SECT. I. The Author 's Introductory Discourse considered; Designs for Peace and Union plausible; as ordinarily managed, unsuccess­ful.

I Have read an elegant Oration in praise of a Quartane Ague; Ano­ther, Extolling the incomparable virtues of the Gout; and one great wit would needs write in commendation of its only enemy, Folly, but never yet could meet with a Panegyrick in Honour of Fisty-cuffs, and Bloody noses. Whoever therefore shall employ his Pen to write, his Tongue to plead in the Cause of Peace and Union, is secure to carry the day, without controul; and may claim the Priviledge of him that is of Counsel for the King, to have the first and last word to himself.

But many cry Hosannah to Peace one day, who will crucifie it the next: And whilst they seem with the good Angels, to proclaim Peace on Earth, yet some so far do imitate the evil ones, that they have no good will towards men. So common it is, to make a Preface for Peace to Usher [Page 2] in an Alarm to war; and Invitations to Union a fair Pretext for persecuti­on; as a Reverend Divine once told his Auditors in the Pulpit, Plain dealing is a Jewel, but he that uses it will dye a Beggar.

There is nothing more common than to press the necessity of Union, and yet at the same time to continue the necessary causes of Division: which sort of Rhetoricians might do well to consider, that whilst they declaim most passionately against the evil of Separation, they do but whip their own crimes upon other mens backs, and reproach themselves by railing at other mens faults. In which popular discourses, we hear of nothing, but the prejudice, passion, Interest of those who will not obey; but not a word, I warrant you, of their own Pride, Rigor, and Imperiousness, in what they command; always studying and pretending Reasons why matters ought to be wrong, but never offering rational expedients to set what is wrong, to Rights.

Were it lawful to be pleasant in a case so sad as ours is, this Author has given us the temptation and that only by Inverting his words, with­out the least perverting of the Truth: There's no impossibility, nor conside­rable difficulty to Retrieve the universal Peace of the Christian world, if all men were such Christians as they ought to be; (which I dare engage for them they never will) but till mens Lordly pride be subdued to a greater de­gree than the world has yet found it, 'tis in vain ao expect this state of peace and tranquility in the Church. Nor shall we need to go far, (not a step) from home, for a sufficient evidence of this; for though our differences are such, as the wiser Protestants abroad, not only condemn, but wonder at, (and the Protestants at home smart under the effects of them) yet has it puzzled the wisest persons among us, to compose them; because they that presume themselves to be, and really should have been so, have more studied to bring in the causes, than to remove the consequences of our troubles: But the most surprizing thing in all the Doctors preamble, is his sad complaint, that neither the miseries we have felt, nor the calamities we fear, nor the terri­ble judgments of God upon us, nor the unexpected deliverances vouchsafed to us, nor the common danger we are yet in, have abated mens h [...]ats, nor allayed their passions, or made them more willing to unite with our establisht Church, and Religion. And may not others make as sad Reflections upon these things as himself? That neither these, any of these, nor all these, nor as many more than all these, have abated mens Rigors, nor mitigated their fury, nor allayed the ugly lust of trampling on, and triumphing o­ver Conscience, nor quencht that immortal spark of aspiring after Empire and Dominion over souls, but still they are as unwilling, nay more unwill­ing to render the present constitution such as may safely, and comfortably [Page 3] be complied with? And have they indeed felt such miseries? Why has not passion taught them compassion? and what is that burden they feel? ar [...] loads of Honour, and Wealth grown such insupportable grievances? or do they not call (like those that are to be prest to death) more weight for the Lord's sake, more weight! But do they indeed fear future calamities? give others a little ease from their present calamities! are they apprehen­sive of approaching danger? what will they do to prevent them? which of their severities will they suspend till the danger is over, that they may then more safely, at it again? Are the terrible judgments of God upon them? why will they not keep one of Gods fasts to remove them? Isa. 58.6. to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppress­ed go free, and to break every yoak. Some will say, this scripture is im­pertinently applied: well, Be it so! yet I have this to comfort me; 'tis not so hugely wide as that quoted by the Dr. Judg. 5.15, 16. Who confesses he neither understood it, nor was concern'd in it. Nor yet so much as his Text: who infers that we must walk further then, because we are commanded to walk as far as we have already attained. But have they enjoyed such unexpected deliverances? Let them not say, we are delivered to commit all these abominations! And are we all in common danger? Let us share in the common favour! contribute to the common security! and do not weaken the hands of friends, strengthen the hands of common ene­mies; nor make it indifferent to dissenters, whether they be smothered in the house, or forced to venture their necks by leaping out at the windows: for so have the miserable Hungarians been tempted to think it better to live, nay, to dye once, under the Ottoman sword, than to be always dy­ing under the Austrian tyranny. I shall then begin to believe that man is afraid of a Paroxysme of the Gout, who will retrench his intemperance to prevent it; and will then suppose them real and sincere in complaining of what they feel, or fear, when they will forbear, or do, at least some very little thing, to remove the one, and obviate the other: But Domini­on even in a Dungeon is too sweet a morsel to be spit up again, unless God gives a strong vomit; A prelatical spirit will be persecuting when in exile at Frankfurt; and the Jesuites thought it worthy their ambition, to vex the Seculars, even in Wisbich Castle.

Let then the Dr. conclude with that grave sentence. All parties pre­tend a Zeal for Peace, so they may have it in their own way; by which it appears, that it's not peace they aim at, but victory, nor unity so much as having their own wills. I will therefore compound with him at ten shil­lings per pound, that is, let him take one half of this for truth, and resign [...]e the other; That one partie has a Zeal for Peace, so they may have it [Page 4] in their own way; and then I shall gain this by the bargain; That it's [...]ot Peace they seek, but Victory, nor Unity, so much, as having their own wills.

Peace then (without bringing in St. Austin for a voucher) is a good thing, yes, a very good thing it is, if we could catch it; but thus have I seen one sport with his Dog, shewing him a crust, which when the poor Cur has zealously jumpt to reach, he holds it up higher, and never in­tends him one snap of it.

Our Romish adversaries (it seems) do continually upbraid us with our Schisms and Separations. (Let'em look at home!) To take off which reproach the Dr. thinks, it would be happy, if all those who agree in renouncing the errors, and corruptions of the Roman Church, could as easily join together in the great duties of our common Religion, that is in our prayers, and praises, and Sacraments, and all solemn acts of divine worship. And will this make us all happy? Then I proclaim to all Protestants from this day forward, solid happiness! for we all join together in the great duties of our common Re­ligion; for though we join not in the private fancies, niceties, and opini­ons of some one partie, in the great duties common to all Protestants we are fully agreed: Agreed in the matter of our prayers, if not in the form; in the matter of our praises, though not in the mode; in Sacraments, though perhaps not in superstitions annexed to them; in the Acts of Divine Worship, though not in the parts of humane worship; in the substance, not in Ceremonie; and in one God, one Christ, though not in one Place, which probably we never shall till St. Pauls be built, and probably not then neither, but must adjourn our local meeting to the day of the General Assembly: Thus are we all agreed, who are agreed, and so far as we are agreed in renouncing the errors and corruptions of Rome; but if it shall ap­pear that we are not agreed in this, in vain do we expect agreement in o­ther things.

There are two things, at which the Church might possibly aim, when­ever merciful providence should recover it out of the gloomy shades of persecution; the one, Purity, the other external Splendor and Glory: But it's sadly observable that Church-men who always engross to them­selves the conduct and management of affairs, commonly begin at the wrong end of their work; Securing in the first place their own Grandeur and Dignity, and leaving the Reforming the Abuses which had silently crept in, as a matter of less concernment, to their better leisure: So was it in the days of Constantine, Queen Elizabeth, so was it in our own, when the Cler­gy fell a scrambling for preferments, (as boys for a largess of nuts and apples) whilst Reformation lay a bleeding, a gasping, a dying, for they [Page 5] had other Irons in the Fire, which must not cool; so the Sorbonist in his Philosophia Vulgaris refutata, informs us; Jam postquam horrendae tyra [...] norum Carnificinae desierunt, & pax omnimoda parta est, &c. That is, When once the bloody shambles of Tyrants by God's Providence were shut up, and welcome Peace began to shine upon the late clouded Churches, they wisely fell to work with exterior things, and busied themselves about Religious Rites, Ceremonies, Ornaments; about matters of Order, and Subordination; about the Degrees of Ministers, their outward Splendor, the power and efficacy of Church-Discipline; about Laws, Canons, and Ecclesiastical Government; about the Union, and Combination of Churches; about the exalting some in pre­eminence above others, and subjection of the poorer to the greater and richer; about maintaining Uniformity, and preventing Schisms. And this part in­deed the Church happily effected; and when they should have proceeded to the other of Reformation, a dismal hurricane, by the irruption of the Northern, and barbarous Nations, overspread the face of the Church with Egyptian darkness, that it was some Ages before she could recover her former bright­ness.

This is the sad Fate that commonly attends great and general Delive­rances; Churchmen are cumber'd with many things, and neglect the one thing necessary; and instead of reducing Doctrine, Worship and Discip­line to their Original Integrity, to what they were in the beginning, are otherwise employ'd about setling Liturgies, re-inforcing Ceremonies, ex­acting Uniformity, advancing their own Dignity, till God, in righteous judgment, removes from them the opportunities of acting for themselves, who slighted those inviting junctures wherein they might have served their God. And most men have noted, that within these twenty years Provi­dence offer'd them three seasons, wherein with great ease, they might have healed our Breaches; the first, after His Majesties happy Restauration; the second, after the Plague, Fire, and War; the third, after the Discovery of the late Horrid and Popish Plot: but yet it pleased not God to give them, with the opportunities, to see the things that belong'd to our Peace.

We see then Peace is a Commodity everywhere exposed to view: They complain that we cheapen it, but will not buy: And indeed we would not out-bid our Purses, nor buy Gold too dear. We complain that they offer it, but at such unreasonable Rates, that we cannot reach it; but so have many done, that have got rich Goods in their hands, set 'em too high, out­stand a good Market, and at last, perhaps, may be glad to put 'em off for an old Song.

But it's time to come to my self, and attend the Doctor, who, after an [Page 6] eloquent Preamble, in commendation of Peace, which all men grant; and of the danger of Divisions, which none ever yet denied; is pleas'd to com­mand our Attendance to the Word of God, written in Philip. 3.16. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things.

SECT. II. The Text propounded. The Doctor's manner of raising his Doctrines, considered; his Suppositions, Positions, modestly ex­amined; and proved vain in themselves, and useless to his present purpose.

THE Reverend Author, having set himself this great Task, to prove Conformity lawful, the present Separation sinful, has chosen the words of the Apostle, Philip. 3.16. a little varied from the Original, and something from our own Version, that by that disguise it might better comply with, and subserve his great design.

A Text, from which of all in the whole Bible, Dissenters least expected their Conviction; for who could have believed that the Apostle, who, in ver. 15. leaves the otherwise minded, to God's instruction; should, in the next verse, assert the Churches power to make Impositions to their de­struction; that he should blow cold and hot with one and the same breath; and mount an Ecclesiastical Canon, upon a Platform of Modera­tion. Some wonder'd where such a killing Text, should be kept secret all this while, that the world should never dream of, never dread the least dan­ger from it: But it seems there was a necessity for it; for being resolv'd not to bring down their Principles to Scripture they would try if per­haps Scripture might be brought up to their Principles; so easie will it be to convert Dissenters, if once they can pervert the Scriptures.

I cannot conjecture what should ever flatter them, that this Text would become their Proselyte, except it be one of these two things, or both:

First, That they met with the word [...] in it, a Rule or Canon, not in a Military Notion, (for great Guns were not then invented) but an [Page 7] Ecclesiastick acceptation; for spiritual Artillery, which has always done the most dreadful execution: And so to walk by the same Rule, must be (or it's a thousand pities but it should be) to order and govern our selves by the Constitutions of a Convocation, which then was not invented, but in After-Ages, might haply be erected: But their own admired Grotius, has enter'd a mischievous Caveat against this Notion, which may possibly de­feat all their hopes from it: In MS. deest [...], refe­ratur ad illud [...]. That is, In his Manuscript Copy, the word [...], or Rule, is quite left out, so that the expression, Let us walk by the same, must be referred to the Antecedent [...], or [To that;] and then read the words, What we have attained, let us walk up to the same. And now, I hope, the sense is not so mortal to Dissenters, as was threatned; and comes to no more but this, Unto whatsoever measure, or degree of knowledge we have reach'd, let us walk suitably to it: which one Note has utterly, nay maliciously spoil'd the design of a famous Sermon, and render'd the whole Discourse, one great Impertinency. A second thing that might give them hopes of some good from the Text, was a well-sounding expression, Let us mind the same things; which, at a blush, seems to favor the great Dar­ling of Uniformity. And the Reverend Doctor, to render it more plau­sible, has quite through his whole Sermon made bold to render the Com­mand thus, Let us mind the same things: excepting p. 37. where he had occasion to render it, Do the same things. And what man dares now question, but that we are all bound to nick it to a Tag, to a Pin, to a Point, in an uniform practice, in all the minutes, all the punctilio's, all the nice and capillary circumstances of worship? All which fine sport, the bare reading of the original Text will spoil, which is only this: [...], to mind, or let us mind that very thing▪ Here then we find no things, nor same things, nor doing the same things: but that we mind the very thing, which the Apostle mention'd to them; and practised himself, ver. 14. This one thing I do, I press towards the mark for the prize ( [...]) of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. And the same thing he commands others, ver. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect, mind that thing, [...] what you see me mind, that I charge you to mind, that very thing; but if any of you be short in your attainments, let them wait, and we will wait, till God reveal it to them.

These things would have continued exceeding plain, had not some pri­vate Reasons, necessitated men to render them perplexed and obscure; which how the Author of this Sermon will be able to do, we must now attend.

[1] The first step the Doctor takes, to make the words his own, is [Page 8] this: We are (says he) to consider, that an unhappy Schism, or wilful Breach of the Churches Unity, had begun in the Apostles times: there did so, and we have consider'd it, and do find two things considerable. 1. That a Schism, and a wilful Breach, are terms equivalent; where there is no wilful Breach of Peace, there's no Schism. To be turn'd out of the Church against my will, and besides my deserts is none of my Schism; to be kept out of the Church, by the old turn-pikes of sinful conditions, is none of my Schism; Wilful Obstinacy, is the formal reason of Heretical Pravity, and Schismatical Levity. Errare possum, haereticus esse volo: Invincible Igno­rance may betray me to mistakes, but I can chuse whether I will be an Heretick or no: so may I possibly separate, and judge I have just reason so to do; yet will I not be a Schismatick, nor shall they, with all the skill they have, make me one; for I will still maintain a Christian frame of spirit towards those from whom I am forced to separate, and separate no further than I am forced. 2. The Reason of that primitive Schism, is more considerable, which (as the Doctor informs us) was upon a dif­ference that arose concerning the necessity of keeping the law of Moses; and that which made the Schism more dangerous, was, that the beginners of it pretended a Commission from the Apostles. Let now the Reader believe me, I did verily believe it would come to this at last; That all the Au­thors of Divisions and Separations, would first be imposing unnecessary, doubtful, unscriptural terms of Communion, and then to set a good face upon a bad matter, would pretend Catholick, Apostolick Traditions, Com­missions, Decretals, Extravagants, Canons, Constitutions, to justifie their own Usurpations; and when once they are got into the Saddle, and have the whip-hand of the poor Laity, all that cannot run like Tumblers through these Hoops, shall be rated as Schismaticks: Now because the Doctor has a little disguis'd the matter in his Discourse, to make it smile upon his pretensions, I will give the Reader the naked truth of the whole business.

There were in the Apostles days some Judaizing Christians, who being not well weaned from the Mosaic Ceremonies, would needs compel the Gentile Converts to their old observances, for which they plausibly preten­ed, that those Rites having been once confessedly establish'd by Divine Au­thority, and not yet explicitely repealed by any Countermand of Christ, equal to that whereby they had been enjoined, were still in full force, power, strength and virtue, and did oblige the gentil world to give their assent and consent to them; and in pursuance of this imposing humor, they would have obtruded upon them a Canon, Acts 15.5. That except they were circumcised, and observ'd the law of Moses, they could not be sa­ved. [Page 9] To this Usurpation the Apostles oppose their authority, and taking the Gentile Christians into their protection, vindicate their Liberty, and command them to stand fast in it, and not tamely surrender themselves to the will and pleasures of these imperious Masters: And because St. Peter, by his compliance, had hardened these Judaizers in their Superstitions, St. Paul takes him up roundly, reproves him to his face, and strenuously as­serts their Gospel Liberty; which had he not done, the Doctor thinks, all the Gentile Christians had been forced either to a compliance with the Jews, or to a perpetual Schism: But herein I must beg his pardon; for though they had been forced to a Separation, it had been no Schism, which visibly had lain on the other side; for Paul in his admonition to the Church at Rome, lays all the blame of the Separation not upon them that separate, but on those that gave cause to the Separation. Rom. 16.17. I beseech you, Brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences among you, and avoid them. Where he points to us these three things. 1. That they who cause divisions, are the culpable dividers: the Imposers must be responsible for the evil consequences of their Impositions. 2. That it's lawful, nay a duty, to divide from those, that unwarrantably give such cause of division; [...] decline, or depart from them. 3. That any Condition of Communion imposed besides, as well as against the Doctrine received from the Apostles, is a sufficient ground to condemn the Imposers, to justifie those that reject such conditions; for so we read, [...] And so we find it rendered, Gal. 1.8. Though we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, then that we have preach'd unto you, [...], let him be ac­cursed.

Hitherto matters do not work to the Doctor's mind; he does movere, but nihil promovere; the step he has taken, has set his cause a step back­ward,

[2] And therefore he will try another Experiment, whether the Epistle with the Context may not invite, or draw the Text to his Interest.

(1) His first approach he makes thus: The Apostle exhorts the Phi­lippians to an unanimous and constant resolution in holding fast to the faith of the Gospel, in spight of all the malice and threats of their enemies, Phil. 1.27, 28. And most wholsom counsel it is, God give all Dissenters grace to take it; for if once the fears of Troubles and Persecutions, make men afraid to own and maintain their Religion, it will be an easie matter for their ene­mies first to divide, and then to subdue them. This will not yet do the Doctor's work, nor undo the Dissenters.

(2) He makes a nearer approach, thus: The Apostle beseeches them, [Page 10] in the most vehement and affectionate manner, not to give way to any dif­ferences or divisions among them. Very good! As much then as in us lies, we will live peaceably with all men: But what security shall we have that they will do so with us? We will labor that there be no differences in judgment, (which yet in our imperfect state is not to be expected) but if there be differences, we will take care there be no divisions; for we are taught to maintain Christian affections towards those that are of dif­ferent apprehensions from our selves, and different practices too, proportio­nable to those different sentiments; for so the Apostle adjures the Church, Phil. 2.1, 2. To be like minded, having the same love, being of one ac­cord, and of one mind. Upon which words the Doctor gives us this Para­phrase, q. d. I have seen the miserable effects of Divisions in other Churches, (indeed Divisions, that are caused by, or issue out in, hatred, malice, envy, persecution, have effects as miserable as themselves, but what miserable ef­fects did he, or we ever see, that all mens faces were not of one com­plexion?) Let me therefore entreat you—to avoid the first tendencies to any breaches among you; (and unnecessary Impositions lay the first foundati­ons to these Mischiefs:) entertain no jealousies, no unjust suspicions of each other, (as that the most godly among those that differ from you in lesser matters, can least endure to be told of their faults; or that the tenderness of their minds, out of meer shame-facedness, keeps them from declaring truth:) but shew all the kindness you are able to your fellow members, (and surely you are able to wave these Bones of Contention, these make-bate Ceremonies; you are able to forbear railing, persecuting, are you not?) I confess Pride is an impotency of mind, and Passion a great weakness of soul; the strongest wills have commonly the weakest reason to govern them; and the ambition of glorying in the flesh of those whom they can make to truckle to their Humors, and Crotchets, is a pretty flesh-pleasing vanity, which I hope in time you will overcome; so that hitherto we can smell no Plot the Doctor has upon us, no scent of Match or Powder; or how by these Ambages, and remote Fetches he intends to attack us, we discern not.

(3) In the next place therefore he tells us, the Apostle gives Cautions against some persons, from whom their greatest danger was, viz. such as pre­tended a mighty zeal for the Law. Nay, I always suspected our danger would come from that Quarter! but am glad we know our enemies, and do promise him, we'll keep a special eye upon them in all their motions. Some such there are in the world, who are exceeding zealous for Ceremo­nies and Traditions, and would triumph, if they could carry it, for Bel, and the Dragon: such as would knead the world into its old mass and lump, [Page 11] rather than want of their wills; and as the Judaizers would renounce Christianity, and return to Moses, except the Gentiles would conform to their legal observances; so have we some such who will revolt to Rome, unless they may (not retain, for who hinders them? but) impose their own admired knick-knacks upon others. Now such as these the Apostle deals smartly with; he calls them Dogs, Evil Workers, the Concision: because they tore in pieces the seamless Coat of Christ, into shreds and tatters, con­founding the minds of peaceable Christians, who would willingly have united upon those plain, easie, reasonable terms upon which they had al­ready received, and professed Christianity, only these peevish trouble-hou­ses would not let them. And this is remarkable, that the Apostle never gave one hard word to the Conscientious Dissenter, nor one good word to the Judaizing Imposer, in all his Epistles.

