But what if there be no communion there? Then this canon does not touch the case; nor does any one break it, by coming to another church purely because there is no communion at his own.
As to your next advice, “To have a greater regard to the rules and orders of the church,” I cannot; for I now regard them, next to the word of God. And as to your last, “To renounce communion with the church,” I dare not. Nay but let them thrust us out. We will not leave the ship: if you cast us out of it, then our Lord will take us up.
12. To the same head may be referred the objection some time urged, by a friendly and candid man, viz. “That it was unlawful to use extemporary prayer, because there was a canon against it.”
It was not quite clear to me, that the canon he cited was against extemporary prayer. But supposing it were, my plain answer would be, “That the canon I dare not obey: because the law of man binds only so far as it is consistent with the word of God.”
The same person objected, my not obeying the bishops and governors of the church. I answer, I both do and will obey them, in whatsoever I can with a clear conscience. So that there is no just ground for that charge, that I despise either the rules, or the governors of the church. I obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. Even in that case, I shew all the deference I can; I endeavour to act as inoffensively as possible: and am ready to submit to any penalty, which can by law be inflicted upon me. Would to God every minister and member of the church, were herein altogether as I am!
VII. 1. I have considered the chief objections that have lately been urged against the doctrines I teach. The main arguments brought against this manner of teaching, have been considered also. It remains, to examine the most current objections, concerning the effects of this teaching.
Many affirm, “That it does abundance of hurt: that it has had very bad effects; insomuch that if any good at all has been done, yet it bears no proportion to the evil.”
But to come to particulars, “First then, you are disturbers of the public peace.”
What, do we either teach or raise sedition? Do we speak evil of the ruler of our people? Or do we stir them up against any of those that are put in authority under him? Do we directly or indirectly promote faction, mutiny, or rebellion? I have not found any man in his senses yet, that would affirm this.
“But it is plain, peace is broke and disturbances do arise, in consequence of your preaching.” I grant it. But what would you infer? Have you never read the bible? Have you not read, that the Prince of peace himself was, in this sense, a disturber of the public peace? When he came into Jerusalem, (Matthew xxi. 10.) all the city was moved, (ἐσείσθη) shaken as with an earthquake. And the disturbance arose higher and higher, till the whole multitude cried out together, Away with him, away with him; crucify him, crucify him, and Pilate gave sentence, it should be done. Such another disturber of the public peace, was that Stephen, even from the time he began disputing with the Libertines and Cyrenians, till the people stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him. Such disturbers of the peace were all those ringleaders of the sect of the Nazarenes, (commonly called apostles) who wherever they came, turned the world upside down. And above all the rest, that Paul of Tarsius, who occasioned so much disturbance at Damascus, (Acts ix.) at Antioch of Pisidia (chapter xiii.) at Iconium (chapter xiv.) at Lystra (verse 19.) at Philippi (chapter xvi.) at Thessalonica (chapter xvii.) and particularly at Ephesus. The consequence of his preaching there was, That the whole city was filled with confusion. And they all ran together with one accord, some crying one thing, some another: inasmuch as the greater part of them knew not wherefore they were come together.