vniformity, and Study of Peace. I first ask him, whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined; so as to study the one, is to study the other also; and neglecting the one, is, to neglect the other? If he say they are not, why doth he here conjoin them? Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle, without Uniformity? If he say they are, it is easie to prove the contrary; for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches, though not Vniformity; but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self; to wit, between Cathedral and Parochial Service; and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism, nor breach of Unity; or, will the Dr. say, that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church, except in Cathedrals? I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity, for he knew no such distinction of Churches, or Officers, on whom it dependeth, under the New Testament.
Sect. 8. I ask, Secondly, what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin; if in Doctrine, instituted Worship, Holy Conversation, and such like: I grant it to be our Duty to study it; But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer, in the same religious instituted Ceremonies; yea, or in all the same Circumstances, let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing; for we deny it: And it is generally held, that the Ancient Church (which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice) was very various, and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs; as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers, Lib. 2. p. 148.—but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum, p. 65, 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church, that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches, without any censuring of those that differed from them, or if any, by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far (as the Dr. and others now doth) how ill it was resented by other Christians. A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said: But, O quantum mutatus ab illo—We deny that Vniformity (such as that our Breth…en use to plead so hotly for) was any part of the Apostles meaning; and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text.
Sect. 9. I do, in the Third place, readily acknowledge, that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians, as far as they can attain, by their understanding of what is their Duty; and as far as they can lawfully do, to study Peace and Unity, as with all men; so with the Church of which they are Members. But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty; for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies, we have not attained so far: We see not the lawfulness of the use of these, much less of the constant use of them; and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way. I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text, to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church, by not pressing us with these things, nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church, because of them; for they have attained so far, they know them to be indifferent, and so unnecessary: They and we agree in this Attaintment; why then do we not walk by the same Rule, in laying them aside, and minding the same things; to wit, the Unity of the Church, and not our own Enriching, Grandeur, and Dominion over our Brethren? But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching, 1. That themselves hinder, by their Excommunication. 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances, that their Violence hath placed us in, as hath been shewed. 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity, while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts. So that the Apostle's command in this Text, doth not at all reach our case, and how far it reacheth the Imposers, let them look to it.
Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text, even supposing his own Exposition of the Text, I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it; nor in his Refutations of them; yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text, which may seem to make against our cause. And, 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith, That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge; supposing which, they should jointly practise what they know; and bear with one another in what they differed about. To confirm this, (if i… be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks, which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Dean…ies to furnish them with vast Libraries) this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters, gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum & perfectioris vitae, say Menochius, Estius and Tirinus. In eo quod revelavit Deus; saith Zanchius: Who, though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church, as the Dr. a…le…geth, p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge; and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say, that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices; but in God's Truth, and Institutions, which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend. Also Bullinger in loc. (not cited by Mr. Pool) Idem sentientes, & concordibus votis, calculis, & studiis progrediamur, agnitaque veritate provehamur. Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter, that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy: I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion.
Sect. 11. The Dr. here, against Dr. O. discusseth three Points; the first is, Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions, or of different Practices. He endeavoureth to prove the latter, because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision, and maketh a digression concerning himself; he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end; and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law, that People should not listen to them, because they made Divisions among them, and divided them by different Observations. This is to expound Scripture by our fancy. It is evident, that the Apostle is speaking of Justification, which the Concision Thought must be, by the Works of the Law: And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness; but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth, even in that great point, waiting till God should instruct them. I see nothing that he saith to prove, that it was meant of different Practices, but rather of different Opinions, that divided the Church: But whether the one or the other, it proveth not, that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace, but rather bear with one another for that end.
Sect. 12. Next he enquireth, Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance. I think the Question should rather be, Whether it was a Rule of God's making, or of Man's making? Whatever the Rule were in particular. Tirinus saith, Regulam hic intelligit a Christo & Apostolis ejus praescriptam. Zanchius, Doctrinam quam modo tradidit, summam doctrinae Chr…stianae, tum de d…gmatibus, tum de moribus. Doctrinam fidei, say Estius & Menochius. Grotius saith, Etiam qui de ri…ibus & circumcisione aliter sentiunt, interim s…iant, evangelij praecepta, quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda. If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule, he will gain much by this Scripture, otherwise nothing at all. We are content to follow a Divine Rule, for attaining Peace in the Church; it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church, by injoining to hold to the same Rule; but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules, but they that make Rules of their own, and will tear the Church in pieces, rather than these should not be observed. The Third thing he enquireth into is, What influence this Rule hath on our Case. He saith, It obligeth to go as far as we can: This is confessed. But then we say, It is a Divine, and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can, (i. e.) ought to go. He saith, When we can go no further, we must sit down quietly, and wait for further Instruction, and not divide the Church. Ans. When the Apostle speaketh, ver. 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake, I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge, which should make them not over-drive them, (as our Brethren would do with us) than what is their Duty. I am far from saying, that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church, but I am sure, two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope, to injoin such doubting Christians; 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light, to join with them that they differ from, either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple. 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them, unless they thus sin against Light, that they should live without the Ordinances. None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel; and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth. The Dr. saith, p. 171. This Rule, in order to Peace, requireth the observing of such things, which although they be not particularly appointed by God, yet are injoined by lawful Authority, and not repugnant to the Word. I wish the Dr. had proved, that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God; we deny it. It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God, but appointed by Lawful Authority; but let us see a general Rule from the Word, for what we scruple, and that will satisfie us: Or, let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus, or religioso, that God hath not appointed. It is most falsly asserted, p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience, about abstaining from Blood, &c. the Governours of the Church, (he hath now changed the stile; it used to be, the Magistrate) by parity of Reason, may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve: For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion, he must prove, 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases. 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides, and those by the Apostles; these were necessary, and the Apostles Decree found them so, and had its Rise from this necessity. The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent, and to have no necessity, but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them.
Sect. 13. He saith, p. 173, in answer to another of his Opposers, That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches, which are not extant in Scripture, as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches, not to any Church in particular. 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture, is false; for it is extant in this place. 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station, is no prudential Rule of Order and Government, as the Dr. hinteth, but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of, or inferred from Scripture, tho' they be not, in terminis, extant there. But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these.