To what end now is all this pompous, ceremonious train of words? to what end are these Positions, Suppositions, and Preliminaries? why so many Lines, Entrenchments, Galleries? why these tedious Approaches? why all this Spanish Gravity? why does he not fall aboard with his Text, and storm it? Alas! Things are not yet ripe, and ready for such hot service, and therefore—

(4) —The Apostle having done this, he persuades all good Christians to do as he did, ver. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded; What was that? to assert his liberty? he did so, and would not be brought under the power even of lawful things, 1 Cor. 6.12. Was it not to put his neck under the old yoke of bondage? he did so; or did he scorn to build up what he had once pluckt down? he did so; and would he have us do as be did? Content. Shall we stand fast in our liberty as he in his? Content. Must we not build up whatever of humane inventions we have pluckt down? Content. Would he have us as many as be per­fect, be thus minded? Content. Let as many as are as he was, do as he did; They that are honour'd with his Attainments, let them come up to his Evangelical Practice: when we were children, we thought, spake, acted as children: Are we grown up to Manhood? let's put away childish things! It is a shame not to outgrow our Trinckets, our Rattles, our Hob­by-horses, when we have outgrown the Rickets. Shall it be said of Chri­stians, as of the Grecians, [...]. The Greeks are always children: But such were the Judaizers, always learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth: And you may as soon whip these huge great Boys out of all Religion, as out of one Ceremony; so fond, so doating, so peevish, froward, awkward, such a whimpering, such a whining, such puleing and powting for Ceremonies, as if they had lost that famous En­gine [Page 12] of the Nutcrack, or had been plundered of a pin-box: I have read of a learned man in this nation, who tells us he had quite other sentiments of, and apprehensions about death than most men; others were afraid to die, but he was ashamed to die: Really, many are afraid of the Ceremonies as sinful, and I am not without those fears too; but methinks I am greatly ashamed of 'em, as I should that any should spie me riding upon a penny Colt, or a Gelding: No, St. Paul would have them that are thus perfect, grow up into a more manly and generous way of serving and worshipping God; Though the famous Alcibiades did once (to please a child) con­descend,

5. Hitherto we have felt no wound, but like the bird in the tree looking at the gunner, wonders what he's fidling about, till of a sudden she's past feeling: At last the Author comes nearer: Because (says he) many dis­putes, and differences as to opinion and practice might happen among them, he therefore lays down two Rules to govern themselves by; Here now the Dr. beats up, and gets within our Quarters, and very subtilly would insi­nuate, to the unwary Reader, that the Apostle gave two Rules about one and the same thing, whenas 'tis evident he gave but one, nor was it pos­sible he should give more in that case: The case which the Dr. supposes, is that there were differences of opinion and practice among the Philippians: Let it be supposed! Does the Apostle give two Rules in that case? No! but one single Rule, which was the Rule of mutual forbearance, and leaving one another to Gods Instructions: but in Another Case, where Christians had attained to be of the like mind, there the Rule was, that they should walk up and according to what they had attained: But we must go through now we are in, and therefore let us hear what these two Rules are, and what use he will make of them.

1. Rule. If any happen'd to differ from the body of Christians they lived with, they should do it with modesty, and humility: not breaking out into facti­ons, and Divisions, but waiting for further information: Now here we want that Accuracy, that might have been expected from a person of his Abilities: For, 1. He puts it as a rare and extraordinary Case, [If any happen] such a one as might fall out in an Age, or so, whereas this was a most fa­miliar Case, and that which the Apostle met with everywhere, that there was a difference of apprehensions about the lesser things at least, of Religion; nor was he to seek what direction to give in the case, but uniformly de­termines, that they should not judge, nor despise each other upon these ac­counts, [Page 13] nor was there ever any Church at any time wherein these differences did not happen: 2. He lays the stress of the duty upon those that differ from the Body of the Christians they live with: It is very true, the Church, or Body of Christians at Philippi, at that time, was sound in the Doctrine of the Gospel, evangelical in their worship, and regular in government and Discipline; and therefore it was the duty of those that differed from that body, not to separate from it; but suppose any happened to differ from the body of Christians they lived with, which were not so; must the Rule hold equally? is there the same obligation in the case also? what if a Christian should happen to live at Rome? what if it should be the Drs. lot to live there? must he be under the same obligation not to divide from the body? 3. He supposes the Rule only to be given to the person that hap­pens to differ from the body of the Church, whereas the Rule is mainly gi­ven to the Church, how they are to demean themselves toward a dissent­ing brother, viz. to wait till God shall reveal his mind to the person other­wise minded: Neither is he to act, nor the Church to compel, till God clear it up to his Conscience, that he may act like a Saint, or, since Saints is a term of reproach, at least like a Man, and not a Beast: 4. He disguises his rule, by those Terms of Art, faction, separation, &c, whereas faction and separa­tion are two things, the one always sinful, the other many times a duty.

2. Rule. For those that are come to a firmness, and settlement upon the Christian Principles, he charges them by all means to preserve Unity, and Peace among themselves. Now these things also are laid down with as much obscurity as one could wish: For, 1. Is it not the duty of those who are not arrived at that firmness and settlement of judgment, to preserve Unity and Peace? without question! only this will handsomly mislead us to a mistake that Unity and Peace among Christians are unattainable till they are all of one scantling in Opinion; for this is the fancy that is gotten into mens heads, That we must have peace with all, that in order to Peace there must be Unity of judgment, and uniformity in practice. 2. He says the Apostle charges them by all means to preserve Unity, which if we understand of Gods means is very true; but we are not to use our own means, such as a naughty heart would prompt to us; not to prostitute our Reasons and Consciences to the lust of men, but if it be possible, as much as in us lies, to live in Unity and Peace.

The Text I see is exceedingly unwilling to be dragg'd into the Doctor's service, two or three plucks therefore he will try more, and if it will not come, leave it as incorrigible, and untractable: for (says he) the Apostle supposes two things.

§. 1. The necessity of one fixed, certain Rule, notwithstanding the different at­tainments [Page 14] among Christians: This the Dr. calls one of the Apostles, but 'tis certainly one of his own supposals: For, 1. We are even now told of two Rules? one for them that differ from the body of Christians they lived with; and here the Rule was, to leave them to Gods immediate Care for farther illumination; but now there is but one fixed, standing Rule, notwithstand­ing the different attainments of Christians: 2. And to what end is there a fixed Rule, inflexible, and untreatable; when dissatisfaction of Consci­ence about these matters will exempt any man from it? or to what pur­pose had we a Rule for Indulgence, if now it must be vacated by this cer­tain and fixed Rule? 3. If there be such a necessity of a fixed standing Rule, notwithstanding mens different attainments; It's a wonder the Scrip­ture that contains all things necessary, should not speak of it, neither of the matter of this Rule; nor the makers of the Rule, nor the Rules by which the Rule must be made. 4. And if there must be one fixed Rule, then perhaps The particular forms of Church-government may in time prove jure Divino. 5. And what are we the nearer to satisfaction to be told of a Rule, and not to be told also what that Rule is: If a Scripture Rule, we agree, but that will not serve his turn; if a Rule sent down by Tradi­tion, that would do his work, but that we want evidence, it was intended by the Apostle: If Christ or his Apostles had made the Rule, with what security of Conscience, with what satisfaction of mind could we acquiesce in it? but if it be a rule made by the Church governours of after times to hamper, and snickle all that they can get within their clutches, it will al­ter the case, and we see no reason to give that subjection to it. 6. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule about things in their own natures in­different, then when those things by their particular Circumstances, are reduced ad actum exercitum, what must the poor Christian do? If the Rule commands him to Act, and the Circumstances have made the Act sinful in that time, place, &c. where is he now? here's a rule against his act­ing, here's another made by men for his acting; they might as well have made one Rule more, and that is to hang 'em out of the way, rather than to leave them to be tormented between two contrary Rules. 7. If there be a necessity of one fixed Rule in circumstantial matters, how comes it to pass, that the Church of England has determined that she has power to alter and varie these Rules according as she sees cause. And, 8. Must this Rule be for the Universal Church, or a National Church, or a Particular Church? If for the Universal Church, it crosses the judgment of your Natio­nal Church; which says it is not necessary that Rites and Ceremonies be alike: If for a National Church, it must be proved that ever the Apostle under­stood any such Creature: If for a Particular Church only, then what [Page 15] will become of Uniformity in the face of the National Church, which is the great thing for which this Rule is pretended useful and necessary. 9. If there be a necessity of one fixed standing Rule, notwithstanding differing attainments; then either this fixed Rule must yield and bend to those weak ones that have not attained to see the lawfulness of it, or those weak ones must be stretch'd and screw'd up to the fixed Rule: If the former, how is it fixed that in thousands of Cases, every day must bend? If the latter, what is become of the other Rule, that allows those that have not attained, to stand or fall to their own Master, and appoints them to be left to God's gracious instruction? For, 10. The Rule prescribed by the Apostle, If any man be otherwise minded, is the only fixed Rule in matters of indifferent nature; which Rule is plain Nonsense, if there must be another Rule, to which all Christians must come up, notwithstanding their dissatisfactions about it. 11. That which exceedingly prejudices the Doctor's Rule, is, that the universal current and stream of all Expositors run against him. Grotius thus glosses it; Etiam qui de Ritibus aliter sentiunt, interim sciant Evan­gelii praecepta, quae Divina esse persuasi sunt sibi esse sequenda: i. e. They that differ in their judgments about Rituals, must yet know, that they are obliged to walk according to the Precepts of the Gospel, which they are per­suaded to be of Divine Authority. So that the Rule of Scripture was that alone to which they were obliged, who were not satisfied about Rites and Ceremonies. So Tirinus, Regulam hic intelligit à Christo & Apostolis ejus praescriptam; He understands the Rule prescribed by Christ, and his Apo­stles. Zanchy takes it for the Rule of Brotherly Love and Holiness; and, in a word, all conspire against the Doctor's interpretation. 12. And why could not the Apostle have spoken intelligibly? had he pretended any such thing, it had been easie to have said, Notwithstanding what I said just now of leaving those that have not attained so far as you and I to God's in­struction, yet my will is, that you all walk by one fixed and standing Rule, whether you have attained or no, 'tis no great matter; I'll not in­dulge these peevish tender Consciences, Let 'em Conform, or the Prelates and their Chancellors shall admonish them, admonish them, admonish them, thrice with one breath, and then Excommunicate, and deliver them up to the Devil. To conclude, the Doctor had much better have employed his Talents in demonstrating, 1. That by a Rule, is meant a fixed Rule about things indifferent, or dubious. 2. That the Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy in Convocation, Synod, or Council, must be the fixers of this Rule. 3. That all are bound, notwithstanding their various measures of light, to conform to this Rule. 4. That the Governors of one Church, or many Churches, may make Rules for other Churches, and force them [Page 16] upon their Consciences to be observed by Divine Right; instead of which, and much more he has to do; he has supposed, what he can never demon­strate.

But that we shall soon see, for now he draws apace towards Argu­ment.

1. He tells us, That the phrase, [...], seems to be a con­tinuation of the former allusion to a Race: for the first thing the Greeks were wont to do as to their Exercises, was to circumscribe the bounds wherein they were to be performed; now that which fixed and determined those limits, was called [...] by the Greeks, &c. Had it not been for these Olympic, and other Games and Exercises, I cannot tell what our modern Criticks would have done for work; but what does [...] allude to? is that term also applied to a Race? No! it's borrowed from the grave march­ing of an Army, not the furious running of a Foot-match: 'Tis verbum militare, a term of Art in the Tactics, sayes Zanchy. But grant that al­so, (for I'll yield as much as reasonably he can desire for peace-sake,) still the Question will recur, what that Rule is, by which we must either soberly walk, or swiftly run? And there are two things that chiefly stand in competition.

1. A Rule of Charity, and mutual forbearance under different practices suitable to their different judgments.

2. A Rule of Severity, which determines to one uniform practice, not­withstanding the diversity of judgment, so that all must be drawn, hang'd, and quarter'd, that come not up to this Rule: 'Tis the latter, the Doctor now so stifly contends for; and none can blame him if he be for that Rule, because such a Rule would be for him, if he could get it, which is the best Reason he can produce for this Rule.

II. He pleads, therefore it cannot be the Rule of Charity, because the Apostle had spoken to that just before; but rather (think I) it must be that same Rule, because the Apostle had spoken of it just before, and there­fore he calls it the same Rule, [...], that is, that very Rule he had just before mention'd; for they that have attained to the highest measure of knowledge, are not exempted from the Rule of Charity to­wards those that have less knowledge; and it's new Grammar, (as well as new Divinity) that a Relative cannot agree with his Antecedent, be­cause the Antecedent went before; and will destroy the surest way of in­terpreting Scripture from the Coherence and Context, if we must conceive [Page 17] there can be no reference of what follows after, to that which imme­diately went before.

III. The Doctor yet argues farther, That the Philippians understood already what Rules he had given them, when a Church was first formed among them, and therefore when he mentions a Rule, without declaring what it was, we have reason to believe it was such a Rule which they well knew he had given them before. Well then, 'tis confessed that the Rule the Apostle exhorts them to walk by, was such a Rule as he had before given them; we are assured he had given them a Rule concerning all necessary things; we are not assured he had given them any Rules for unnecessary things: if the Doctor can, let him produce the Rule, and we are ready to Conform to it. Apocryphal Rules about new Rites, new Ceremonies, new Churches, new Government, we find none, and there­fore must be contented with what he had given them before, viz. that Rule by which the New Creature is guided and governed. Gal. 6.16. As many as walk according to this Rule, peace be on them. But we have got another Rule, and they that walk not according to that Rule, though conscientiously and strictly walking by the other, no peace shall be on them, no peace shall be with them, but wrath and vengeance, Fire and Fagot; but that time is short.

IV. The Doctor yet further argues from 1 Cor. 11.34. The rest will I set in order when I come. And 1 Cor. 7.17. As God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all the Churches.

Here then we have an Order, an Act or an Ordinance of the Apostle, a fixt standing Rule, to which all are bound to Conform themselves; but what now if they who call themselves the Apostles Successors, will not suf­fer us to Conform to the Rule? The Apostles Rule is, Let every one walk as God has distributed to him. The modern Rule is, Let every one walk farther and faster than God has distributed to him. Well, there's no reme­dy; for, (sayes the Doctor) This shews the Apostles did not leave all per­sons to act as they judg'd fit; No, I believe they did not, but as God by his Apostles thought fit; not by Traditions, but Scripture Revelations; not by the Flesh, but by the Spirit; not by their own Wills, or the Wills of men, but by and after the Will of God. But the Apostles made Rules determining their practice: No doubt of that; but was it about Mint, Anise, and Cummin, or the great and weighty things of the Law?

[Page 18]V. Still he proceeds; That although Men might pretend that the things were not in themselves necessary, that they were scrupled by some persons, and therefore were not fit to be imposed upon any, yet he does not find that the Apostles forbore to give Rules in such cases, and to oblige Christians to ob­serve them. To which I say,

1. That I do not find that the Apostles did attempt to give Rules in such Cases, other than the Rule of Charity, of kindness, of mutual for­bearing one another; the Doctor does not find they did forbear. Must we believe they did every thing, we do not find they did forbear? Really I do not find they did forbear preaching against Liturgies, the Sign of the Cross, Archbishops and Bishops, Archdeacons, and Deans; will he allow me to conclude, that therefore he did preach against them? what wild work would an Argument from Authority negatively in matters of Fact make with our Ceremonies? And what a Hubbub had it raised, if such Reasonings were to be found in the Sermons of the Dissenters?

2. Let him therefore shew plainly, That the Apostles interposed their Authority, to impose upon the Disciples any one thing, which was not antecedently, some way or other, necessary to that Imposition; and never stand casting a mist before our eyes, by saying the Apostles gave Rules in such Cases, when the Cases are vastly different from those that are in de­bate amongst us.

VI. He goes on, What the Apostle thus imposed, was not on the meer authority of Apostles, but as Church-Governors, whose business it is to take care of their preservation. Not as Apostles, but as Governors! Things well joined, but ill divided! As they were Apostles, so were they Gover­nors of Churches, to whom the Care of all the Churches was committed, 2 Cor. 11.28. There was indeed another matter that should have here been shuffled in, and is handsomly insinuated, That the Apostles in esta­blishing Rules for Rites and Ceremonies, and those other things that are supposed, acted not as extraordinary Officers, whose power was to expire with their persons, but as ordinary Guides, who were to have Successors in their whole Ruling work to the end of the World; but this is far more easily hinted, than proved: we deny therefore, and wait for evi­dence,

1. That the Apostles ever made Rules for the determining of un­necessary Circumstances, and imposed them on the Churches as terms of Communion.

[Page 19]2. That Diocesan Bishops, or Metropolitans, are the Apostles Succes­sors in the governing of Churches.

3. That if they did succeed them in any part of their office and worke, yet that they have the same fulness of power, as wanting their in­fallible direction, wisdom, prudence, and other qualifications that might either move Christ to entrust them with that power, or persuade Christi­ans to submit to their power.

VII. To sweeten, and set off the Discourse, the Doctor has formed a most ingenious comparison between the power and skill of a General of an Army to command, and the Duty which private Soldiers owe to their General on the one part, and the Authority, Wisdom and Conduct of Church-Governors, to order the Ecclesiastical Militia, and the Duty that private Christians owe to their Orders on the other hand, which would have taken before the Trained Bands, or the Artillery Company; at present let it pass for as much as 'tis worth, that is, a specimen of wit, and a rare piece of ingenuity.

VIII. But his great Refuge, his safe Retreat, is in and to the Council at Jerusalem, concerning which, the Reverend Author expresses himself thus: Although there were many doubts and scruples in their times about several Rites and Customs, yet the Apostles did give Rules in such Cases, and bind Christians to observe them, as we find in that famous Decree made upon great deliberation in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem.

To which it were enough to say, That the Apostles did give Rules, but not such as are now given: They gave Rules in the Case that lay before them, but that Case was nothing akin to those Cases which are now before us; That in what Case soever the Apostles did give Rules, it's nothing to them, who pretend a power to give Rules to us, except they can shew a Commission as fairly drawn and sealed as the Apostles could produce for their Determinations: But yet more particularly,

1. That Decree of the Apostles was about things necessary, antecedent to the Decree; not necessary because decreed onely, but therefore decreed because necessary. Acts 15.28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things. How far is the spirit and temper of modern Imposers from that of the Apo­stles, who think good to impose upon us the insupportable burthen of un­necessary things!

2. That Council had the infallible guidance and superintendency of [Page 20] the Holy Spirit, (which is not inconsistent with the most serious delibera­tion) It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us. But no National Church ever had any promise, and therefore cannot in Faith pray for, or expect such immediate assistance, such extraordinary direction. Let no Church assume equal power to impose, without an equal Commission for such power.

3. The private Christians might reasonably acquiesce in the Decree, because it had their own consent, antecedent to its making: A wonderful instance, and not to be parallel'd in latter Ages: There, the Holy Spirits authority, and the Churches consent, go together; but here, we have nei­ther: That burden will sit the easier on our backs, which first has the ap­probation of our hearts; and such was that Decree, not only sent to the Brethren, ver. 23. but by and from the Brethren. The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren, send greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles. But this is not our Case, who have neither head, nor heart, nor hand, nor finger, in imposing those burdens, which it seems good to my Lords the Archbishops, and Bishops, to lay upon us: nor do we know what load we must bear, till we feel it, no more than the poor Pack-horse knows before hand, what it shall please his good Lord and Master to lay upon him.

4. That Decree was not to burden the Churches, but to ease them of those burdens which they already groaned under. The Case was this, and it was sad, and partly ours, Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the Brethren, that except they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved, ver. 1. Against this Tyranny Paul and Barnabas, the great Assertors of Christian liberty, made vigorous oppo­sition, ver. 2. but the Zealots having reinforced their Faction, from some of the Sect of the Pharisees, who believed, ver. 5. the Case comes before the Council, who determine against those Bigots, that their blind zeal should not be the measure of necessary, and unnecessary, and yet not to ex­asperate them too much, lest perhaps they should revolt from Christ, and apostatize to Moses, (which they were now in a fair way to do, and some of them afterwards did) they agree to lay upon the Gentile Converts no greater burthen than those necessary things, in opposition to those other unnecessary things, which the Judaizing Christians contended for as necessary.

5. If we consider the things imposed, we shall find them none of those Trifles, which the more pragmatical After-Ages divided the Churches with: Abstaining from meats offered to Idols, from blood, from things strang­led, [Page 21] and from fornication, ver. 25. Of which, Fornication was in its self unlawful; meats offered to Idols (under that notion) were then, and are still unlawful to be eaten; things strangled, had prescription and coun­tenance from most Reverend Antiquity, against their use; and by Blood, some understand Murther, in which sense that also was simply unlawful; but if by Blood be understood, Flesh with the life thereof which is the Blood, Gen. 9.4. that is, a limb taken from a living creature, and so eaten; to forbid that, was no more than to forbid them to be Canibals: and if thereby we will understand Blood in the most general acceptation, yet that also was so averse to the Jews, that it's no wonder if the Church agreed to gratifie them in it. Nay, I have known (amongst some others) a Reverend Dignitary of our Church, who from this Decree, and the Precepts given to the sons of Noah, Religiously abstained from all things strangled, and from blood, to his dying day.

6. The end of that Decree, was to avoid Scandal; the morality of which, had it been well understood by these raw Gentile Converts, had taught them to deny themselves in a greater matter than things strangled, and blood, rather than give offence to their weak Brethren, without troubling the Church to make any Decree about them: And when this Canon was in its greatest force and vigor, the Gentile Believers might have eaten the [...], privately, yea, in company, where no offence would be given or taken; for what was the Jewish Convert concern'd what an­other should eat at home, either of the [...], or fragments of heathenish Sacrifices, presented to him by his Relations, or of those things killed by suffocation? But alas! the Case is otherwise with us; for such is the ne­cessity of the Cross, the white Garment, kneeling at the Supper, &c. That the omission of them shall silence and suspend a learned, faithful, labori­ous Minister of Jesus Christ ab officio, & beneficio, from his work and wages.

7. The Apostles add no penalty, neither pecuniary, corporal, or spiri­tual, to afright men into compliance with it; but contented themselves to have commanded in the Name of Christ, and of his true Church; they made not those necessary things, the conditions of ministerial, or lay-com­munion; Significavits, Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo, were not then invented, nor till a long time after that the Lady Churches having lost the true spiritual Sword, began to arm themselves with secular power, to back and set an edge upon their Dictates.

8. This Decree was onely negative, not positive; a restraint from the use of some, but not an imposition of any. It was onely, This you shall [Page 22] not Do; not, This you shall Do! which kind of Canons are much easier than the other: Conscience may better be tyed up from acting in a hun­dred, than forced to act in one particular. A negative precept restrains us from acting at any time, in any Case; an affirmative always obliges, but obliges not always to act in every Case: But things at home are much otherwise, where we are commanded both what to do, and what not to do; and are still constrain'd to act, even in those things we apprehend against the command of God either in general, or special.

9. Lastly, It appears from the Apostle Paul's After-writings, that when this Decree had a little gratified the Jewish Converts, weaned them a little from their old customs and usages, whereof they were so tenacious, molli­fied their morose and rugged tempers, sweeten'd and endear'd them to­wards the Gentiles, it expired of course, (as to what obligation it recei­ved from man) and lay among those obsolete Canons, which were not regarded, because antiquated; for when the reason of an humane Eccle­siastical Law ceases, the Law itself ceases, without any formal Repeal, which because some expected should have been more solemn, they will not be beaten out on't, but it's still in force.

Thus have we seen the Vanity of the Doctor's Supposition, which he would persuade us is the Apostles, viz. That there was a necessity of one fixed and certain Rule, notwithstanding the different attainments among Christians: Which I am not afraid to call vain, being so dark, that we neither know whether the Rule must be of Divine, or Humane Institution, what the matter of it must be; nor is it proved by Reason, or any Scri­pture argument, but what is ultimately resolved into that Decree made at Jerusalem, which I have now fully shewn will do him nor his Cause any service.

SECT. III. The Dissenters Plea from Rom. 14. and whether the Doctor hath spoken Reason to invalidate their Reasonings from hence?

THe Reverend Dr. having toiled hard to prove the necessity of a fixed standing Rule, notwithstanding the different attainments of Chris­tians about unnecessary matters, and caught nothing to reward his pains, bethinks himself of an objection, that Dissenters might possibly make, which he thus words for them: Doth not the Apostle in the 14th. Chap­ter of his Epistle to the Rom. lay down quite another Rule? viz. only of mutual forbearance in such Cases where men are unsatisfied in Conscience? Yes, he doth so, and the same Rule he lays down in the verse before the Drs. Text: That if any were otherwise minded, they should wait, and not Act; the Church should wait and not impose, but leave them to the instruction of God. To which the Dr. gives an intimation of a general answer: That there was a vast difference between the case as it stood then at Rome, and the case as it stood at Philippi: For, (sayes he) The Church of Rome consisted most of Jews, where they did not impose the necessity of keeping the Law on the gentile Christians. —And therefore in this case he perswades both parties to forbearance and charity. But now, in those Church­es (suppose at Philippi for one) where the false Apostles made use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches, there the Apostle bids them beware of them and their practices, as being of a dangerous and pernicious consequence: So that the preserving the peace of the Church, and preventing separation was the great measure, according to which the Apostle gave his Directions, and that makes him insist so much on this advise to the Philippians; that whatever their attainments were, they should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things.

I have often observed that when men are pinch't with plain Scripture, they use to twist and twine, and turn themselves into all shapes, to get out of their streights: and they have no more ordinary way of evasion, than to fancy some imaginary various Cases, upon which a various judg­ment must be made, and a various Rule laid down, to serve the present turn; which is most notorious in this answer. The Apostle acted like a prudent governour, (says he) and in such a manner, as he thought did tend most to the propagation of the Gospel, and good of particular Churches: To [Page 24] which some would reply; that then there are a great many in the world that have acted like fools: But my general answer is, that the Apostle acted upon higher Reasons, than those dictated to humane prudence, e­ven the infallible guidance, and immediate direction of the Holy Ghost; Divine directions, and the supernatural counsels of the H. Spirit, are well consistent; and had he only gone upon (thinking) as the Dr. fancies, I had rather have built my faith and practice, upon one of his thinkings, than upon one of the Drs. full perswasions, 1 Cor. 7.40. I think also that I have the Spirit of God. And he was not deceived in so thinking. But for a particular answer.

§ 1. The Doctors Reason why the Jewish professors at Rome did not impose on the gentile Christians, the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses, is this, Because we do not find they did so! And is not this an ingenious course for a person of his learning to suppose the main foundation upon which he builds, the variety of the case, with no other proof, but that he does not find it so? I do not find a thousand things that they did, and must be pre­sumed to have done, and may I thence conclude they never did 'em; and thence make what inferences, collections, and conclusions I think good?

§ 2. He asserts, that because the Apostle was willing to have the law buried with as little noise as might be, that therefore in this case, he per­swades both parties to forbearance and charity. And what is that other case, or those other cases wherein the Apostle would dispense with forbearance and charity? Are there any select and reserved cases wherein he would have Christians fall together by the ears? was it a duty at Rome not to judge, and despise one another? and will these be such Cardinal Virtues at Philip­pi? or were they at Rome only to stand or fall to their own Master and must the poor wretches at Philippi be sold for Galley-slaves? was it good Doc­trine in one Church, that every man should be fully perswaded in his own mind, before he adventured upon acting? and was it Heterodox in the other, that they might debauch and prostitute conscience to all pretend­ers, and set their souls for every dog to piss on? If the Doctor presumed upon his Auditors, had he the same confidence to impose upon his Read­ers?

§ 3. The Church of England in her Canons of 1640. tells us she follow­ed the Rule prescribed by the Apostle in this chapter to the Romans: and has 40. years more so altered the case? If the Rule of Charity, prescribed by the Apostle to Rome, does reach us here in England, it's less matter whe­ther it obliged them at Philippi or no; and yet that it obliged them also has been made clear from the Text.

[Page 25]§ 4. The Dr. manifestly prevaricates when he tells us, The Apostle does so much insist upon this advice to the Phillippians, that whatever their attainments were, they should walk by the same Rule, when the innocent Apostle insists upon no such thing! He commands (as I have oft observed) the clear contrary, that different attainments should have different walk­ings and practices, that they are to walk as they have attained, and not a [...] they have not attained: And that Rule to which the Apostle refers, that which he injoyns is a Rule that may be equally observed under different attainments as under the same: namely, that evangelical Rule of charity, which neither infringes christian liberty, nor violates conscience, but teaches us to exercise forbearance of one another, notwithstanding our different attaintments, which is that Royal Law, commanded by the A­postle James, Jam. 2.8. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Not to be repealed by all the authority on earth, nor ever will, by that of Hea­ven.

§ 5. If the Apostle bids the Churches beware of those who make use of the pretence of the Levitical Law being still in force to divide the Churches; He does also by parity of Reason bid us beware too of those who upon pretence of any other Ceremonies, old Customs, and apocryphal usages divide the Church, and render Communion with it grievous and burdensom; and I hope we shall hearken to his advice, to beware of them, and trust them no further than needs must; especially when those old customs have been found of such dangerous and pernicious consequences, that they have divided and almost ruined a most flourishing Church, and madeway for a common Enemy to break in with utmost fury upon us.

§ 6. If the preserving the Peace of the Church, and preventing separation, was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his Directions; Then those directions (or whatever they are called) that disturb the Church­es Peace, and give just cause for separation, proceed by other measures; and it's time to look about us when we meet with such as hazard that pre­cious blessing of Peace upon such Rules, Canons and Institutions, as have almost, and (if not seasonably prevented) will certainly destroy us.

SECT. V. The state of the present Controversie between the disagreeing Parties, (as laid down by the Doctor) what Concessions some Dissenters make, and what use the Doctor makes of them?

THE former Question being laid by at present, he comes to consider the present Case of Separation, and to make the sinfulness and mis­chief [Page 35] of it appear: And this is it, which denominates the Discourse, The Mischief of Separation: Though to an impartial Considerer, how loth they are to step over a straw, or to forgo the least of their Impositions, which have made the Separation, it might better have been stiled, The Mischief of Union. Now to do this, (as he thinks more convincingly) he will first lay down some Concessions. It had been a more convincing method in the judgment of most Men, if he had proved Separation sinful from Scripture grounds, rather than from some Mens Concessions, seeing I do not understand either that we are bound to stand to their Concessions, or that the Concessions themselves will do his Cause the least service: And they themselves have been so bang'd by the Papists by this Argumentum ad hominem, that one would think they should have little comfort to use it. We cannot forget how in the Relation of the Conference between the A. B. Laud, and the Jesuite, the Lady who gave occasion to the Dis­pute, asked this Question, Whether a Person living and dying in Communion with the Church of Rome, might be saved? His Grace answered affirma­tively. Now what Triumphs before the Victory the Papists have made upon this Concession, the Doctor has sufficient cause to understand: You (say they) confess that Salvation is attainable in Communion with us: we peremptorily deny it, That Salvation may be had in your Commu­nion; And therefore the safest way is, to hold Communion there where both sides agree Salvation may be attained. This Argument from that Concession is much stronger, than one drawn from the Concession of any one or many amongst us; because we own no learned Men to be our Ecclesiastical Head, as that Archbishop was supposed to have been theirs. But thus fared it with them for their Charity to Rome, and thus fares it with us for our Charity to them; they cannot own Rome to be a true Church, and that persons in that Communion may be saved, but they must hear on't on both sides of their ears; why then did you sepa­rate from a true Church, wherein you might have been saved? Nor must we grant the Church of England to be a true Church, but presently we are pelted with the same Reply that was thrown at their heads, why then did you separate? But we had rather suffer by our Charitableness, and their Uncharitableness, than admit any the least Temptation to deny the Church of England to be a true Church, and to hold all the essential Points of Faith, seeing the Doctor himself has granted as much as this comes to, where he allows of Separation; yet let us hear what these Concessions are.

§ 1. They unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrinal Ar­ticles of our Church. Doctrinal Articles? Are there then any Articles [Page 36] that are not Doctrinal? Every Article contains, as I always thought, some Doctrine or other; and which then are the Non-doctrinal Articles? more particularly,

1. It is not true, that the Dissenters unanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of the Church; for I am confident none of them but do find fault with that Doctrine, That Children baptized, and dying before the commission of actual sin, are undoubtedly saved. And that other, That whosoever believeth not stedfastly all that is contained in the Athana­sian Creed, cannot be saved, but shall perish everlastingly.

2. They do not believe all the Articles of the Thirty nine, and par­ticularly not the 20th, of the Churches power to impose Rites and Cere­monies; and that also is a Doctrinal Article.

3. But if by Doctrinal Articles be intended no more, than those that relate to the essential Points of saving Faith, it's true they find no fault with them, but then it's as true, that the Doctor has confest also, That the Church of Rome maintains all such Articles, and yet he justifies the Sepa­ration from their Communion; whence it will unavoidably follow, that it is lawful to separate from a Church which holds all the essential Points of Faith absolutely necessary to salvation.

4. And what is it to the Laity, what Doctrinal Articles are contained in the Book compiled 1562. if the contrary Doctrines be now openly preached in those Parochial Churches to which their adherence is requi­red? For if their Communion with the Parish Churches be the thing which he mainly insists on, it's of more concern to them what is there preach'd, than what Faith they were of an hundred years ago.

§ 2. They generally yield, that our Parochial Churches are true Churches, and it is with these their Communion is required. And are not then the Pa­rochial Churches more beholden to the Dissenters, than to the Doctor, whose Principles do deny them to be true Churches? For so he tells us, p. 27. That although when the Churches encreased, the occasional meet­ings were frequent in several places, yet still there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptistry, and one Bishop: So that the Parochial Con­gregations are but occasional meetings, members and appurtenances of the Cathedral, Chappels of Ease under the Mother Church, but no true Churches, because each has not its proper Bishop: And so they make the Diocesan Bishop the onely Pastor, and the Parochial Teachers to be onely his Curates, to ease them of the trouble and cumber of Preaching. And some have observed a strange Innovation in the very office of the Mini­ster of late years; for whereas in the old Ordination of Priests, they en­stated them in their whole office, by reading that Text, Acts 20.28. [Page 37] Feed the Flock, whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, or Bishops. This Text is now omitted, and Ministers are ordain'd to preach when and where the Bishops shall give them a Licence. And thus the Parochial Teachers are no Officers of Christ, but creatures of the Bishops making; nor have they any Jurisdiction, any power of Government or Discipline in their hands, (which all those Pastors whom Christ appointed are vested with) but serve to execute the Decrees, Sentences, and Awards of the Chancellors, Officials, and Commissaries, without liberty to interpose so much as a judgment of discretion: And though they retain the name of Rectors, yet 'tis rather a footstep of what once originally they were, but not any term that carries or imports in it any real Authority. And what if the Dissenters do not deny that you have all the Essentials of true Chur­ches, true Doctrine, true Sacraments, and an implicit Covenant between Pastors and People? Do not also our great Clergymen own and allow, that Rome hath all these? The Doctor, I am certain, allows them to be true Churches, to have all the Essentials of true Churches, and that they have true Sacraments too; else why are not they re-baptized which from Rome are converted, and brought over to the Church of England? And true Ministers, else why are they not re-ordained, who, after reconciliation, are allowed to exercise their Ministerial Function? when yet a Minister or­dained by the Reformed Churches, shall not enjoy that priviledge, meerly for want of Episcopal Ordination. And will the Doctor deny that they have the Eucharist in all its essential parts, though they have superadded many gross Corruptions? as they have many Errors in the Doctrine of Faith, which yet does not in his judgment, destroy the essential points of the Christian Doctrine.

(3) Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful. And then 1. Who is the true Catholick Christian, and who is the real Schismatick? He that holds Communion with all Protestant Churches occasionally lawful, and accordingly holds Communion with them actually as Providence gives him opportunity; or he that denying all Churches to be truly such, except his own, refuses Communion with them, for want of a Ceremony or two, and the necessary consequence of a Ceremony, A Bishop? 2. That they hold Communion with this Church to be lawful, is one of those dubious Propositions which will do the con­ceding Party no harm, nor them that make use of it any service. First, many of them declare so, and many declare otherwise; but they do nei­ther of them prejudge the other, nor intend to bind them to their pri­vate sentiments: and it's as good an argument to prove Communion un­lawful, because many declare against it, as 'tis to prove it lawful, because [Page 38] many declare for it. Secondly, they declare Communion lawful, but do they declare total Communion lawful? The same persons will tell us, that both these Propositions are true, Communion is lawful, and Communion is un­lawful; Communion in some parts of worship is so, in others not: And thirdly, they will further tell us, that Communion with some Parish-Chur­ches is lawful, with others unlawful; that there are not the same Do­ctrines preached, the same Ceremonies urged, the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted. And lastly, that occasional Commu­nion is or may be lawful, where a stated and fixed Communion is not so; and they give this reason for their judgment and practice, because to hold Communion with one Church, or sort of Christians, exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches; and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible, wherein they can bear with much for peace-sake, but chuse rather to sit down ordinari­ly with purer administrations.

It is a dangerous thing to give us uncertain ambulatory Notions of Schism, other than what the Scripture has given us, both because the Scri­ptures alone can inform us what is the Notion of a true Church, and by consequence what must be the true Notion of sinful Separation from it; and because these unstable mutable Notions of Schism, will make that to be Schism in one Countrey, which is an innocent thing in another; and that to be Schism one year, which perhaps the next may prove a good and Catholick practice. That was Schism in England in Edward the 6th's days, which was not so in Queen Maries; and that was Schism in Her Reign, which became none in the days of Her Successor. And we may be Schismaticks here in England, when if we cross the water we shall be none, though we practise the same Worship, and retain all that which at home would have fastened that brand upon us. And if we travel through Germany, though perhaps we cannot be Schismaticks and Catholicks twice a day, because the miles are very long, yet may we be both backwards and forwards forty times in a Twelvemonth, and continue the same men both in principle and practice that we were when we went our pilgrimage.

It is little to our purpose, what the Doctor is pleased to tell us, what one told him, viz. that An. Dom. 1663. Divers Preachers met at London, to consider how far it was lawful, or their duty to communicate with the Parish-Churches, where they lived, in the Liturgy and Sacraments: or that 20 Reasons were brought in to prove, that it is a duty in some persons, to join with some Parish-Churches three times a year in the Lord's Supper: For, 1. If they consider'd how far it was lawful: I hope they spoke some­thing [Page 39] at least to the Question, and left it not as they found it, a Question forsaken of its Answer, which ought to be individual Companions. 2. They met to consider what was lawful for, or a duty to themselves, not for or to others in whose names they had no commission to hear and determine the Question. 3. If they inquired how far it was lawful, or a duty; they supposed that it was not unlimitedly so, for to what end should they inquire how far they might go, if they had once thought they could go through? 4. And the design of the twenty reasons abun­dantly proves it; for it was but some persons, whose duty it was adjudged to be to receive the Sacrament thrice a year, and it was but in some parish­es neither, where those some persons might communicate, so that there might be some others, many others, possibly the greatest number, whose duty it was not so to joyn; and other some parishes, many others, and and possibly the greatest number with whom it was not lawful or not a duty to hold Communion. The Case then is this, a Christian may be placed in such circumstances, that he may receive the Sacrament from some persons who will indulge him in the questionable Terms, in such places where he cannot enjoy that ordinance at all if he do not receive it there; and thus with many restrictions, limitations, distinctions and clauses a Case may be put, wherein the twenty reasons may conclude some thing, but yet nothing to the Doctors advantage: But what effect, what operation had these twenty reasons upon the Company? Why! none of them seemed to dissent, that is, they did not enter their several protestations, nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother; like wise and wary persons, they would advise upon them: They came to consider of the lawfulness of Communion, and they would go away and consider of the strength of the Reasons propounded to convince them. I see it's more dangerous than I had thought it to have been, to come into the parish Churches, lest naked presence, and silent appearing in those assemblies, should be brought against us, as an interpretative approbation of whatso­ever is there done or spoken.

The Doctor adds, that they had such another meeting after the plague and fire, (and if it were but such another, there was no great harm in't) at which they agreed that communion with our Church was in it self law­ful and good; for which he quotes Plea for Peace. p. 240. But here the Doctor is tardy by his favour, and wrongs his Relator manifestly, by nibbling off the last and most considerable words of the sentence— viz. when it would do no more harm than good: And we believe it lawful in that Case to hold Communion with any Church in the world, so that now we must come to another enquiry, and start a new question, when there are [Page 40] one or two already up before the Dogs, viz. whether Communion with the Parish-Churches will do more harm than good? which it will certainly do, 1. When such Communion shall persuade the Parish-Churches, that their Frame is eligible, and not only tolerable; that they are righteous, and need no repentance; pure, as well as true Churches of Christ, and need no Refor­mation. 2. When that Communion shall be so managed, that the per­sons communicating must be obliged to separate from all other Churches, which they judge to be of a purer mold, and wherein they may enjoy all Christ's Ordinances with much greater, and clearer satisfaction to their Consciences, and more notable advantages for edification. 3. When such Communion shall visibly harden the Papists in their superstitious usages; As kneeling at the Sacrament, bowing before Altars, Churches, the East, and at the word Jesus, has apparently done; and so much T.G. the Doctor's grand Antagonist, has professed in his Dispute about Idolatry. 4. When such Communion and Conformity shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general; and that this would have been the effect of an uni­versal Conformity, was well express'd by a Conformable Minister of good Note in the Church, who told his Friend, a Captain in His Majesties Ser­vice, That he was heartily glad that so many Ministers had refus'd to Con­form upon the Terms proposed. And being ask'd with some wonder­ment, a reason of his strange expression, he answer'd thus: (Not that thereby they had more good Livings to scramble for, as one answer'd;) Had all Conform'd, the People would have thought there had been nothing in Religion; that it had been onely a thing to talk of in the Pulpit, to serve a State design; but now by throwing up their Livings, and exposing them­selves and Families to outward ruine, rather than Conform to the things imposed, not agreeable (as they apprehend) to the Gospel they had preached, they have convinced the world, there is a Reality in Religion, and thereby given a check to Atheism.

To shut up this Discourse; If the Doctor would have us Conform as far as we judge it lawful, when such Compliance is cloathed with all its particular circumstances, we are willing to it, provided the Doctor can se­cure us, that such Compliance shall be accepted in full satisfaction of the debt. But we doubt it must not be the Dean of St. Paul's, but the Con­vocation there, that must assign the Limits, Bounds, Terms and Measures of our Conformity. If hearing a Sermon, as we have occasion, and going as much further as Conscience warranted by the Word will permit us, would excuse us from being reviled, and railed at as Schismaticks, Rebels, Traytors, and what not, would do it, it would be done, nay, it is done; but if he has no Commission to treat with us, and compound the matter, I [Page 41] fear he has spoiled the Wit and Ingenuity of his late Allegory, and fought a Skirmish without the Command of his General; for though he stand upon very high Ground, he stands not as yet on the highest, and there are higher than he.

SECT. VI. The Grounds of the present Separation, assigned by the Doctor, Examined and Cleared.

THE main Question, so solemnly propounded by the Reverend Do­ctor, having given us the slip, we are entertained with another; What are the Grounds of the present Separation? and the utmost he can find in the best Writers of the several Parties amounts but to these two;

1. That although they are in a State of Separation from the Church, yet this Separation is not Schism. And he courteously supposes them to have one Reason for this Principle, from the Author of Evangelical Love, p. 68. Our Lord Christ Instituted only Congregational Churches, or particu­lar Aslemblies for Divine Worship, which having the sole Church-power in themselves, they are under no Obligation of Communion with other Churches, but only to preserve Peace and Charity with them; and from the Author of The true and only way of Concord. p. 111. That to devise new Species of Churches (beyond Parochial, or Congregational) without God's Au­thority, and to impose them on the World (yea in his Name) and call all Dissenters Schismaticks, is a far worse usurpation than to make and Im­pose new Ceremonies. This is all the reason the Doctor can find to justi­fie their Separation to be no Sin: But does the vast weight of their Cause hang upon one single string? I can shew him where he may find more assigned by the Author of Evangelical Love, whom he quotes. 1. That there are many things in all Parochial Churches that openly stand in need of Reformation, which these Parochial Churches neither do, nor can, nor have power to Reform. And who would joyn with them, that have no power to Reform themselves? 2. Many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men, which are not aceording to the mind of Christ. And will Christ Con­demn them for Schismaticks, who are ready to come up to his Commands, because they dare advance no further? 3. That there is no Evangeli­cal Church-Discipline administred in such Parochial Churches, which yet is a necessary means unto the Edification of the Churches appointed by Christ [Page 42] himself. And are they Schismaticks who separate not from, but to, any of Christ's means for their Edification? 4. The Rule and Govern­ment which such Parochial Churches are under (in the room of that which ought to be in and among themselves) viz. by Bishops-Courts, Chancellors, Commissaries, is unknown to the Scriptures: And are they Schismaticks who refuse an unscriptural, for a Scriptural Rule and Government? 5. There is a total Deprivation of the Peoples Liberty to chuse their own Pastors, where­by they are deprived of all use of their Light and Knowledge, for pro­viding for their own Edification. And it's hard that men shall be made Schismaticks because they would use their Reasons: that is, unless they will be something worse than Men, they cannot be good Christians. 6. That there is a want of due means of Edification in many of those Parochial Con­gregations, and yet none shall be allowed to provide themselves better. And is it not very severe, for Christians to be Damned, because they would be more certainly and easily Saved? Thus then we see there are other, many other, Reasons alledged to justifie such Separation to be no Schism, though it pleased the Doctor to wink at them, and Assign only this one, which yet it's well if he can Confute.

In order to which He thinks, That to clear the practice of Separation from being a Sin, two things are necessary to be done.

§ 1. To prove that a Christian has no obligation to external Commu­nion beyond a Congregational Church. And is this the Duty incumbent upon them? They think they have done enough if they prove there's an Obligation lies upon them to hold external Communion in that Church whereof they are Members; and let others prove that they are obliged to Communion beyond those Bounds: If the Dissenters enlarge their Communion as far as Christ enlarged the Churches, let them who have enlarged the Bounds of the Churches prove it to be the Dissenters duty to widen their Communion to that Latitude. It's sufficient if they that hold this Principle can justifie it without confuting other mens Notions; and they Judge their own Principle and Practice sufficiently authorised from this one thing. Their Doctrine, Communion, and Ordinances have the same extent with those of the first Christians. Acts 2.42. Who con­tinued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, breaking Bread, and Prayer. And let the opposers prove that any larger extent of Churches, than what answers these ends, is necessary, and they are ready to Conform them­selves to it.

What the Doctor hath to say, or however what he hath said, will fall under these heads. (1.) I have never seen any tolerable Proof that the Churches Planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations: To which [Page 43] more needs not be said than that, 1. If the Churches planted by the A­postles were in such Congregations; it's no matter to us whether they were limited to such Congregations or no: If Congregational bounds be al­lowed, let other and larger bounds be proved by them that are concern'd to justifie them. 2. If such particular Churches were not of Christs insti­tution; then it would be no Schism to separate from them: I say no Schism of Christ's condemning, and if others will make other Notions of Schism, which Christ and his Apostles never knew, and so multiply sin without cause, let them contrive a hell too wherein those sins, and schisms shall be punished.

(2) The Doctor proceeds, It's possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City, than could meet in one assembly for worship; but where doth it appear, that when they multiplied into more Congregations, they did make new and distinct officers, with a separate power of govern­ment? I confess I know not where any such thing appears, that they made new and distinct Churches; that is, specifically new, of another kind, sort, or species; but that they did make other Churches, and other Officers, that is, more Churches, and more Officers, is made appear thus; that if they had not such Officers, their assemblies had not answered their ends; and if they had not the same power of Government that the other Churches had, they had not been of the same kind, but quite another thing; but what it does not appear the Apostles did, it appears abundantly, the succeeding corrupter times have done, even to form new Churches, new Officers wholly distinct from those instituted by Christ and his Apostles; and hence it was, that to keep Peace as is pretended amongst the Pastors of particular Churches, they found out a Bishop, and to keep the Bishops from falling together by the ears, they invented an Archbishop, and be­cause the Metropolitans might possibly quarrel, they instituted a Patriarch, and because the Patriarchs were subject to the same passions with other men, prudence contrived a Pope, and clapt him upon them all, to keep them in Decorum.

(3) The Doctor thinks it will not appear credible to any considerate man, that the 5000 in the Church of Jerusalem made one stated and fixed Con­gregation for divine worship. Things are credible or incredible, as some mens interests, and occasions will have them, or else it were no such hard matter to make it credible to the Doctor, that 5000, 10000, 20000, might make one stated and fixt Congregation for worship; he has an in­stance of it in St. Andrews Holborn, a place which he has cause to know contains more than 5000, and yet they have but one stated, fixed Congre­gation for divine worship.

[Page 44](4) The Doctor thinks that much more may be said for lim ting Church­es to private families, than to particular Congregations: Let us hear it then! Do we not read of the Church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila? Rom. 16.3, 5. and of the Church that was in the house of Nymphas at Coloss? Col. 4.15. and in the house of Philemon in Laodicea? Philem. 2, 3. yes! we do so, and yet hear nothing to the purpose; for a Church may be in a house, and yet not composed of that house: A Church may meet in a fa­mily, when it consists of more than the family; A Church of Dissenters may possibly meet in a house, and yet if one of the ecclesiastick Setters, should get them in the wind, and inform against them, that they were there assembled for the worship of God, with above the number of four be­sides the family, I fear, A Plea, that they that meet in a family are of the family, would hardly prevent a Conviction.

(5) Again the Doctor argues thus, If notwithstanding such plain exam­ples, men will extend Churches to Congregations of many families, why may not others extend them to those societies which consist of many Congregations? I will tell him why, 1. Because his plain examples are plain mistakes, nor can he give one instance of a Church that consisted of a family, because it was a family. 2. We read of Churches of many families; but of none composed of many particular Churches: Many families have warrant to unite into a Church (not as families, but as the individuals are duly qua­lified) in order to the great ends of worship, edification, &c. But many Churches have no such warrant to unite for the destruction of those ends, or any one of them; And it is the end, and the usefulness of unity for that end which must regulate, and determine the Union. It is very lawful to build a Ship or Man of war as big as two or three Yachts, which may do better service, but it's folly to make one that would reach from Calice to Dover which must lie like an useless Log, unmeet for sailing, and the ends for which all Ships are built; but let the Doctor extend the name of Church as far as he pleases, to the worlds end, or as far as the Rules of the Kings bench have been extended, we are unconcern'd so long as this is clear, that how far soever men may extend Churches, name or thing, in Compliance with the extent of the civil government; yet the extent of our actual communion in worship, is no other than that of the Church of which we are by our own choice members.

(6) He goes on, Although when the Churches increased, the occasional meetings were frequent in several places, yet still there was but one Church, one Altar, one Baptistry, one Bishop, which will utterly destroy either parochial or Diocesan Churches: For if one Baptistry, and one Church be of the same extent, what will become of the Diocesan Church, [Page 45] in which there are hundred of those Baptistries, and but one Bishop? and if one Bishop, and one Church, be of the same extent, what will become of the Parochials, where there is one Baptistry indeed, but not one Bishop? And it seems very evident, that in the beginning of Christianity, a Church was no larger a Body than could assemble in one place for all the ends of a Christian Society; so the Apostle supposes, 1 Cor. 11.18. when ye come together in the Church, compar'd with ver. 20. when ye come together into one place, [...] where to meet in the Church, and to meet in one place, are phrases of equal Lati­tude; and so Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians. Edit. Voss. p. 20 [...] i. e. If the Prayer of one or two Christians hath such power, how much greater efficacy hath that of the Bishop, and the whole Church? he therefore that cometh not to that place, (or that Congregation) is already proud, and hath condemned himself.

Hitherto the Doctor has endeavor'd to overthrow the Principle, which seeing he cannot do, he comes to suppose, or grant it, yet withal denying that from thence any thing can be drawn that will justifie Separation.

§ 1. Suppose (says he) that the first Churches, by reason of the small numbers of Believers at that time, were Congregational, yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the Peace of the Church we live in, to reduce Churches to their infant state? To which I answer, none at all; we know no such obligation lies upon us, and do wish that they (supposing the Church to be Metropolitical, or National) did see no more obligation lying upon them to disturb the Peace of the Churches that we live in, to reduce all to their overgrown state; we are for our own liberty, without infringing theirs; but it's common to complain of other mens unpeaceableness, who will have peace with none but themselves.

§ 2. They do not think it necessary (says he) to introduce the first com­munity of goods, which was far more certainly practised than Congregational Churches, nor to wash one anothers feet, though Christ did it, and bad his Disciples do as he did. I answer, 1. For Community of Goods, I dare say I shall convince the Doctor it was no obliging example, for he has no temp­tation to become a Leveller, and would lose more than he could hope to gain by putting all the Benefices of the Land into Hotchpot. For, there was never any such command or practice for the promiscuous use of all outward things, without the free consent of individual Christians; Propriety was not then destroyed, but each Christian was the Proprietor of his Estate; the great exigency of the Church did invite to a very liberal and extraor­dinary [Page 46] measure of charitable contribution to the necessity of the Saints, but still it was voluntary, and no otherwise forced than by Arguments. Acts 5.4- While it remained, was it not thy own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? [...]. Their Charity did not destroy Proprie­ty: And if the same distress should again overtake any particular Church as that was, it would be as much the duty of the Rich, to extend their Benevolence to the necessity of their poor Brethren as then it was, or could be. 2. For his instance of Christ's washing his Disciples Feet, and com­manding them to do as he did. What person that reads the Scripture, does not observe that it was not the washing the Feet that was commanded, but that mutual deference, reciprocal serving of each other, avoiding of am­bitious encroaching of one over another, when Christ had made them Equals: this was the great Point Christ would instruct them in by that temporary Ceremony. For so it is commanded, that we lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1 Tim. 2.8. when yet none ever stood so superstitiously upon't, that every man is bound to lift up his hands in Prayer: but the Duty was purity of the whole man. Two things there­fore there are in this reasoning, which would be better cleared, 1. That there is no more necessity for the worship of God in particular Assemblies, at all times, under all conditions of the Church, than there was for the Community of Goods, in that extraordinary exigence of the Church at that time. 2. That Propriety of our Estates, and the right of our particular Churches to worship God, must give way to National Church Frames, in both which we have some cause to be tender, and not to part with them till we receive better Arguments.

§ 3. The Doctor reasons thus with us: They believe that the first Civil Government was appointed by God himself over all Families, do they there­fore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms, to bring things back to their first institution? if not, why shall the Peace of the Church be in so much worse a condition than that of the Civil State? To which the Answer is very plain, 1. We look upon our selves under no obligation to disturb, much less to destroy Kingdoms, or any kind of Government whatever, to reduce things to their first institution, nor is there any need of it, to destroy the Civil Government, by reducing the Church to such a posture, as will answer the great designs of Religion. 2. The same Divine Authority that instituted Civil Government in Families, did also institute Govern­ment over Families, whether Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical; and if the Doctor can shew that the same Authority, which appointed par­ticular Churches for his own service and glory, and the edification of Be­lievers, hath also appointed National Churches for the same ends, we shall [Page 47] confess that his Instance is parallel, his Argument from thence cogent, and such as will cut asunder the Nerves of our Answer; when the wise God did institute National Civil Government, yet be reserved entire to the Ma­sters of Families their authority over Servants and Children, and the pro­priety in their Estates; but how will this justifie such a National Church-Government, as destroys the inherent power of the Pastors of particular Churches, making them only shadows of the primitive Pastoral Authority, (if shadows) and leaving them onely the bare Name (if the Name) of Pastors, without any power inherent in them, to govern the Churches, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers.

§ 4. He reasons thus, It's very uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as they fancy. If so, then, 1. It is as uncertain whether the Primitive Form were such as he Fancies; If it were uncertain whether God would be Worship't in particular Congregations, that had a power to Govern and Reform themselves, then it must be as uncertain, nay more uncertain, whether God would have a Frame Erected of such Churches where God could not be Worship't. 2. And if it be uncertain what the primitive Form was, then it's very cr [...] to plague and torment men as Schismaticks that are quiet and peaceable, [...] design nothing but the serving their God and saving their Souls, for not complying with such a Form or Frame, which it is uncertain whether it were the Primitive one or no. 3. And then it will be very certain that there can be no Obli­gation upon us to hold Communion with the Parochial Church, by Di­vine right, since it's uncertain whether God ever intended such assemblies of Christians or no. 4. And then it will be uncertain also whether the Parochial Ministers be true Ministers of Christ; for if there be no certainty of the Divine Right of particular Congregations, there can be as little of certainty, That there is any Divine Authority given to the Teach­ers of them. And 5. It will be uncertain whether God will be solemnly and publickly Worshipped; for where can he so be, but in particular As­semblies? And thus to make a National Church certain, he has reduced all things to an utter uncertainty.

§ 5. He argues further to this purpose; It's certainly our Duty to pre­serve Peace and Unity among Christians, and it's impossible so to do if Men break all orders in Pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform. It's well there is something Certain, though it's hard to con­ceive how we should preserve Peace, if it be uncertain in what we [...] to unite and agree: It's the Unity of the Spirit that will be kept in the Bond of Peace: Peace is the Bond of the Churches, but there must be first conceived a Church, which Peace is to bind: There must be a Vineyard, [Page 48] or to what purpose a Hedge? a City, or to what purpose a Wall or Bul­wark? More particularly, 1. As it is the Duty of all Men to preserve the Churches Peace, so 'tis theirs especially who have got the Manage­ment of things in their hands, not to lay such dubious Terms in the way of Peace which they know many Consciencious persons cannot get over, but have ever stumbled at; for it may be returned with ease, It is im­possible to preserve Peace if wen will make such Orders as they know others must break, meerly for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Plat­form. 2. If Peace be impossible to be had upon this account, who are in the fault? Dissenters can maintain a fraternal Charity towards them and their Churches, who differ from them in Principle and Practice, if im­posers cannot, or will not discharge that Duty reciprocally, we are not re­sponsible for their Passions; we can love them whether they will or no, though we cannot force them against their will to return that Love and Charity. 3. But must Peace be extended no farther than local and actu­al Communion? or must the Parishes of St. Andrews, Sepulchers, and St. Giles go together by the ears, because one Church will not hold the hun­dredth part of them? I can hold and maintain Peace with the Greek Church, and yet I never intend actual Communion with it, unless she were much more Reformed from all her Corruptions, than she is like to be in haste. There may be such Corruptions in a Church as may defile it, and yet not un-Church it. I can distinguish between the Christians and their Christianity on one hand, and the Pollutions wherewith they have aba­sed their Christianity, on the other.

§ 6 But to this the Doctor Answers, Men may please themselves in talking of preserving Peace and Love under separate Communions, but our own sad experience shews the contrary. This is the upshot of his Reason­ings, There can be no Peace under separate Communions, which I shall an­swer by asking a few sober questions, which will lead to their respective Answers. 1. Whether by separate Communion, he intends only such as is Locally separate? if so, joyful Experience shews us the contrary; we have no Bellum Parochiale, nor are like to have, could they secure us as well a­gainst a Bellum Episcopale. 2. Does he, by Separated Communion, intend such as differ only in some external Modes? How then do the Countrey Villages agree so well with the Cathedral Mother-Churches? It's certain that the Cathedral Service, and that of the under Parishes, differ so much, that a poor Countrey-man dropping in by chance into the Worship would be half affrighted out of his Wits, such a Ditty, such a Din, with Or­gans, Choristers, Singing-men, and Boys, that from the uncertain Sound and confused noise, the poor Fellow would not know what was Piped or [Page 49] Tooted: so a grave Alderman in the days of Yore, going out with the Com­mon-hunt, and being askt if he did not feel a transport and extasie of soul at the ravishing musick of the hounds, protested he could not hear any musick at all for the barking of those yelping Curs; but come into the Country, we have nothing there but bad Rhimes set to as bad tunes, and worse sung; In the one you have turning hither, faceing thither, such ducking, dopping, bending, bowing, cringing, changing of postures, that the poor country man begins to question whether it be the same God that they and he worship; and if it be, he's amazed that God should re­gard their rude homespun devotions, when he has such glorious service, such splendid, pompous worship in other places; and yet we do not see that they come to knocking: If then these two sorts can live peaceably, and lovingly together, the one not despising the rusticity of the high-shoe devotions; the other not judging of, envying at, or grudging against, their more stately shows and pageants; why will they quarrel with the plain dissenters whose only fault is that, though their worship is not well trimmed up with ceremonious ribons, 'tis of as strong stuff, will last as long, and keep the wearer as warm as the other? 3. Whereas the Doctor fancies that this will alienate mens affections: The remedy is to preach down passion, pride, censoriousness, and those base lusts, which would produce the same effects, if all men were of one Communion: If one will be angry because another mans Nose is longer than his own, he must re­strain his anger, for the other cannot help the longitude of his Nose, nor give it one degree less of elevation. Let them punish or otherwise re­strain those incendiaries, who by their hot, and fiery tempers, will suffer none to be cool, that are in themselves of a more winterly temper: Let them curb such preachers, as the Author of Curse ye Meroz, who did enough to have kindled a greater fire at Guild-Hall, than that which be­gun at Pudding-Lane: The disease lies in mens minds, and when they would heal the outward Symptom, 'tis but like him that applied the plaister to the wrong finger, and then complained of his plaister. Let men be preacht into the spirit of mutual forbearance, and there will be peace under various practices.

These continual beatings of the Doctor and some others upon Peace, mind me of what I have somewhere or other, seen or read, of a great Gentleman who courted a Lady of no less virtue than Beauty, and such an Inamorato was he grown, that he became exceedingly melancholly, his folded armes, his hat plukt in's eyes, retiredness from all company witnessed great distress; at last he came to a resolution, that seeing he could not win her affections, he would die a Sacrifice in the flame of his [Page 50] own: This noble Lady, (whose Name I now remember, was Madam Peace,) not willing that any Gentleman should die a Martyr for her sake, began to relent, only she desired him, that he would not be so mo­rose and humoursome, however that he would shave his face, that made him look so like satyr, and besides she could not tell how to have commu­nion with his lips, for the bristles of his chin, and the turn-pikes of his over­grown Mustachoes; but Monsieur Moroso, (for so was the gallant called) protested he would not lose a hair of his beard, (as poor an excrement as the ignorant Laity call'd it) for the greatest Lady in Europe: and so all this hot love evaporated in Complement and Ridicule.

SECT. VII. The principle assigned to some others of the Dissenters, consi­dered. The Arguments from the Papers of Accommodation between a Sub Committee of the Assembly, and their Brethren of the Congregational persuasion, modestly examined.

HItherto the Doctor's reasonings against that principle, that there is a separation, but yet the separation is no Schism, have fallen under con­sideration. He proceeds now to that of some others, who confess (as he says) That to live in a state of separation from such Churches, as many at least of ours are, is a sin: what mystery may there be in the phrase of living in a state of separation, I am not well aware of, and therefore cannot prevent what mischeif may be design'd against us by it: Of a State of Nature, and a state of Grace, we have read in old Protestant Authors, but now adays all the outcry is against this state of separation.

Now the Doctor informs us, that the men of this Plea, deny that they live in a state of separation, although they preach when, and where it is forbidden by law, and worship God, and administer Sacraments by other Rules, and after a different manner than what our Church requires. They own separation to be sinful, and have no other Refuge left but to deny the fact, which is evident to all persons.

In the general I shall only say, that the principles and pleading of these whom the Doctor would make two parties, are really and indeed but one and the same; only they have made use of other expressions to declare their minds: They that say separation is lawful, take the word only for a withdrawing from the Communion of a Church, when they have good reasons to justifie their departure: They that say separation is sinful, [Page 51] take the word in an evil sense, as denoting a departure from a Church out of humour, Levity, or some worse principle, as hatred of, opposition to those Churches from which they withdraw. And this he might have seen in those very words he quoted from the Author of Concord. Causeless re­nouncing Communion with true Churches is Schism, especially if it be joyned with setting up Anti-Churches unwarrantably against them. Now how many things must concur to make separation culpable, according to the tenor of these words, I can hardly reckon up. 1. It must be separation without cause, from a true Church. Now the Doctor himself will allow that there may be a just cause of separation from a true Church. 2. It must be renouncing communion; but though these men suspend, or forbear Communion for a while, yet when the Church shall return to herself, and abate of her rigors, they carry in their breasts Animum revertendi, a pro­pensity to return again. 3. It must be setting up Churches against Churches, not one besides another, to carry on the common cause of Religion against Atheists, Hereticks, Infidels, prophane persons, and all the debauchees both in faith, and manners. And, 4. all this must be done in an un­warrantable manner; the circumstances must be such as cross the general rules of the Gospel, and if all these be found in any separation, let it be doomed and condemned for schism, and sinful. I wonder therefore with what sincerity the Doctor could say, They own the thing to be sinful, and yet deny the fact: Whereas that which they confess to be sinful in the Rule or Principle; that only they deny themselves to have done in fact: And what they confess themselves to have done, they never confessed to be sinful. There is a separation that is sinful, this say they we never practised: And there is a separation too that is lawful; and here they own the fact, and deny the sinfulness of it: These tricks therefore will never satisfie his Auditors, nor his Readers; but the Doctor's great Re­pute, and smoothness of his Style, and a notable talent to misrepresent his adversaries, have made very mean and ordinary Discourses pass for su­perexcellent, and his name being up he may lie-abed till noon: for so have I heard somewhere of a Cutler's boy that was making a knife, and unluckily the steel fell off when he had welded it; No matter! no mat­ter! Let it go boy, said (the Master) my name's up, and my Iron will sell, though not cut better, than other mens Steel. And now for a more particular return.

1. They confess, that they (three months ago, you must understand that we come not within the statute) preach when, and where it was forbidden by law, and they have a cause for it: Because they can preach no where, nor time else, without such conditions as they judge are, and think they [Page 52] have proved unlawful; but they say, that to preach when forbidden by Law, is not always sinful: For so did the Ministers of Jesus Christ, even when their Commission was not vouched by Miracles, till 300 years after Christ. And if it be said, that it is sinful in our case, that must be tryed out by no general Arguments and Reasons, but such as are special and proper to the case.

2. They confess they do worship God, and administer Sacraments, by other Rules, and in other manner than what the present Church prescribes. If the Dissenters do all this by other Rules, and in other manner than the Assen­ters do, it will follow unavoidably, that the Assenters do them by other Rules, and in other manner than the Dissenters do; which is the worst that I know will follow, unless he can prove that the Rules by which they worship God, the manner in which they administer Sacraments are nearer then, or as near the Rule and Prescript of the Word, as those of the Dissenters: So that the Question must come to this at last, Whether those Rules by which, that manner after which, the Church requires to worship God, and administer Sacraments, be conformable to the Scripture Rule of Worship, the Scripture manner of Administration? for if they be, then these Dissenters flatly affirm, That they worship God, they admini­ster the Sacraments by no other Rule, in no other manner, than what the Church prescribes. But if they be not, then they say, If they in all their ways of Worship Conform to the Canonical Rules, though they do swerve a little from such as are Apocryphal, they hope, and believe God will acquit them, as their Consciences now do of the guilt of Schism; and if others will not, 'tis not so much material, because they shall not receive their final doom from the Churches mouth, nor be tryed by her Rules, when they come to be tryed for their All. And by this time we see, and so may the Doctor, how much better it had been for him to have follow'd his Text, and not to gather Doctrines thence, which never grew there; nor to have so confidently asserted, pag. 9. The necessity of one fixed and certain Rule, notwithstanding the different attainments amongst Christians, unless he could have proved it more solidly, of such Rules as Churches make, not contained in the general Rules of the Scripture.

3. Is the Doctor in good earnest? On is this Rhetorick pro formâ tan­tùm? Will worshiping God by other Rules, and in other modes and man­ners than a Church requires, make such Worship Schismatical? then mark the fatal consequences.

1. It's then apparent, that most of the Parochial Churches in England, are Schismatical Churches; for do not they worship by other Rules, and in other manner than the Church prescribes? where is the prescribed Rule [Page 53] for singing Psalms in Hopkins's and Sternhold's Metre? which yet is uni­versally practised in most Parishes that I have heard of. The Title Page of the Common-Prayer-Book, tells us there are contained in it, the Psalms pointed as they are to be said or sung; but what Parishes sing according to those Interpunctations? The end of the Book tells us, Here the Morning Prayer is ended; and, Here the Evening Prayer is ended: And yet when the Church has ended, the Parishes begin, and set up their Notes in those Metrical Versions. Again, what Rule have we for bowing towards the Altar? the East? the Church? And yet these modes and manners of worshiping God are commonly practised. Are all those Parish-Churches which are got into the garb and equipage of the Cathedrals, with Organs, Choristers, and the like, Schismatical or no? If not: Then to worship God in another mode than what is prescribed by the Church, may not be Schismatical Worship; but if it be so, then are those Churches Schis­matical, and how then can it be Schism to separate from them?

2. It will follow also, (there's no remedy for it) that either the Pa­rochial Churches, or the Cathedral, are Schismatical Churches; for the former are as much below the splendor of the latter, as the latter are above the rusticity of the former. If there be two Rules, one for the mode of Cathedral Worship, another for that of the private Parishes, let them but allow half as much diversity to the Dissenters, and all the pother and dust, and clamor of Schism will be over.

I would therefore propound one modest Question, Why is this practice of singing Hopkins's Metre so universally practised, and yet so little or not at all preach'd against in the Pulpits? Is it for fear they should have none left to preach to? That is not to be imagined of conscientious and mor­tified men! Though it's true, English Men, they say, are like your Irish Cows, that will not give down their milk kindly, except their Calves stand by; or however, to humor them, the Calves skin stuft with straw: Or is it lest they should seem to condemn themselves, that make Dissenters Schis­maticks, for that very thing which they themselves practise? This looks some­what oddly, I confess, and the tenderness of a man's mind in such a case, may, out of meer shame-facedness, keep him from declaring a Truth which flies in his face while he speaks it. What can it then be? Do they fear the re­proaches of the People? I will not determine, but by asking the Doctor his own Question, How comes it to be Schismatical in some, and lawful in others? Have they two weights and measures? Are the Dissenters Schis­maticks, for worshiping God by other Rules; and the Parish-Churches pious Sons, who do the same thing? Or are they resolved that all the World shall be Schismaticks besides themselves?

[Page 54]But the Doctor has got a Notion in his head, that these men are un­willing to confess a Separation, and he gives us the reason of it, because they have formerly condemned it with great severity, and yet they do the same things for which they charg'd others as guilty of a sinful Separa­tion.

A heavy Charge! and wants nothing but the old thing Proof. Is it not a wise course to pretend to give a Reason of nothing? To assign a cause of a thing, before it's clear that there is such a thing in the World? To tell us why they are unwilling, before it appears they are unwilling? So far as they do Separate, they are willing to confess it; and would he have them confess more than the Truth against themselves? They own that they do not locally hold Communion with all Parishes, at all times, in all the parts of Worship, and this they are ready to prove is not Schism, is not sinful. They avow that they do hold Communion with some Pa­rishes in some Ordinances, at some times, and this, they say, will avoid the charge of a total Separation. They say, they never condemned that for Separation in others, which they practise themselves. How will he evince this? Why he has ransacked and rumaged all the Papers of Accommoda­tion that past between the Presbyterians, and the Independents, and there he finds, That the Assembly of Divines urged their dissenting Brethren to com­ply with their Rules of Church-Government, and charged them with Schism if they did it not. Well, what then? Were the Rules proposed by the Assembly the same with these that are urged now? Were they of the same nature? doubtfulness? difficulty? What if it was not the Assembly, but a Committee, a Sub-Committee, or a Subter-Sub-Committee of the Assembly? What if it was not the final judgment of the Assembly, but the private opinion of that Sub-Committee? And what if we be no ways obliged to abide by their judgments or opinions? And what if the Pres­byterians were too rigid, the other too stiff in their Sentiments, must the Church only imitate them in their weaknesses, when they had so many ex­cellencies which deserved imitation? And lastly, what if the Doctor has misreported the matter of Fact as there laid down? Any of these, much more all these will render the most plausible part of his Sermon preached, or his Discourse printed, manifestly impertinent. All which particulars, and many more, I shall make out from those very Papers.

(1) The Order of the Lords and Commons, Die Jovis, Novemb. 6. 1645, which Ordered the Committee to Act, gives them these Instru­ctions, That they should take into consideration the differences in Opinions of the Members of the Assembly in point of Church-Government, and to endeavour an Union if it be possible; And in case that cannot be done, to [Page 55] endeavour to find out some way how far tender Consciences, who cannot in all things submit to the Common Rule, which shall be Established, may be born with according to the word: Here we see a provision designed for Tender Consciences, and that before the Rule was Establisht, in case an Union could not be procured, which had it been done in our case, all differen­ces might have been composed.

(2) The Dissenting Brethren say, p. 15. That they agreed in those things which contained the Substance of the Service and Worship of God in the Directory, according to the Preface, and were confident they should agree in the Confession of Faith; so that here was nothing but a Punctilio of Go­vernment about which they differ'd.

(3) The Committee, p. 19. render this Reason, why the desire of their Brethren could not, in Terminis, be granted, Because it held out a total Separation from the Rule, as if in nothing it were to be complied with, nor their Churches be Communicated with in any thing, which argued Church-Communion, and that more could not be done or said against false Churches, wherein though they might be mistaken, yet it shews upon what Reasons they proceeded; but the Persons against whom the Doctor disputes nei­ther plead for, nor practice a total Separation, nor do any thing that may imply the Parrochial Churches to be false Churches.

(4.) The Committee, or Sub-Committee, had many things to urge, which the Doctor cannot make use of against the Dissenters, as 1. That they were now endeavouring a further Reformation according to the Word of God; and therefore there was more ground for Hope, more reason for Patience to see what the Issue of their Consultations might prove: And herein perhaps the Dissenting Brethren might be a little too hasty and nimble with them; who knows but matters might have been adjusted to their satisfaction? But things are much otherwise with us. For, 1. they are so far from Reforming according to the Word of God, that they own it not for a perfect Rule of Reformation. 2. They have taken up their Rest, and will not proceed one Step farther, not to King Edward's Beginning, nor Queen Elizabeths Beginning, much less to what Posture things were in at Christ's Beginning. 3. When they had power in their hands, by His Majesties Commission, to have reformed the Liturgy, to have eased the People of their Burdens, they would not Abate an Ace of their Pretensions, but rendred the Terms of Communion more severe and difficult. 4. The Parish Churches are meer Minors, and under Age, they move by the Motions of others, cannot Reform themselves, but are strictly tyed up to the Rubricks, Canons, and Constitutions of the Con­vocation, so that we have not the same Reason to hope for their Reform­ing [Page 56] of Worship according to the Word of God, 5. And yet this shall not be any prejudice to them, for if they shall do so, though it were to morrow, or a year, or ten years hence, we stand ready to fall in with such Reformation: And farther, 2. the Committee did plead, That they had both of them Covenanted to endeavour the nearest Conjunction, and there­fore, for their Oaths sake, were bound to part with as much of their Right as with a good Conscience they could foregoe: But Dissenters are under no such Obligation, that they know of, to endeavour such Conjunction with them who obtend their meer Wills to their Edification; and some pre­tend farther, That they are under a Solemn Covenant to endeavour a Re­formation according to the Word of God, in their respective places and sta­tions, and therefore ought not to comply with any Declensions and De­partures from such Reformation.

(5) the Committee were willing, That some Expedient should be endea­voured, how to bear with Dissenters in the Particulars wherein they could not agree; But we see no such expedient endeavoured after, nor once thought of, nay declared against, notwithstanding the many Humble Pe­titions for Peace that have been presented to them, notwithstanding His Majesties Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs, and the Parlia­ments Inclinations to shew some favour to tender Consciences; nay they have declared against any Condescentions, and are daily provoking Ma­gistrates to the utmost Rigour, and are like the immovable Bank, to which if the Dissenters will not wholly come over, the Boat and the Bank must never meet.

(6) Such was the tenderness of that Committee, that we find not so much in a dozen Convocations. For first they offer, That such as, through scruple or error of Conscience, cannot joyn to partake of the Lords Supper, shall repair to the Minister and Elders for satisfaction, which if they can­not receive, they shall not be compel'd to Communicate in the Lords Sup­per, provided that in all other parts of Worship (wherein there was an a­greement) they joyned with the Congregation. 2. They offer, p. 22. That such as are under the Government of the Congregation where they live (not being Officers) shall seek satisfaction (as before) which if they cannot receive, they shall not be compel'd to be under the power of Censures from Classes or Synods, provided they continued under the Government of that Congre­gation. How joyful at, how thankful for such Moderation would thou­sands of poor English-men be, if they might enjoy the Benefit of such a Canon, to save their Persons from a Prison, their Estates from Ruine, and their Families from Desolation!

[Page 57](7) The Sub-Committee do readily acknowledge, That Schism con­sists not in every diversity of Opinion and Practice, but in an open Breach of Love, and that no Uniformity is necessary to prevent Schism. p. 47. But the Doctor would make us believe, p. 32. That men may please themselves in talking of Peace and Love under separate Communions, but sad Experience shews the contrary.

(8) The Committee, p. 48. think the Dissenting Brethren wrong them, in saying That they make those Impositions upon the people as quali­fications for receiving Sacraments, whenas they desired no more than that the people appeared to be Orthodox: But certainly here's something more than Orthodoxy required of us (even in the judgment of their own Test of Orthodoxy) as a qualification for receiving Sacraments; and we must Submit to the Sign of the Cross in the one Sacrament for our Infants, and Kneeling in the other, as necessary to our own receiving them, when neither the one nor the other were mentioned by the Assembly.

(9) The Committee expresly declare, they would not have the Dis­senting Brethren walk by their Rule farther than as they had attained: But the Doctor is for the Rule of Severity, waving the great Rule of Charity, notwithstanding the different attainments of Christians.

(10) The Committee profess their Wonder (p. 49.) That their Brethren should impute it to them, as if they arrogated to themselves a pow­er in Ecclesiastical Assemblies to determine and impose circumstantial mat­ters: Seeing, say they, our Proposition doth mention nothing but Agreement in Substance. But the Doctor supposing that we are agreed in the Sub­stantials of Worship with him, yet presses us to come to the Churches Rules in those things which they themselves call Circumstantials.

(11) The Committee, p. 49. desires, That the matters of Offence may be particularly expressed, professing their earnest desire, as much as in them lay, to remove whatever may hinder comfortable Communion, that there may be no just cause of Separation. But the present Dissenters have par­ticularly expressed the matters of their Offence, and cannot obtain a re­moval of them, neither for Love nor Money; and it's a very hard World when neither of those two Wedges will drive.

[Page 58](12) And they say farther, That the Honourable Houses may find out more for Reformation than haply the Assembly have Advised, or themselves yet concluded, so that they will be willing to be farther instructed in the things that belong to the Churches Peace. But our good Masters have set up their Hercules's Pillars, and Engraven on them Ne plus ultra, so that now Hope it self is become hopeless, Patience worn to the Stumps, and all Endeavours out of breath; for after Cheese and Canon comes Nothing.

(13) Whatever the Altercations and Debates between the two Par­ties were in the Sub-Committee, yet the Resolve, at last, (which is the main, if not only thing considerable) was this, Decemb. 15. Resolved upon the question, That they which agree in the substance of the Worship in the Di­rectory according to the Preface, and agree in the Confession of Faith, and with the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, contained in their Confessions and writings, as we do, who differ from those Brethren in matters of Discipline, shall have the benefit of the Indulgence.

In short, It may be a plausible, but no righteous Method, to take the Arguments of the Committee, which were only conclusive in the Case before them (and perhaps not there) and to applie them to our present Case, which is quite another thing; And yet when all is said that can be said in this matter, it must be confessed there were undue heats and animosities between the Brethren, both standing too high upon their Pantables, which deserves to be lamented, and not Imitated, and drawn into Argument and Example to justifie the inflexible Rigour of the pre­sent Terms of Communion.

SECT. VIII. Philip. 3.15. Considered. How the Doctor rids himself of the danger of the Context. His second Question propounded, and answered like the former, that is, not at all: His Discourse about Conscience examined.

THe Author of the Discourse was very apprehensive that the Context would be urged against his interpretation of the Text, and therefore to save us a labour he has from thence formed an objection for us against his own Doctrine, which we thankfully acknowledge, and accept; whate­ver may be said (says he) as to other Pleas, for their present practices, my Text (it should have been the verse before it) seems to afford the strongest of all, that men are to be pressed to go no further than they have already attained, and not to be strained up to an Uniformity, beyond the dictates of their Conscien­ces; but to be let alone as the Apostle directs in the foregoing verse, If any one be otherwise minded, he must be left to God, and that manifestation of his will, he will be pleased to give him.

This Objection to say truth is drawn up with as much integrity as we could well expect: For the Counsel for the Defendent is hardly to be trusted to draw up the declaration for the Plaintiff: One small exception we have against his wording our Plea, and 'tis but a small one: We say not, that men are not to be pressed to go further than they have attained, provided they be only pressed with such Arguments as are proper for the conviction of Rational Creatures: For thus would our Blessed Savior have them pressed, who was the grand exemplar of all moderation and meekness: Luke 14.23. Compel them to come in! [...]. And let tender Consciences be thus compelled, and spare them not; we shall never com­plain of this force, this violence: But there is a more savage and ferine Method of Compulsion, like that of the Gentleman who courteously invi­ed his poor Tenants to a Christmas dinner by a Bum-bailiff, and Tickets of green-wax, which filled his house indeed with guests, but spoiled all the mirth of the Feast: A Hawk will never make a good sign for a Dove-Coat: [Page 60] We would not have men pressed and oppressed with Club-Logick, as a procedure unsuitable to the nature of Christianity. And now we abide by the Objection; If God himself has given the Indulgence, what man has power to take off the Seal? or why should the Church trouble it self and others with doubtful Canons, when they that have not attained to satisfaction about them, have the condescension of God to plead for the suspension of their own Acts, during such dissatisfaction.

Now this knot the Doctor will untie, or cut, or break. And the clear­ing of it (he says) will give a full answer to the second enquiry, viz. what is to be done if men cannot come up to the Rule prescribed?

But is not this very much about and about the Bush? why should he give himself the needless trouble to enquire so scrupulously what is to be done in case men cannot come up to the Rule, when the Apostle has already given us a short, but plain answer to it? namely, that they are to be left to God for farther instruction. But the Doctor is not satisfied with this Answer, and therefore he will answer it in these particulars: Answer it? yes, just as he did the former question, by speaking never a word to it. Had he been pleased to have answered the Question what is to be done? he should have resolved us, first, What means are to be used to reclaim them that cannot come up? whether fair or fowl? Christian or barbarous? whether corporal penalties are to be suspended, or the Dissenters? whether they are to be left in Gods hands, or taken into the Gaolers clutches? Secondly, By whom this must be done, that is to be done? as what they are to do who are dissatisfied? what course they must take to at­tain more knowledge of Gods mind and Will in that matter, that so they may enlarge their practice according to the improvement of their under­standing? Let it not then be ill taken if we put a few questions about this Question.

I. What must they do, to whom a Rule is prescribed by Men about their worshiping of God, who cannot come up to it? And surely if pride and interest had not muddied it, the Answer had run very clear: They ought to examine and try that Rule by the word of God, to beg of him instruction in any point wherein they may possibly be otherwise minded than he would have them: And in the mean time to forbear, for whatso­ever is not of faith is sin, that is, whatever a man does, and is not per­sauded that it may be lawfully done.

[Page 61]II. What must be done by Church Governours, if men cannot come up to their establisht Rules? and thus much of the Answer is exceeding ob­vious.

1. That they had better sit still and do nothing, than rise up, and do mischief; Let 'em do no more harm than good, and let them be do­ing.

2. That if they must need have more work to do, let 'em be sure they have a Commission from God to do it, lest while they do what they ought not to have done, and leave undone those things they ought to have done, they make their sins of Commission greater than their sins of Omissi­on. And,

3. They may do well, among all their doings to consider whether Conscience be not Gods peculiar, and so not within their precincts; out of their jurisdiction, and not liable to their citations, processes, summons, and visitations; if they will judge, let 'em be sure they be com­petent judges: if they will be busie, let 'em beware it be not in Alieno foro.

4. If they would know what they must do to others, let 'em first put the case what they would have done to themselves? let them do no more at home, than they would have done to them supposing they were Pro­testants in Italy or Spain. It's very useful now and then for great men to put themselves into poor mens circumstances; (I do not persuade 'em to change places with them, but to put cases) suppose our Bishops had been in Bishop Ridley's case when his nearer approach to the fire had thaw­ed his Episcopal Rigor, what would they have done? would they have magnified the mercy of their own merciless enemies for compelling them to walk farther than they had attained? or would they have called the Martyrs fools who upon their ordinary call preached the Gospel, notwith­standing that the laws had silenced them?

III. It had been much in answer to our expectation, and the Question, if he had pleased to have revealed the great secret, what this prescribed Rule is? and this would have been more pertinent, than a discussion of the principle of individuation, is to the sixth commandement. As,

1. Whether this Rule be one prescribed by God, it which case no mans ignorance will vacate the rule, though it incapacitate him at present to obey it; or by man, without direction and warrant from God, in which case, we need no ignorance to excuse us, seeing power to command and obligation to obey, are Twins, both are born, live, and die toge­ther.

[Page 62]2. Whether this prescribed Rule, be such as is subservient to some other Rule prescribed by God, or no way useful to that purpose? We freely grant, that whatever is necessary to reduce any Command of God into Act, and Exercise, may be, must be the matter of such prescribed Rules; whatever serves true decency and order, whatever tends to edification, to peace, or the glory of God, may be fit matter for a Rule, but rules about things no ways necessary to these ends, come not under humane determi­nation.

These things, or somewhat like these, might have offer'd at an Answer to the Question; but let us hear the Doctor, who, the Reader must ob­serve, is not answering to the Question, but to the Objection, which he would persuade us will give a full Answer to the 2d Question, but no man believes it.

§ 1. Then, This (says he) can never justifie men in not doing what they lawfully may do. This, What? why, that men are to be pressed to go no farther than they have attained. This will not justifie men! I believe it will not, it was never intended to justifie them, but to restrain their act­ing, to excuse 'em in suspending their own Act till farther satisfaction; but it will not justifie them! Before what Judge, before whose Tribunal will it not justifie them? It will not justifie them before God, if through supine negligence in searching into the Will of God, about Sin and Duty, lawful and unlawful, they understand not the Bounds of their Christian liberty, and yet even here the same God who condemns their sinful ignorance, will not have them to give ignorant obedience: But what is this to mans judg­ment? who knows nothing more or less of mens negligence than they shall tell him? But what if he has used all due means to obtain satisfaction in the matters prescribed, and yet cannot be satisfied but that either the things are sinful that are commanded, or the Authority incompetent by which they are commanded, will not this justifie him neither? Then he must be condemned by men, but God will so far justifie him, that he shall not be condemned for acting no farther than his own light directs him.

This Proposition of the Doctors he confirms by a Reason: For (says he) the Apostle makes Communion necessary as far as 'tis lawful, and that upon the general obligation that lies upon all Christians to do what in them lies, for preservation of the Peace of the Church. This Rule of the Apostle! [Page 63] I find indeed he lays down a Rule that we should walk as far as we have attained, but no Rule that we should walk up to the lawfulness of the things, but to what we have attained of their lawfulness; lawfulness is not the measure of our walking in this case, but knowledge. Things may be in themselves lawful, but it only so, and no more, and a Christian has not attained to satisfaction of their lawfulness, if he walks so far as he has attained, he fulfils the Apostles Rule, and pleads the benefit of the other to be left to God's instruction. But this is the Doctor's method to confound what is lawful objectivè, and what is so subjectivè, as if the Apostles Rule had been, so far as the things are lawful in themselves, so let us all walk; when as he only requires us to walk so far as we have attained to see their lawfulness: And both the Apostles Rules do suppose that some things are in their own nature lawful, which are not so discerned by every Christian, in which piteous case, he commands them to be left to God.

But still he judges, that the Apostles Rule makes Communion necessary as far as 'tis lawful. I cannot help that! nor do I see that the Apostle in­tends to speak any thing of the Communion of Christians among them­selves; for such Communion may be had and maintained under very great variety of apprehensions and practices: if Churchmen would once learn to preach up Love, instead of Hatred; and preach down Persecu­tion, instead of Conformity to their own little Niceties. Now to make his Reason carry a fairer face of probability, the Doctor has cleverly cor­rupted his Text, as he has all along perverted the sense, and reads it thus: As far as ye have attained walk by the same Rule, Do the same things; which looks very fairly to and favorably upon, our dearly beloved Uni­formity; but he that rides of a trotting Horse, will never spie small faults. Do the same things; i. e. Let not one Minister preach with an Hour-glass, when another has none: nor one read Service in his Gown, when the other wears the Surplice. Let not one Christian stand at Prayer, when his Neighbor kneels; but let every man do just the same things that ano­ther does, upon pain and peril that shall fall thereon: And all this goodly gear hangs on a Peg that is not worth a Pin, viz. the rendring [...], Do the same things. When all the Apostle commands amounts to no more than this, That we should do as he did, walk as far as we have at­tained, and press toward the mark, the same mark he aimed at, and leave others to him who delights in mercy, more than sacrifice of his own ap­pointment, much more than in Ceremony of mans appointment; and infi­nitely [Page 64] more than in Cruelty, which men have invented to shew their wick­edness, but he has forbidden to demonstrate his holiness.

Now what pretty sport would this make the Reader, if the Doctors Answerer were in the humor; Let us all do the same things! Very good! Will then they do as we do? not for a world! Must we do as they do? By what authority? Ne audiantur haec verba ego dico, aut tu dicis, sed quid dicit Dominus? No more then of this, what they, or we say, or do, but what has God, the impartial Umpire, determin'd between us? Is what they do nearer the Rule? we will do it with them. If our practice come nearer the Rule, are they willing to become conformable to that Rule, though they be Nonconformists to that Rule which is more remote? Now all the fat is in the fire, and that will make a terrible flame!

These Reasonings the Doctor thinks to blow away with the breath of his mouth, and would persuade us that we have attained already to a satis­faction of the things prescribed by their Rule, and therefore ought, in pur­suance of the Apostle's Rule, to walk up to what is so prescribed. I dare say, (so he goes on) if most of the Preachers at this day in the Separate Meet­ings were soberly ask'd their judgments, Whether it were lawful for the People to join with us in our Publick Assemblies, they would not deny it. But there's more cunning in these words, than every one is aware of.

1. I cannot tell what the Preachers at this day would answer, if they were soberly askt the Question; but I doubt they never intend to do that, who put the Question. A sober Question, deserves a sober Answer; and I have heard of a sober, and compassionate Enquiry, that has been answer'd with more sobriety, and compassion, than it deserved: But the Question now, is Snick or Snee? Turn, or Starve? Conform, or Hang? Use the Cross, or bear the Cross? And so we once heard the Doctrine at a Visitation Ser­mon, That in vain had the Parliament made Laws to turn the Presbyterians out of their Livings, if men did entertain them in their Houses, and at their Tables.

2. If the Preachers in the Separate Meetings would thus answer the Question, I should much question their wisdom; for no wise man will an­swer a Question, before he understands it: But is it lawful to join in the Parochial Assemblies? It may be lawful, and it may not be lawful: It may be so, to join with some Assemblies, and yet not with all: In some parts of Worship, not in others: It may be lawful to some persons who judge it lawful (supposing it so to be) when yet 'tis not so to others, who have not attained to such a judgment.

[Page 65]3. I have a confidence contrary to his, That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were asked their judgments (whether soberly, or madly) about the lawfulness of joining with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship, or in any Exclusive to their joining with other Assemblies, where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed, they would flatly deny it; and let these Men be brought to the Poll, I question not but they will carry it; and I suppose that though the Doctor preacht in the Chappel, he never took the Poll of the Nonconformists in Guildhall.

4. Let the Question be put, Whether the People may lawfully separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members, and from those Pastors under whose Ministerial conduct their own free Election has pla­ced them, to join ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches, and they, according to Reason and Scripture, will answer in the Negative.

And now the Doctor has supposed what he pleases, let him but now in­fer and surmise what he pleases too, and the day is his own.

(1) He infers, If the Ministers judge it lawful, why do they not preach it in their Congregations?

Answ. 1. They do not preach it, because they do preach it; that is, so far as they judge it lawful, they either preach it, or print it; or partly preach, and partly print, as the Doctor did by his own Discourse or Ser­mon.

2. Some do not preach at all, because Christ has found them other, and better work to do, than to preach up Ceremonies, wherein they them­selves not being satisfied, are very unfit to give satisfaction to their people: And if we should tell the people how far they are bound to comply with an establisht Rule, at that rate the Doctor has answer'd the Question, we should leave the people as wise as we found them.

(2) The Doctor falls a guessing what should be the Reason they do not preach this Doctrine to their people; why they keep it such a secret in their breasts.

1. He conjectures it may be for fear they should have none to preach to▪ a vain conjecture, since they that preach most often, and open how far it's lawful to Conform, have the most numerous Congregations.

2. He conjectures it may be lest they should seem to condemn themselves, whil'st they preach against Separation in a Separate Congregation; that cannot be it, for they that are locally separated from all Congregations, may consistently preach against Schismatical Separation from any.

[Page 66]3. He conjectures it may be They fear the reproaches of the People? Nor that neither! for they that judge their duty so to preach, so to write, do it without reproach of the more temperate, and fear not the reproach of them that are otherwise. But why do not our Diviners, and guessers at other mens corrupt intentions preach against the No­torious Crimes of those that are their hearers? are there none but Dissenters there to be railed at? have they none that live in open Adultery? none that are Common Drunkards, that for time of need could piss out a scare-fire? Is it for fear they should have none to preach to? or for fear they should have no Pulpit to preach in? or be silenced, and not permitted a Tongue to preach? or is it lest they should Condemn them­selves, whilst they preach against the crimes of others? or do they fear the reproaches of the people, that they are half presbyterians, semi-fanaticks▪ parboyled puritans? I think its time for men to have done with these evil surmisings, we have somthing more concerns us to judge of, than other mens hearts: when the Doctor Preacht to his auditory in Gods Name, yet he should not have stept into Gods throne; but have left the thoughts, and intents of the heart to him, before whom they are open, and Naked.

I shall not here call over the Doctors particular insinuations, which are so subtilly laid, that they do the mischief, and instil all the poy­son of a false accusation, but yet escape before men the charge of it: only I take notice of one thing; Is it not (saies he) as plainly written by St. Paul, If I yet please Men, I should not be the Servant of Christ; as, Woe be unto me if I preach not the Gospel? It is so with equal plainness by the Apostle, and with equal impertinency by the Doctor and with equal justification of the Nonconformists: for they dare not please men to the displeasing of Christ, both which they would do, by sacrilegious Desertion of their Ministry: but Christs dis­pleasure is not to be compensated by mens good will, nor his love to be forfeited for fear of incurring their ill will: And on whose side the temptation to men pleasing most lies, the impartial world will judge though we be silent.

§ 2. His second particular is this: If the bare dissatisfaction of mens consciences do justifie the lawfulness of separation, and breaking an estab­lisht Rule, it were to little purpose to make any Rule at all: And to speak my mind freely, unless the Rules that have been made in some Coun­tries were to better purposes, I know not to what purpose they were made at all; these Rules have made the world so irregular, and unruly: What their purposes were that made the Rules, I shall not [Page 67] enquire, but what we see or may say; the event of them for many Centuries has been nothing but either blind obedience in the most, or necessary separation in the rest: And much better that all these Hu­mane ecclesiastick rules had never been made; than to be made of such sinful materials as must divide us, such dubious things, as will perplex us, or by such persons whom God has not authorized to Command us. But his proposition I must except against upon these following grounds.

(1) I shall not say, It is no distinct proposition from the former, being only a Reason of it; nor that he might have found in his own discourse twenty more propositions if this may stand for one; but onely make my exceptions.

1. This proposition like most of the rest, is of an uncertain sound. First we know not what mystery there lies in, or may lurk under that Term Bare dissatisfaction. For this word has haunted us all a­long through the discourse; Barely Congregational, p. 30. Bare suspending Communion. p. 20. Barely relating to acts of worship. p. 17. And now at last Bare dissatisfaction. If he means no more than such dissatisfaction, as has no fair reason for it, that perhaps will not justify any man, in any thing he does, or does not: but there is a dissatisfaction, well cloath'd with decent, and Comely presumptions that the thing it's dissatisfied about is unlawful, and it may be with probable arguments too, though it wants such demonstration, cui non potest subesse falsum. And this will justifie if not positive separation, yet suspension of a mans action in positive Communion.

2. If bare dissatisfaction will justifie our not acting▪ (which is all we plead bare dissatisfaction for) there is another thing that justifies our Communion with other Churches where we may enjoy the Ordinan­ces of Christ without such dissatisfaction: and that is the Command of God, which has made it our express duty to walk in the ways of Gods appointment. So that if dissatisfaction tye us up from joyning in one place; peremptory Command will enjoyn us to joyn in some o­ther.

3. This establisht Rule, that fills up both pages of his Sermon, is an e­quivocal term; for such a Rule may be lawful, or unlawful according to the matter of it: If the matter of it be things unlawful, there needs no dissatisfaction of conscience to justifie separation from it, or the viola­tion of it, the will of God has already determined that point: If it be lawful, and conscience be dissatisfied about it; conscience will tie up from acting according to it, though not oblige to act against it

[Page 68](2) His Proposition is tardy too, in respect of the Reason he gives to back it. Because (says he) it is impossible to make any [Rule] which ignorant and injudicious men shall not apprehend to be, in something or o­ther, against the Dictates of their Consciences. But let knowing and judi­cious men make the Rules, and there will be less cause for ignorant and in­judicious men to break 'em: They that will make Rules about indiffe­rent things, had need have more than an indifferent Judgment, more than an ordinary Wisdom to accommodate them to the measure of Know­ledge of those for whom they are made: And in this case Rules should should not be made as men make Tobacco-Pipes and Glasses, on purpose to be broken. Tradesmen indeed cannot live if their Wares were Im­mortal; but are Church-men more afraid their Tickney-Rules and China-Canons should be preserved than broken? It were better the whole Fry of Apparitors, Summoners should starve than live upon the new-made Sins of the people. But ignorant men will apprehend these Rules against their Consciences: Let then Rules be made for the knowing and wise, and leave the poor ignorants to live and grow wiser, rather than knock 'em o'th' head because they want Brains. But thus it was, thus it ever will be, whilest men will be establishing their own Rules of Severity, and ne­glect the Rule of Charity given them by the Spirit. Rom. 14.3. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, nor him that eateth not, judge him that eateth; which was a Rule made upon as good Advice as any of those made by any Church at any time since.

Let then the Doctor please himself with his seeming Advantages from the Papers of accommodation, we need say no more than,

1. That the Case is hugely wide between what the Committee, or Sub-Committee there required of their Dissenting Brethren, and what the Bishops now require of the people in order to an Union.

2. That his Inferences are not fairly drawn from their Expressions.

3. The Assembly and their Committees were but men, subject to the like Passions with their Brethren, and therefore,

4. That we are not obliged to vindicate every expression which in heat or haste dropt from their Pens, nor to be concluded by their Deter­minations, which, with what has been before observed upon this subject, is enough to blunt the edge and break the back of the Doctor's Arguments drawn from their Concessions: And yet I cannot forbear a particular examination of some of them, for a taste of the rest.

[Page 69](1) Though Tenderness of Conscience may justifie Non-Communion in the thing scrupled, yet it can never justifie Separation: That is, he that has the Church-dores lockt upon him must stand there cooling his Toes, and never address himself to others that are open, for fear of Mr. Hales his Scare-Crow, Separation. But for Answer,

1. We produce Tenderness of Conscience for no other use than to justifie Non-Communion in the things that are scrupled.

2. We produce the Authority of God to justifie our Obedience to all his Commands, Statutes, Judgments, and instituted Worship.

3. We produce plain reason from those premises to justifie our Churches: For if tenderness of Conscience will justifie us in Non-Communion, and God's Command justifie us to Worship him according to his Revealed Will, we must of meer necessity separate from a Church where we can­not have all the Ordinances of Christ, to another where we can.

4. We say, The Doctrine of the Sub-Committee, viz. That such ten­derness of Conscience as ariseth out of an opinion (cui potest subesse fal­sum) which may be false, is not a sufficient ground, &c. to justifie Sepa­ration; and that of the A. B. Laud's, who would have all Dissenters pro­duce such Arguments for their Dissent, require more Evidence than our Learned Doctor will allow for the Existence of a Deity.

This Point, by the way, I shall a little examine, because I find it as­serted in some of the Doctors staple-Discourses: I shall not cite his Ireni­cum, because he has put that Piece amongst his Tracts that are to be re­tracted, and seems weary of his Weapon-Salve, and will now trust only to his Weapon. His Rational Account is not yet amongst his prohibited Pie­ces. Now, p. 178, 179. he thus expresses himself, It is a piece of great weakness of Judgment to say there can be no certain assent where there is a meer possibility of being deceived; for there is no kind of assent in the hu­man understanding, as to the existence of any thing, but there is a possibility of Deception in it. And p. 206, 207. he calls aloud to the Papists to come forth with their infallible Arguments to prove the existence of a Deity, before they talk of an infallible way of proving the truth of Reli­gion: And surely the Dissenters are not more rigidly obliged to prove the lawfulness of their Separation, nor the sinfulness of the Terms im­posed on them, by Arguments which cannot possibly be false, than all Mankind is to produce such infallible Proofs for the existence of the Godhead.

[Page 70]Nay, further by what I can gather from the Doctor, he seems to pro­ceed upon such principles, as plainly render it impossible by any cer­tain Argument to prove the existence of a Deity. Orig. sacr. p. 230. where,

1. He lays down this for a principle: That the foundation of all cer­tainty lies in the necessary existence of a being absolutely perfect; so that unless I know that there is a God, I cannot be assured that I know any any thing in a certain manner. Now then if all certainty doth suppose the existence of a be­ing so absolutely perfect, I must, before I can know any thing certainly, con­clude that there is an infinity of knowledge, wisdom, power, and goodness in this God.

If then God be the first knowable, and that it's impossible to know any thing certainly, Except I first know such a being as God, how shall we come to prove his existence by such demonstration cui non potest subesse fal­sum? shall we demonstrate a God A priori? what cause shall we find of him, upon which, and from which our demonstration may be formed: without a cause, we cannot demonstrate à priori; And supposing a cause, we suppose him to be no God: Shall we then proceed à posteriori, from the Effects to the Cause? The Apostle would have gone this way, Rom. 1.20. And from the creation of the world, have demonstrated his eter­nal Power, and Godhead; but the Doctor has shut the door, because we must first know there is an invisible God, before we can certainly know there is a visible world.

2. How then will the Doctor prove there is a God? why, he tells us, Orig. sacr. book 3. cap. 1. p. 367, 368, &c. We must have recourse to an Idea: A settled and consistent Notion of a being that is absolutely perfect, not (as he says) that there is any such connate Idea in the soul, but that there is a faculty in the soul whereby upon the free use of Reason, it can form within it self a settled Notion of such a being, which is as perfect as it is possible for us to conceive a being to be. Well then we must form a Notion of God from the Use of Reason: But seeing that all the processes of Reason are from things known to unknown, or from more known to less known, where shall we place our engine? where shall we fix the first foot of the com­pass? where must Reason begin? must we begin with the perfections of the Creatures, to argue our selves into a belief of that God that made them, and therefore must need contain all their perfections in himself? this is that the Doctor has renounced; for we must first be sure there is a God, before we can be sure there is any thing else: I would begin with a Flie, an Ant, a Mushrome, and from thence I would gradually climb [Page 71] up to the first Cause, but the Doctor forbids us; for we have no assurance that there is such a Fly, Ant, or Mushrome, till we are first assured of a God: Must we then leave this way of reasoning, and search for something be­fore God, Co-ordinate with God? the danger is, lest that which is before God, should prove the true God; or if any thing be Co-ordinate with God, there will be two Gods, or none.

Now this being once the judgment of the Reverend Doctor, and con­firmed by him in his Dialogues, p. 269. where he appeals to his Orig. Sacr. for this very thing, I hope they will never more expect fuller proof for the warrantableness of our Nonconformity, than they require to prove the existence of God; and let them beware, lest whil'st they trample up­on Conscience, where God has his Throne, they do not fight against him that sits thereon, and so bring Heaven and Earth about their ears.

2. Another thing collected is, That it's endless to hope to give satisfaction to tender Consciences; and therefore they resolve never to begin. And is it not as endless to give assent and consent to the Impositions, for who knows where they will end? By the same Reason they have imposed these, they may five hundred; but if the Distemper be endless, why should nor the Remedy? The Apostle Paul gave satisfaction to tender Consciences, without ever fearing it would be endless. Men are for endless wealth, but not for endless trouble. Can any man think the primitive Christians had only a Lease of the Rule for Indulgence, during the Apostles Lives, and that they must Fine for it smartly, when the next Generation came up. How much better had it been to have been left to restraint, and absolute will during the Apostles times, with a reversion of liberty after their de­cease; than that the 14th Chapter to the Romans, should be like the Cere­monial Law, to expire with the Apostles, and be buried in their Gra [...]es? There will be honest mistaken Souls to the worlds end, whom Christ thought not too bad to redeem; and whil'st there are such, the Church, unless She will be a Shrew, or a Stepmother, must take a tender care of them: But if it be so endless to satisfie these erring Consciences, leave 'em to God, he can do it; and he will either forbear them, in their igno­rance, or give them knowledge, whom it might become those men a little to imitate, who call themselves his servants.

(3.) That Scruple of Conscience is no protection against Schism. Who [Page 72] says it is? It's only a Prohibition to afford Communion in what we scruple: Except when the things scrupled, and not scrupled, are so blended together, that we cannot swallow what appears lawful, but we must gorge that with it which appears otherwise; which has been the policy of some modern Imposers, so artificially to mix the certain and the uncertain, the questionable with the unquestionable, that these scrupulous Consciences cannot enjoy that wherein they are satisfied, except they will venture at that about which they are not so; so are Private Bills stitch'd with the Publick ones, that the more useful may sell the other, which few else would regard: So have I seen idle Masters delight themselves to see their Chil­dren play at Bob-apple, where the poor young Rascals would have been glad of a Bit, but were always prevented by the Candle.

(4) That the Apostles, notwithstanding the difference of mens judgments, did prescribe Rules of Uniformity. Well, but mark their proof; Did not the Apostles bind the burden of some necessary things on the Churches, albeit there were in those Churches gradual differences of light? And will the Doctor infer hence a power to bind unnecessary burdens upon the necks of Disciples, because the Apostles imposed such as were necessary? The Argu­ment then concludes; If the Apostles, who were infallible, had power to impose Necessaries, much more may the Prelates impose Unnecessaries, though they be fallible. But of these things thus much.

§ 3. Come we now to his third and last Proposition, A wilful Er­ror, or mistake of Conscience, doth by no means excuse from sin. These things surely are oddly joined together; that a wilful Error, and a mistake of Conscience, should be made the subject of one Proposition: There may be a mistake of Conscience, where there's no wilful Error; wilfulness makes every Error double, obstinacy being added to it; but a mistake of simple ignorance, makes it not half so great, though it makes it not to become nothing: it may excuse à tanto, though not à toto, and mollifie it a little, though not justifie it, nor nullifie it.

It will not excuse from sin! And yet p. 44. he moves this Question, What Error of Conscience doth excuse a man from sin, in following the dictates of it? If no Error will excuse, why is the Question put, What Error will excuse? And if some Error will excuse, why is the Proposition laid down so loosely, and uncertainly? A wilful Error or Mistake will not excuse from sin.

[Page 73]And upon this proposition, he makes a case. If a man think him­self bound to divide the Church by sinful separation, that separation is ne­vertheless a sin, for his thinking himself bound to do it: which is one of the wildest cases that ever was put. For, 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a Man in his wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful separation? A man may think himself bound to se­parate; and that separation may possibly be sinful: but he cannot think himself bound to sinful separation. He that is bound is under a Law; He that thinks himself bound, thinks himself under a law: but it Implies a broad contradiction, for a man to think himself bound to sin: because that implies, that he thinks himself bound not to be bound; or under a law to be under no law. A sort of men there are that think it lawful to tell a Lie, to avoid a great evil, to procure some great good. Yet none ever owned this principle that it was lawful to sin, to procure the one, or avoid the other: but they pretend that to tell a Lie in such a case un­der such circumstances is no sin. 2. I very much question whether e­ver any did think himself bound to divide a Church: he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it, but how should such a crotchet come in's head that he was bound to divide it: when the Church of England separat­ed from Rome, did they think it their duty, to make divisions in it? 3. The instances that he gives are short or wide of his case by many leagues: Paul thought himself bound to do many things against the Name of Jesus: He did so, but not to do one thing that was sin: The Jews thought them­selves bound in Conscience to kill the Apostles: True! but yet they thought not themselves bound to kill them sinfully: they wanted not pretences to justifie the cause to the World, nor untemper'd mortar to daub o­ver their own Conscience; 'twas easie to say they were rebels against, traitors to the Emperor: An easie thing to cry out of heresie, and schism, and sects every where spoken against; nor wanted they a Tertullus who be­fore the Magistrates and Judges could accuse Paul for a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a Ring-leader of a sect: so that all the world sees and the poor dissenters feel the Truth of what the Dr. says, men may do very bad things and yet think themselves bound in conscience to do them: 4. Its freely granted by all the world, that wilful error (that is, Interpre­tively such, for no man can formally err wilfully:) does not excuse from sin: that is, what God has prohibited, no mans errour can make a du­ty; what God has commanded no mans errour can discharge him from obedience to it. Nor do we, or ever did we make Conscience a stalk­ing horse for these ends.

And thus we have got through the three famous propositions, that should have cleared up the objection, and so answered to the second Questi­on: [Page 74] but what are we edified by all this discourse? or how do we un­derstand either what we, or Church governours must do, in case we, or others cannot come up to the establisht rule? men are not justifiable in not doing what they lawfully may do: well but if they see not that may be lawfully done which may so? must they be left to God or no? wilful er­ror and mistake will not excuse from sin: be it so! still what must be done when men cannot come up to the establisht rule? I confess, I am just as wise as I was! but this is the Genius of the Sermon: He propounds an enqui­ry? p. 15. How far the obligation doth extend to comply with an establisht rule? He shuts one thing out of the Question, then a second thing out of the Question; then excludes a third out of the Question, and at last shuts the Question out of doors, and it goes wandring up and down like a vagabond to this day: we never heard one rule to limit it: how far we are not bound; nor one assertion to explain it, how far we are bound, but as far as a man may conjecture by the Hum, and buz of the discourse; we are bound to comply to the uttermost extent with every establisht rule: Again, p. 36. He enquires, what is to be done if men can­not come up to the established rule? And he neither acquaints us, what we are to do: nor what the Magistrates are to do, nor what Church go­vernours are to do, nor what the Rule is, nor who made it, but lays down a first, a s [...]cond, a third proposition, and the Question is gone for Jamaica, or Tangiere, and fare it well!

But yet under this last proposition, there are some things contained which really deserve our most serious Consideration. As,

§. 1. He Infers from hence, that men ought not to rest satisfied with the present dictates of their consciences, for notwithstanding them they may commit very great Sins. Much less then ought men to rest satisfied with the present dictates of other mens wills, for notwithstanding them they may commit very great sins. Conscience is more my rule then the dictate of of any Church: and if I ought not to rest satisfied with that which God has made my next and immediate guide, I may the more lawfully examine their commands, which are more remotely such. But I wonder what he would have men do? would he have us like the wandring Jew, ramble up and down for satisfaction, and never accept it? or to be always learning, and never coming to the stable and setled knowledge of the Truth! or proving all things, and never holding fast that which is good? Must we be of the Pyrrhonian Religion, Academicks, Scepticks, Seekers? or shall we for two or three years be of no religion, that we may be more Impartial in our Enquiries which is the True? There is something con­siderable in what the Dr. says, if he had made it out: If the Dictates of our Conscience brand such a practise for evil, which the generality [Page 75] of sober, pious, and knowing Christians recommend as lawful, or a duty. It will become us to be jealous, least any base lust have bribed our judgments to pass a false verdict upon that practice; and so in many other Cases, but in the mean time we must refrain, and not act contrary to our present sentiments; and if there be any practice which appears to me to be a duty from the Scripture, in which I have found the presence of God with me, and the blessing of God up­on me thereby; I shall study to be more confirm'd in it, and rest sa­tisfied with my present dictates about it, till some remarkable thing a­waken me to a jealousie, that its not so clear a matter as I have sup­posed it.

§ 2. But the Doctor is afraid (and so am I) that the common mi­staking the Case of an erroneous Conscience hath done a great deal of mis­chief among men. I wish he would state it better then, next time, lest the next Edition alter the Title, and call it the Mischeif of Mista­ting the Question! But where does the mischeif on it lie? Oh, the Question is generally put, How far an erroneous Conscience doth ohlige! and if they that propound it in those terms, answer it as the Doctor did the other, How farr we are bound to comply with an establisht Rule? It had better never been stated nor started than thus answered.

To come a little nearer to him! Is the Doctor sure the Question is thus generally put. How farr an erroneous Conscience doth oblige? I am very confident, its oftner put, whether it do at all oblige or no? And they generally determine in the negative, Conscientia erronea, ligat, sed non obligat. It ties a man up from acting, or may urge him to act, but can neither oblige him to do what God has forbidden, or to omit what God has made a duty. The former because we take the voice and countermand of Conscience to be Gods voice, and he that is prepa­red to act against that dictate, though it be not the voice of God, yet shews he was really prepared to have acted against it, if it had been so: And though it be the will of God we should do what he has commanded, yet 'tis not the will of God, we should do it with a reluctant, and tergiversating Conscience: The latter because there can be no power supposed to be given by God against his own Laws, Nor King, nor Keysar, nor Kirk, nor Conscience can make that lawful which God has declared sinful, nor render that indifferent which God has made a duty.

And therefore after all this ostentation of Casuistical learning, the Nonconformists are perfectly unconcern'd, further than to clear up what he has perplexed in this matter, and in short they say, 1. That [Page 76] A mistaking Conscience will tie up the Person from acting, with this diffe­rence, that where the thing is a duty, which Conscience dictates to to be sinful, he ought to refrain his act, but yet is not guiltless in the sight of God: but if the thing be in it self indifferent, Conscience does not only lay an imbargo upon him and commands him not to stir one step, one foot further, but will justifie him in the Aporetick posture, a­gainst any power on earth, to whom he never gave a power to per­plex Conscience so far as to make that sin, which in it self is indifferent, and Conscience judges sinful. 2. They say, that where Conscience dictates any thing to be sinful which God has made a duty, though this erroneous Conscience will not discharge the soul from the duty, yet the measure and degree of that sinful forbearance is to be taken from, 1. The diligence or negligence which the mistaken person has used to procure satisfaction in the mind of God in that perticular. 2. From the frame of the heart towards God in other cases, and particulars, as whether he makes Conscience of obeying God in those things, which he knows to be duties. 3. From the continuance in that omission: for the affirmative precept of God, which has made doing the thing my duty, though it alwayes obliges yet does not oblige al­wayes to be doing it; and therefore a Conscience, which chains me up from duty for a day or week, when perhaps in that revolution, the duty may not recur, is not of such guilt, as that which fetters me up from acting for such a time, wherein the duty has offered it self frequently to my observance: I say 'tis not of such guilt. I dare not say 'tis of no guilt; because the ineptitude of the soul to have done it, if it had recurred in that season, may be culpable.

3. They say an erroneous Conscience can never make that to be­come either lawful or a duty, which God has declared to be sinful: Because the Authority of God is greater than that of Conscience, and can never in any Case be superseded by it. And because negative Pre­cepts alwayes bind, and bind to forbearance at all times and in all Cases (except there be a relaxtion in the Law it self, which in such Negatives, whose matter is not of its self, and in its nature evil, there may be) so that what God has made sin, so far as he hath so made it, the soul is tyed up for ever from doing it.

4. They say that an erroneous Conscience may so perplex and en­tangle the Soul with its interfering dictates, either urging it to re­frain as sinful, what God has made a duty; where to refrain is sinful, because God has made it a duty; and to act is sinful because Consci­ence represents it as unlawful; or pressing to act where God has de­clared it to be sin; in which Case to act must needs be sin, because [Page 77] God has prohibited it: and to refrain is sinful, because Conscience tells the Soul it must act: And I know not what such a miserable Creature may expect, Except first, That God may pity it, though erroneous, if sincere; For sincerity is more in the sight of him who desires truth in the inward parts than Orthodoxy: and he sees the general frame of the heart to be upright, because it would omit nothing which it takes to be duty, though in the application of the general frame of heart to this or that particular practice it may be out most wretchedly. 2. That men ought exceedingly to pity an erro­neous Conscience, both because they may need the same commisera­tion, they may be tempted, they are of the same frail Constitutions, and obnoxious to the like infirmities, but especially if that errour do visibly arise from an evil Constitution of body, being naturally me­lancholick, or from evil education, where the Errour has been suckt in with the Mothers milk, or the general prevailing of some er­roneous principle in the Age which has tinctured and misled Con­science, seeing its much more easie to scoffe, jeer, and revile at an er­roneous Conscience than to direct, inform, and heal it. And none are more unmerciful censurers of a mistaken Conscience, than they that never knew the worth of a truly tender Conscience of their own.

When therefore the Doctor tells us. That Conscience alters not the Nature of good and evil in things, that what God hath made a sin, or a duty remains so, what ever a mans Conscience doth judge concerning them: He brings us no new discovery; no extraordinary revelation, but that common doctrine of all Casuists; all the fault of it is, That its impertinent to the matter in hand, for he is or should be inquiring what Power Conscience may challenge about an establisht Rule of Mans making, and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make.

§ 3. The Doctor informs us, That the most material question in the Case of an erroneous Conscience is: What error of Conscience doth excuse a man from sin? which was seasonably remembred, since p. 42. He layes it down as a Rule, That willfull errour or mistake doth by no means excuse from sin. If a mistake will by no means excuse, I wonder what error or mistake can do it? He answers by an approved distinction, be­tween involuntary Error, caused by invincible ignorance; and willful er­rour, when the judgment is formed by passion, prejudice, interest: Now that which I shall take notice of here, is only the explication of his Terms and Notions.

[Page 78]1. An Error wholly involuntary, is when its caused by invincible Ig­norance, or after useing the best means, for due information of his Consci­ence: Thus the Doctor has determined; and thus we assume: But the Errors of the dissenters (if they be errors) in not complying with the controverted matters, are wholly involuntary, caused by invincible Ignorance not being conscious to themselves that they have neglected the best or any good meanes for the better information of their Consci­ences; They have read the Scriptures, they have studied the contro­versies, as they have been stated by learned men both in the begin­ning, and progress of the reformation; they have managed friendly, and unfriendly debates, conferences, disputations with men of all per­swasions; they have earnestly prayed to God not to suffer them to be mistaken in a matter of so great moment, they have implored his di­rection, what he would have them to do or suffer, and see no reason hetherto to alter their judgments or practises, and therefore hope the Doctor will become their security against wilfulness of error; and that their Act, though it may be a fault in its self (which yet they do not beleive) shall not be imputed to them as sin. And now whereas former­ly they would have been content, that any Act of theirs, if erroneous, might have been pardoned in the number of their sins of ignorance, upon a general repentance, though there had been some guilt in it; The Doctor has exceedingly obliged them, and to their singular com­fort assured them, that their Act (so qualified as before) shall not be Imputed to them as sin: So that things are somewhat better with them then they looked for, and they will returne the Doctor their humble and hearty thanks, for his good Doctrine, which makes them need no Absolution, where there is no imputation.

I only adde, that whoever pleads for mercy and Indulgence to an erroneous Conscience (if honest and upright) must be presumed to do it Impartially, and can be no Interest of his own, for no man can Judge his own Conscience to be actually Erroneous; which plea ought to be accepted with Readiness by all the Sons of Men, since no man can be absolutely certain but he may have at least in some particulars an Erroneous Conscience: Nor yet will this destroy the distinction of voluntary, and Involuntary Error; for though no Error is formally vol­untary, yet may it be so by Interpretation: that is, though he that mistakes in any point of Doctine, doth not, cannot willingly erre, yet may be have contracted that error by such sinful courses, that God will charge the guilt upon him as if he had willfully run into any other sin.

[Page 79](2) Let us therefore in the next place, hear the Doctors explicati­on of a wilful error of Conscience. If (says he) they form their judgments rather by passion, and prejudice, and interest, than from the laws of good or just Rules of Conscience; if they do not examine things fairly on both sides praying for Divine Direction, if they have not patience to hear a­ny thing against their Opinion: but run on blindly and furiously▪ they may in so doing act according to their Consciences, and yet be in as great danger of com­mitting heynous sins as St. Paul and the Jews were: which Doctrine of his being true in the main as it lies in Thesi, will need the less of ani­madversion upon it: yet must I say. 1. That his disjunctive; [If they form their judgements rather by prejudice, then from the laws of God or other just rules of conscience] insinuates a piece of their Mo­dern Divinity, viz. that there are other just rules of conscience, then Gods Law, which is a Notion we cannot admit of without better evi­dence: we would gladly know where those other just Rules are to be found? must we seek them in Canons, and Constitutions Ecclesiastical? whether then are all such or only some of them such just rules? If one­ly some of them: which are they? and by what characteristical marks may we distinguish them? but if all be so; then must we acquiesce in all the Canons, decrees, rescripts and Rules that were ever made by any Counsel or convocation; and why then did not the Church of England rest satisfied with those rules, which were given her before the Reformation? 2. We must needs say, that if the Dissenters do ex­amine things fairly on both sides, praying for Divine Direction and have had a world of patience to boot, to hear any thing against their Opinion, though never so weak in Reason, and strong in passion; (which they profess before the searcher of all hearts they have done, and continue still to do,) they must be discharg'd before all the world that shall take cognizance of their cause, and hear their pleas, of any wilful or voluntary error: And for the suggestion that they form their judgments from prejudice, passion, and interest; they dare not judge of other men, contenting themselves to have averred their own innocen­cy, when the temptation visibly lies on the other side.

§. 4. For a Conclusion: The Dr. would apply the charge of a wil­fully erroneous Conscience to the Dissenters. If men (says he) through the power of an erroneous Conscience may think themselves bound to make schisms,— to disobey Laws, to break in pieces the Communion of the Church, they may satisfie themselves that they pursue their Consciences, and yet for want of due care of inforcing themselves — those actions may be wilful, and damnable sins. But we think not our selves bound to [Page 80] any such wickedness; There are enow that think themselves bound t do that without our assistance; enow besides us to perpetuate the cause of our divisions, and to entail contentions upon Innocent posterity whose teeth must be set on Edge with the sowre grapes their Fathers have eaten; but if any shall think themselves bound through the pow­er of an Erroneous Conscience to make unjust Rules of Conscience, when tis Impossible they should make one de novo that is just, and there­by break the Church in peices, they may think what they please, that they are pursueing their just rights to impose upon other mens Consci­ences, and satisfying their own, and yet for want of a due care to in­form themselves better in their duty, the extent of their power, and the ends for which it was given, be guilty in the sight of God of will­ful and damnable sins, as bad as those of the Jews, who thought they did God good Service, when they persecuted, and murtherd his faith­ful Servants.

SECTION IX. A consideration of those Assertions of the Doctor. If Communi­on with the Church be lawful it will in time be judged a duty. And, If occasional Communion, be lawful, its hard to understand that constant Communion should not be a duty.

I Find the Doctor ever, and anon insinuating that what is lawful to be done, upon some account or other ought to be done: Which if it be universally true, will take away the difference between merely law­ful, and necessary, at least as to use and practice, since it implies that whatever is lawful may be made constantly and fixedly a duty: If it were only asserted that what is merely lawful might through a con­currence of circumstances pro hic & nunc, become a duty, as it would do this cause no service, so neither would it meet with our opposition: But to be thus laid down in general without further explication, needs a little consideration, and so in this case, that which otherwise had been but lawful, will be incumbent on me as my duty. Two expres­sions I find worthy our Notice:

1. I do not question but in time if they find it (Communion in prayers and Sacraments) lawful, they will judge it to be their duty. Now be­cause we have ever thought that what was lawful and merely so, stood [Page 81] in the midst between sinful and necessary; forbidden, and Command­ed, it deserves some care and pains to dive into the Mystery of it, how, or why these lawfulls may become determined to one side of their ex­tremes or termes, between which they formerly stood neuters. And by what we can gather from his discourse, it must be one of these things.

1. That whatever we judge lawful to be done in any case, for peace sake will become a duty to be alwayes done. For he tells us, p. 31. 32. There's nothing Christ and his Apostles have charged more upon the Consci­ences of Christians, then studying to preserve peace and unity among Christi­ans: To which pupose the Doctor quotes us several places of Scrip­ture, which it is needless here to repeat, seeing none ever yet denied the study of peace to be a very great, and manifest duty. But if it be charg'd on the Consciences of all Christians to study to preserve peace: We hope they find the charge upon their Consciences also, for they are Christians. Have they then studyed the things that make for peace? I mean not their own, but the peace of all the Christians in the Nation: A little study would have discovered the means, had they been as they pretend such passionate Lovers of the end. What expedients have they then found out by all their study, or what expedients will they accept that others have studied, and found out, to releive and pro­cure peace so far as its lost? to preserve peace so far as it yet remaines? and to further peace so far as it may be attainable in the Imperfect state of this life? what will they part with to purchase it? will they step over one straw? remove one stumbling block that lies in the way of it? will they wave the least of their pretensions? or condescend to others in the smallest of their desires? will they promise to re­forme our Rubrick, that one Rule for finding out Easter for ever, when it would not find it out for, but proved it self Erroneous in, almost half seven years? will they forbear to exact our Assent and consent to a known falshood for that excellent thing, which they so much pre­dicate, Peace? The matter is slight! yet if an Error, they can more easily forgoe it then we avow it: we know not why we should tell the smallest lie for peace, if they will not part with one: Nay tell us what thing so Inconsiderate, so minute, which all our humble Petitions for peace, could procure the relaxation of? And yet th [...]se are the Men that boast themselves highly of their burning zeal for peace! To be an Advocate for peace, is an office of good credit, but I cannot tell what to think on't, when I am pressed so earnestly and heartily to feed lustily on that D [...]sh, of which my Inviter will not taste: but the Doctor [Page 82] and the Reader will expect other Answers, and that whatever becomes of others we do clear our selves: 1. Then, we will acknowledge that what we can lawfully do, we ought to do for peace sake, when peace will certainly be obtained from them, by doing what we can lawfully do: but if the doing all we lawfully can, will not be accepted as the con­dition of peace, to what end should we stretch our selves, and straine our uttermost powers to reach that which can never be reacht? I will part with much of my right, deny my self in what I may lawful­ly do, to buy my peace at the hands of a vexatious Neighbour; but if all that I can lawfully do will not purchase it, Its better saved than ill spent: For an Indifferent thing, that becomes good, as it tends to a good end, will yet be no good thing again, but return into its old box of Indifferents, when it tends not to that good end: Nay that which is in its general nature a duty, as relating to such an excellent end, yet ceases to be a duty, nay becomes a sin, when its applied to no such end: An oath is a part of worship, and so far a duty; the end of an assertory Oath is to put an end to Controversies, to procure peace a­mong men: but if an Oath of that sort be used where it cannot put an end to the controversy, it becomes sinful, as taking the name of God in vain. 2. We acknowledge that what we lawfully can do for peace sake, that we ought to do: But withal we affirm that we actually do it, and do it as our duty to; for suppose I find it lawful in general to hear a sound pious Conformable Minister preach the Gospel; when cir­cumstances meet together to call me out to go, I do it under the strict Notion of duty: And they that find it lawful to Communicate in the prayers, and Sacraments, and the Church, do judge they are doing a duty in such communion: There must then be something else that the Doctor would have, if we could get out the secret; which his next Magisterial assertion perhaps may discover: 3. They that judge it lawful, nay their duty to hold Communion with the Church, in pray­er and Sacraments, yet neither think it their duty nor lawful to joyne with one Church to deprive them of the lawfulness, and duty of joyn­ing with other Churches: least whilst they press after positive duty, they should neglect a Comparative duty: for seeing they judge it a duty to joyne with the parochial Churches for peace sake, and to joyne with others Churches also for the same end, they shew a more true and Catholick Spirit for a general peace amongst all Christians, then they whose Narrow straight laced Souls, only designe a peace within the limits of their own Constitutions. And, 4. If it be true, that what we may lawfully do without sin, we ought to do as our duty; why [Page 83] may not others turn the inference thus; That seeing its lawful to joyn with the separate Churches without the guilt of schism, it will be a duty also so to joyn: for these that think the one lawful, think the o­ther lawful also: and as the argument holds on one side, it will hold on the other with equal force. Nay, 5. With more; for those persons against whom this argument is brought from their own judgment of the lawfulness of joyning, do judge it a more clear case that its lawful to joyn with those other meetings, which are more near the word of God, in worship and discipline, and where the dubious Conditions of Communion are not found to raise scruples about the lawfulness of Communion with them, which in other places cannot but sometimes occur. Nor will those external, accidental advantages, which one side has got above the other vary the case, seeing 'tis the intrinsick merits of the cause, that conscience regards in forming a right judge­ment about its duty. And let thus much serve for an An­swer.

(2.) Yet I rather think, there's a further meaning in his words, which we poor heedless, sleepy Creatures little dream of: I do not question, but in time, if they find it lawful they will judge it to be their duty. In time? yes! all in good time? that is, when they have preacht up the Magistrate to a due height for persecution; and a­larm'd the Nation with another Presbyterian Plot; or retrieved that of Ax-yard, and the Meal-Tub; when they have rallied up the whole Legion of Informers, and once more given us a specimen of ecclesiastical Grace in driving us out of our houses into prisons, then is the time, when we shall all find it a duty to conform. I have no great Reason to be confident of my self, and, I hope, I know my own heart a little better than to trust it, nor can I tell whether one terrour may not make me think that Lawful, which I never so thought before, and the next make me think it a duty; a man is ready enough to stretch his Conscience rather than an halter; there's no such feeling convi­ction, like that of the Statute; nine and fifty dull arguments and one sharp sword, will create a good title to the seventeen Provinces: It may be then in time we shall find it a duty, that is, a duty not to God, or our Consciences, but to our Carcasses, and other duty upon this account is not yet discovered.

(3) But the most probable intendment of this Paradox is: That if we find such Communion lawful, the intervening authority of the Ma­gistrate will turn the scale, and make it a duty: To this I shall not need to say much, because so far as we judge Communion lawful be­fore [Page 84] the Command of the Magistrate, so far we do judge it to be a duty under due circumstances, and no further can we judge it to be either lawful or a duty, when the Magistrates command has had its most operative influence, either upon the things themselves, or our Consciences, yet these things we take to be clear. 1. That where Communion with the Church would have been sinful under all its circumstances, no command of the Magistrate can make it lawful. 2. That no command of the Magistrate can discharge a Christian from that duty which he owes his proper Pastor, or that particular Church whereof he is a member according to Gods Word. 3. That the Magistrate has power from God to enforce all his Christian sub­jects to live peaceably among themselves, and punish them that do otherwise, but not to destroy that for which Peace is desirable, namely the leading a quiet and secure life in all godliness and honesty, for he is the Minister of God to us for our good, and not for our ruine, 13 Rom. 4.

§ 2. A second uncouth passage of the Doctors is that of page 56. Its hard to understand if occasional Communion be lawful; that con­stant Communion should not be a duty: I perceive he is somewhat hard of understanding, especially of those things that he has no mind to. In the former discourse he argues from the lawfulness of Communion to the necessity: but here also from occasional to constant Communion. To which confident assertion of his we Oppose this, Occasional communion with a particular Church may be lawful, when yet constant fixed stated Commu­nion may not be a duty: which we prove. 1. From their own Do­ctrines and practises. Their Canons have made it the duty of eve­ry individual member of their Church, to hold constant Communion with his own parish Church and Teacher, and yet they allow occasional Communion with other parish Churches. A journey will make oc­casional Communion with a remote Congregation lawful, but they will hardly perswade us that they can make it our duty, to take such journeys in order to such communion: If the great Bell rings at the next parish to a Lecture Sermon, or chimes all in to Divine Service, when we have none of those at home, 'tis lawful to take the occasion with­out coming under a constant obligation to it: The dissenters crave the same equity; they say they are under an obligation ordinarily, fix­edly, statedly, constantly to worship God in those congregations where­of they are members, they say they can readily joyn with other con­gregations as they have opportunity, but they cannot admit the infe­rence, that because they may occasionally that therefore they must constantly practise it: because Acts of worship have a larger extent then Church re­lation; [Page 85] those may be performed and yet these remain sacred, and invi­olate. 2. Some conforming Ministers and Christians judge it lawful to hold communion occasionally with the dissenters, in prayer and preach­ing, what a rare argument has the Dr. furnisht us with to prove it their constant duty; and from once hearing lawfully, to prove it an in­cumbent duty to hear them for ever. 3. It may be lawful occasionally to step in, and hear a very weak preacher, perhaps one that is vicious in his life, or unfound in some points of Doctrine, when we can hear no other, will it follow that we are bound, or that any power on earth can bind us to hear such constantly, when God has made better provi­sion for our souls, and we want only grace to accept it. 4. How many have judg'd it lawful to go to a play or the Chappel at Sommersethouse, occasionally, who yet think that twenty Acts of Parliament cannot make either of them a constant duty. 5. And how unwilling are most men to be argued into duty from the meer lawfulness of the thing; The Dr. thinks it lawful to resign one of his preferments to some worthy person that has none, and yet his own argument will hardly convince him 'tis his duty: It seems very lawful for him that is almost melted with two coats to part with one to his brother thats almost naked, and yet we despair of success in thus arguing with him: Nay it were well if some men would be perswaded that plain duty, when it crosses worldly interest is duty, and we should the better bear with them in denying every thing lawful to be duty. And, 6. If all lawful things may be converted into duty, and what is occasionally indifferent, may be turn'd into constant necessity, then farewel Christian liberty, and let man hereafter eternally mourn, or dance to the Musick of his fetters.

SECTION X. Of terms of Communion required by the Church, whether upon the same Reason that some of them are Imposed, the Church may not also impose some Ʋse of Images, Circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb?

WE hear every day eloquent Orations in praise of peace and U­nion; smart declamations against separation, but we seldom hear of the fatal terms which obstruct the one, or may justifie the o­ther: I shall not tire the Reader with a tedious enumeration of the particular conditions, but shall content my self to have named One, [Page 86] though I discontent some others that I have no more, and some will find themselvs aggrieved that I have named that one: It is the use of the sign of the Cross in baptism which I intend, and have therefore singled out that one, because it is number'd amongst the three innocent Ceremonies, and be­cause 'tis imposed both on the Ministers to practice it, and the people to dedicate their Children to God by it.

(1). And here I ask what Reason can be assigned for the use of this sign, as it signifies Christs cross, and him crucified thereon, as it is the symbol of a persons dedication to Christ and his service, but what will equally justifie the Religious use of a crucifix set up in the Church for the same use, and purposes?

This sign of the cross is instituted by the Church. First as a memo­rial of Christs cross; Secondly, as a Symbol whereby a person is dedicated to him who died the death of the cross. Thirdly, as a token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the Devil, to continue Christs faithful servant and soldier to his lives end. That these are the ends and uses of that sign, is expresly owned, by the Canons of 1603. and the office of baptism in the Liturgy: Now why the image of Christ upon the Cross, or a Crucifix, may not be used for these ends, upon the same Reason, nay upon somewhat better reason, we are yet to seek: for if a sign may be used to these ends to make impression upon our minds of those spiritual truths, duties, and mercies, the fixed visible Image will much better do the work then the transient, and scarce visible sign of a cross made in the Air with the finger. That the Papists do use the Image of Christ upon the Cross as an immediate though not ultimate object of Adoration is true; and it is as true, that the Church of England does not use the sign of the Cross, nor is it by us charg'd to use it for that end: but yet, as there is an inferiour use of the Crucifix, to be the Lay-mans hornbook to teach him to spell out a crucified Christ; and a Covenanting use, to initiate Converts in the profesion of the Gospel; and an obliging use to engage them to serve their Redeemer; so there can be no solid reason given why such lower uses of an Image or Crucifix may not be introduced, but what will equally militate against our use of the Cross.

2. What Reason can be alledged why circumcision may not be imposed as a tearm of Union or Communion, to signify the circumcision of the heart, as well as the sign of the Cross to signifie faithfulness and perseverance in the service of Christ? To the Jews indeed it was a badge of their duty to keep the whole law. Gal. 3.4. And such use would now be appa­rently [Page 87] sinful, but suppose it were enjoyned for no other end than as the surplice to denote purity; kneeling at the Sacrament, to signifie humili­ty, the sign of the Cross to represent courage, and constancy, so this cir­cumcision to stir up our dull souls to consider of the circumcision of the heart, what greater superstition in this, then in those? Especially when the A­postle has given our fruitful invention such fair hints, how apt it is to be drawn into significativeness. 2 Rom. 29. Circumcision is that of the heart. Nay when he openly avows, that Christians are the circumcision, 3 Phil. 3. upon which mystick grounds the Church of Abassia practises this Cere­mony to this day. It is confest that in the Church of the Jews, circum­cision had a typical use, which is now unlawful to be retained, as a denyal that Christs being come in the flesh. But as we have, or pretend to have scraped and scowered away the Idolatrous and superstitious uses of those ceremonies which we borrowed from the Romish Church, why can we not purge away the Judaical use of Circumcision too, and borrow one poor Ceremony at least from that Church, as well as the other from Rome?

3. What reason can be given why we may not together with the Lords Supper use a Roasted Lamb with bitter herbes, not to signifie Christ to come which was the typical use, but Christ already come, and slain, which is the Symbolical use; since the Apostle has given us a hint for that also; 1 Cor. 5.7. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: The Papists who understand well how far their principles will lead them, have not scrupled this use of it, for granting them a power to impose outward vi­sible signes of inward and invisible grace, mercy and duty, what should hin­der then from turning the Paschal Lamb into a significant Ceremony? Mounsieur Lortie in his Treatise of the Supper, part. 1. c. 6. b. Informs us that the Greek Church upbraided the Roman, that formerly they ne­ver used the Supper upon Easter day, without a Lamb: And he quote [...] a good Author for his voucher. Mr. d' Autenil. Who thus informes us. Suger reports how that Pope Innocent the 2d, being at the Abbey of Saint Dennis, upon an Easter day, after all things were prepared according to the order of the Roman Church, he sacrificed the most Holy victim of the Paschal Lamb, and when the Mass was ended they then did eat that material and re­al Lamb. And why not? if the Church may judge what is decent, or­derly, edifiying, fit to teach, and stir up the mind of man by some notable signification, and Impose what it so judges to be, as a tearm and conditi­on of Communion with her, what should hinder her to proceed, and bring in the Paschal Lamb too, for, the more the Merrier; and (which seldome holds), the better chear also.

SECTION. XI. The Application. And first, To those in Communion with the Church.

NOthing now remains, as the Doctor thinks, but application; and per­haps it may be so, nothing for us to Read, because we have read all the rest; but upon my word there remains a great deal more, for the Doctor to do than he has yet done, unless he can satisfie himself to have done just nothing: Here are several Propositions to be pro­ved, his own Questions to be answered, and many things upon the score not wiped off; yet let us hear his Application, which is alwayes either the best or the worst part of a Sermon.

He begins with a word of Advice to those That continue in Communi­on with the Church. That they would walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things. For whilest we keep to one Rule all people know what 'tis to be of our Church.

Here then are two sorts of Persons, both supposed to be in Commu­nion with the Church: First The super-Conformists, who out-run Ca­non, Convocation, Rubrick, and are got as far as Calice before some of their Brethren can reach Canterbury. The second of Subter-Conformists, who jogging on their own pace, neither the high-trot, nor the Tantivey, are almost run out of distance; the former are for the high Notion of Canon-Prayer, the other form their own Conceptions in their own expressions, in Prayer both before and after Sermon; these again are so stiffe in their Hams, they will not bend at the naming the word Jesus, but others are so supple in the joynts, they are ready to buckle at the name of Judas: Some are got into the high strains of the Organ, above Canon, against Homilies, others content themselves with the plain song of the old Metre; and from hence. 1. Quaere whe­ther super-conformity, and subter-conformity, overdoeing the Rule and underdoing it, excesses, and defects in reference to the same Canon, be not a real Schism in the bowells of the Church?

2. Quaere. If so; which faction is it that makes Schismatick? If the Gallopers, why are they not then declared Schismaticks from the press and Pulpit? Is it for fear they should lose such zealots from their par­ty? or are they ashamed to condemn others, for what they practice themselves? or is it because these Sinners are too good, too bad, or too great to be told of their faults: But if the halting Conformists be the Schismaticks, how comes it to pass that only defects are Sins, and yet excesses are such vertues? why is it, that a man may advance towards Rome, and yet be no Schismatick, but yet one step towards Geneva makes him a damnable [Page 89] one; that it would be no crime to out-run the Constable, but to hang back, and give him the slip, when he would drag him to the Stocks, is such a heinous one?

Quaere 3. Whether if they can relax the Rule of Severity, or ex­ercise the Rule of Charity towards their own brethren, to save them from being Schismaticks, they might not strain a little farther to save the rest of the Nation?

Quaere 4. If it be true, that while all keep to one Rule, all people know what it is to be of the Church of England, Mr. B. will not be as far to seek, as ever he was to understand, what the Church of England is; when he cannot but see by mens practises, they either walk by no Rule, or Twenty; and when a punctual Conformist neither exceeding, nor coming short of the Rule, is like that Temperamentum ad pondus, which unless in some Philosophical Noddle, never yet had any real existence.

Quaere 5. If (as the Doctor says) it be Indiscretion only, and some peccadillo, to go beyond the Rule, a good nature might not allow it to be Indiscretion too, and no more, in those that fall below the Rule? It may be demonstrated, that ten degrees of Northern Latitude varies no more from the Equinox, than as many degrees of Southern Lati­tude: But the misery is, Titius shall be a Saint for the same thing for which Sempronius is a Rascal; and let him fly never so high above the Canon, he's but indiscreet; when-as let him lag never so little be­hind it, he's a notorious Schismatick.

Nevertheless Conformists must own it to be wholesome counsel which he gives them and himself, Let us take heed we do not give too much occasion to our enemies, to think the worse of our Church for our sakes. Most excellent counsel it had been, had he defined critically what oc­casion is too much, what too little, and what just enough to make men think evil of the Church. And his old Questioning method might have here been seasonably revived; How far we may, or may not give occasion to enemies to think worse of the Church: but we never expect an Answer of these hot-scalding questions: occasion may be given, and much occasion, but too much occasion must not; for too much is too much; and therefore whatever that may be, take heed of it.

This advice was first design'd for those that continue in Communion with the Church; but by some unhappy accident or other, it's turn'd in­to a word of reproof, nay of reproach to those that are out of it. In times of common infection, they say, all diseases turn to the Plague; and in the universal paroxism of railing at Dissenters, even Sermons that [Page 90] should be Remedies, turn into the disease of railing: But what have the Nonconformists to do with the Exhortation given to the Conformists? even as much as the Doctor had to do to preach against them at Guild-Hall Chappel. But let us hear their crime however; They blame (says he) the Government; but if themselves were in place, or those they love or esteem, then the Government had been a very good thing: thus do mens judg­ments vary as their interests do. As if a Weathercock should preach from the top of the Steeple one day, What Charter has Christ given the Church to bind men up to more than he has done? Iren. Epis. p. 8. And the next day should tell us, that what is lawful may be made a duty; and then I am sure the Church has power to bind us up to more than Christ ever did: yet it seems, if the Nonconformists might have been all made Bishops, they had liked Episcopacy well enough; for my own part, I like it so well, that where there's one Bishop, I wish there were five hundred; and yet I have heard of some that might have worn the Miter, but that they would not purchase repentance so dear: But he goes on! We find uniformity and order condemn'd as tyrannical, till men come in place themselves, and then the same things are very good: Where the Doctor found this, except in Panciroll de rebus perditis, I cannot imagine; I never heard Ʋniformity condemn'd as tyrannical: but the rigorous forcing of Christians to an affected uniformity in humane crot­chets; an uniformity in practise, without uniformity in judgment. If all mens feet were of the same size, I should never complain if their shooes were made of the same Last: but to pinch a foot of the slovens twelves, into a shooe of the childrens three [...], is to put conscience into the shoo­makers stocks, which next to those of Bishop Bonners Colehole, are the word one can sit in: Nor do we abhor Order, but Innovations introdu­ced under that specious title; nor did I ever find that the Nonconformists were in the Bishops Thrones, though some odd fellows got into their Lands; without which, perhaps neither one side nor other would be very ambitious of the places.

Let the Doctor then take an occasion, or no occasion, little or great, to revile us; to misrepresent us, I am sure his brethren are beholden to us, for by our means they have scaped a fine scowring; and the edg of that Reproof which seem'd to bear hard upon the Conformists, is turn'd di­rectly against us, which the Doctor might have forborn for two Rea­sons; the one, that there were none out of Communion with the Church to hear his Juniper-Lecture; and the other, because he promised to read them their lesson by themselves, which they now are expecting.

SECT. XII. The Doctors Considerations considered.

HE that had scarce half a word to those in Communion with the Church, who were present, has for those that are out of the Churches Communion, though at the time absent: First a Squadron of Considerations; and secondly, a Pacquet of Advices. His Considera­tions are now to be considered, which are precisely four.

(1.) The first thing we are to consider, is, How many things must be born in the Constitution of a Church? A world, no doubt in some Con­stitutions, by those that are ambitious of their Communion. Now that we may not be in arrere in civility, we humbly desire all those whom it may concern to consider: 1. What our consideration will signifie, unless we had a Commission of Terminer as well as Oyer? If we might bear what we could, and forbear what we could not, it might be worth the while to consider what must be born: but if the Imposers will consider what they please to lay on our shoulders, and we have no consideration left us, but whether we will bow or break under the bur­den, what place for consideration? 2. We desire it may be considered also, what may be forborn by them, as well as born by us; and that in order to Peace and Union: but it's plain, they are all for our bear­ing, and nothing for their own forbearing; which yet had been more proper to his Text, had he considered that it is the will of God that they that have not attained to the same strength, should not be charged with the same burden. 3. It ought to be considered also, how many things may not be born, as well as how many must; for when the Intolerable are removed, we shall the better bear the rest; but if we must bear either all, or none; to what purpose is our Consideration? 4. We have considered again and again, both the tolerabiles & intolerabiles Ineptias; which I English the tolerable and intolerable unfitnesses, and know not how to bear either of them. And 5. it's more our interest to consi­der how we may get strength to bear the displeasure of the Imposers, [Page 92] than the l [...]ad of the Impositions, seeing we could easily avoid the one, if we could but escape the other. 6. We desire it may be considered a little, that there are different degrees of strength in Christians, all have not the same Bajulatory backs, nor the same Herculean shoulders; and therefore it might become Church-Governours to sit down and consider, whether it be agreeable to the mind of Christ, that the weak should bear the Imperious passions of the strong, and not the strong bear the infirmities of the weak, Rom. 15.1.

(2.) The Doctor would have us consider, how impossible it is to give satisfaction to all. We have considered that too! and hope he will consi­der whether there may not be found a Medium between giving satis­faction to all, and to none. Methinks this might satisfie all, if they that are so zealous for Ceremonies might have their belly-fulls of 'em; and they that are more indifferent for 'em, might not have 'em cram'd down their throats. He was reputed a wise Countrey-Justice in his time, who satisfied all his Neighbours contending about the old Ceremony of Chaucers Ale-stake, and determined it thus: Neighbours! you that are for a May-pole, shall have a May-pole; and you that are for no May-pole, shall have no May-pole. Christians that have out-grown their Juvenile-vanities, can be satisfied with a worship adorned with Gospel-simplicity; but if any must have a better, let the children be satis­fied, rather than bawl and disturb the family.

But the Doctor would have us consider further, How many things must be allow'd a favourable Interpretation? how many things must be born? how many things must be allow'd a favourable construction? I fear they are Sans number. Now if our Interpretation might stand for Authentick, and they would allow us to add our Interpretation to their Text, this were something. In the mean time, let them be pleased to consider, whe­ther a more favourable Interpretation ought not to be put upon the principles and practises of Dissenters, without wresting, vexing, tortu­ring them to a sense beyond, and against their intentions? And further may it please them to consider, whether a more favourable Interpreta­tion ought not to be put upon their own Constitutions: for it cannot be expected that any should interpret them favourably, if they themselves Interpret them rigidly: And the execution of Laws and Canons will tell us what construction they put upon them that best understand 'em. It cannot be hidden what an Interpretation has been made of the Sta­tute against Popish Recusants, to torment poor Protestants, who are brought within the lash of it, though out of the Reason of it. And [Page 93] lastly, we humbly desire it may be a little better considered, that the Imposed matters are in their judgments indifferent, in ours sinful, which is like the Quid si? to an Atheist, that can never be answered; And seeing (as the Doctor says) something will be amiss either in Doctrine, Discipline, Ceremonies or Manners (he might have added, or in all) that they who have the power in their hands, would either rectifie what is amiss, or however not compel others to comply with what they them­selves confess to be so.

(3.) He would have us consider, How Separation of the people from our Churches comes to be more lawful now, than in the days of our Fathers? But had it not been more becoming a rational Divine first to consider, whether it be so or no, before it be considered how it came to be so? Many men are so hasty, they leap over the stile before they come at it. 1. Then, Separation was as lawful then, as 'tis now, had they seen with our eyes; and as unlawful now, as then, if we saw with their eyes, I mean the eyes of Conformists; for such are they who are produced against us. And what an odd argument is it to quote them for our Fa­thers, who were their own Grandfathers? 2. It would be consi­dered whether the Separation of former times was not much greater than that of the present time, for they proceeded to set up their Pres­byteries, their Synods, their Provincial and National Assemblies, formed themselves into separate bodies for Government, and were soundly smok't for it in the high Commission. 3. And yet if in any respect the Separation be greater now than it was then, it is because there are more severe terms put upon the Pastors of Churches; and they being removed from the Benefices, the Flock did not judg that a sufficient discharge from, nor dissolution of their relation, and therefore adhered to their true and only lawful Pastor, and by consequence a Separation followed: Nor were the Ministers of old haggled off their legs with a quarter of the Oaths, Subscriptions, Declarations, Renunciations, that now they are; and they that took such care to throw the Pastors out of Churches, must be responsible to Christ, if the people follow'd them. And in those former days there was much connivence and Indulgence ex­ercised towards the Nonconformists in some obscure places, where lay no temptation to a quare Impedit; but we have mended the matter, as sowr Ale does in Summer.

(4.) Lastly, He would have us consider, The common danger that threatens us all by our divisions; which if some late Preachers had well [Page 94] considered, they had never blown up the sparks of persecution against Protestant Dissenters; we are willing to consider the common dan­ger that threatens us by our Divisions; Are they as willing to consider and remove the Causes of the Divisions which heighten the common danger? If the danger be common to both, why is not the security so too? Must the Dissenters only be in danger on all hands? Wise men, that can foresee a common danger, should not destroy one half of their friends, that the common enemy may with more ease destroy the other. The first Conquest Rome made of Brittain, was by this error of the Natives, Dum singuli pugnant omnes vincantur; and we hearti­ly wish that in their next attempt, they proceed not upon the encou­ragement of the same Maxim. In which Devastation, though all are like enough to share in the common misery, yet their share of the sin will be the greatest, that would hazard every thing, rather than part with any thing: that would lose the Horse to save the Saddle, or per­haps one hair of the Horses tail. They that are such admirers of Ʋnity, and will yeild nothing to procure it; and have such appre­hensions of Popery, and yet will do nothing to prevent it, must pre­sume strangely of the strength of their Rhetorick, or think meanly of the weakness of our Reasons, if ever they hope to Proselyte us into the faith of it. As for Dissenters, how vigilant and active they have been against the Designs of Rome; how Cordially they have espoused the common English Protestant Interest, without regard to their private pretensions; how zealous they have been for His Majesties Person, Government and Interest, let others speak, we shall be silent.