at all before he shall lye under any Obligation to give Obedience to it But Church-Governours says he are obliged to teach us to observe no more than what Christ Commanded them Mat. 28. 20. Acts 10. 33. I grant it But what can be more plain than that the Apostles who were the first Governors appointed by Christ to his Church did teach all men to observe the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority And will our Author say that they had no Command from Christ for doing this But says he again they have no Power to impose things needless I answer that they who have the Power of making Laws ought not indeed to enact such Laws as impose things altogether useless to any good purpose Nor are there any of our Church Constitutions but what if they were duly respected and observed would tend very much to Order and Decency and also to keep out unnecessary Innovatious and therefore they cannot justly be termed needless things But if I should Judge them to be altogether needless Yet as long as they are innocent this would be no good Reason why I should refuse Obedience to them as well because I have no Warrant from Gods word for so doing as that the Government in their Wisdom may have very good reason for Commanding such things altho' it may be I am not able throughly to comprehend it And that such a modest compliance as this should be judged no less than a Conspiracy with Men usurping Power is such an imagination as no Man of Reason or Charity could ever entertain Well! But did not Paul withstand Peter to the Face in his imposing unnecessary things on the Jews Gal. 2. 11. But will this Man never make any Conscience of imposing not only impertinent but false Allegations of the Holy Scripture upon his unwary Reader S. Paul in the place mention'd did indeed withstand S. Peter But not on account of his Imposing any thing on the Jews of which there is not there the least shadow of a suggestion But purely for his Dissimulation in that by withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of them which were of the Circumcision he laid a stumbling Block before the Gentiles And tho' not by his Doctrine yet by his Example seemed to put a sort of Compulsion upon them to live as did the Jews to which no Law either of God or Man did oblige them And as to what he immediately Adds I grant with him that the Authority which the Lord hath given unto the Church is for Edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. To which I must tell him that a setled Decency and Order in the Circumstances of Worship does not a little conduce I grant also that where a Church ceases to follow Christ we ought not therein to follow that Church according to the Apostles Doctrine 1 Cor. 11. 1. But where the Church is careful to follow Christ in all manner of things that are nâ—cessary and therein to the utmost to promote the Edification of all her Members why it should be a Sin to Comply with that Church for Peace and Unity's sake in such things as are indifferent and therefore Lawful or why a Man should Renounce the Communion of such a Church on account of such things even in case they were needless I cannot in the least gather from either of those places And whereas he tells us that the Synod of Jerusilem Acts 15 thought fit to impose nothing but necessary things Verse 28. I desire to know in what Sense was the abstaining from Meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled at that time necessary If they were absolutely necessary as essential parts of Gods Law how comes S. Paul to teach the lawfulness of eating that which had been offered to an Idol provided it were done without any Worship to the Idol or Scandal given to weak Brethren 1 Cor. chap 8. and chap 10. And how came our Saviour so expressly to assure us and in such general Terms that not that which goeth into the Mouth desilâ—th a Man Matt. 15. 11. But if they were in themselves indifferent and necessary only in order to reconcile the Jews who laid great Weight upon these things and to bring them to a more favourable opinion of the Gentile Christians which I believe our Author will not deny how can the Example of this Synod be alledged to Condemn and not rather to justifie the practise of the Established Church which has retained and kept up the use of some things in themselves likewise indifferent because they conceived them necessary and proper to reconcile those of the Church of Rome who by long custom had entertained a great respect for them and to beget in them a better opinion of the Reformation And lastly as to what he quotes out of my Lord Primate Bramhall's Vindication I freely grant that no man ought to suffer an Erroneous Opinion to be imposed upon him because as it is impossible for him to believe what he judges to be Erroneous so to prosess what he does not believe would be a lye and a sin But the consequence which he would suggest from a supposed parity between an Erroncous Opinion and an Indifferent and therefore innocent Ceremony or Circumstance is altogether weak and groundless The fourth main Proposition which I have insisted on in my Address is that since the Communion of our Church is lawful and innocent in it â—â—â— which I hope I have now abundantly proved against all that our Author â—â—s Objected to the contrary there cannot be any just reason why the Noncâ—â— sormists should refuse to join with us in it And altho' our Author nibbles a little aâ— some of those things which I have touched under this head of my Discourse yet since every thing which he there says is either not to the purpose or else proceeds upon a supposition that our Communion is not lawful and innocent in it self which clearly alters the state of the case and the contrary whereto I have hitherto been asserting against all his weak and trifling Objections I will not give either my self or the Reader the trouble of making any Remarks upon the particulars of what he offers on this occasion only as to that passage of Dr. Holden's which he cites out of my Lord Primate Bramhall p 113. I think it enough to say that altho' it may be less criminal for one National Church upon account of some doubtful Opinions or such 〈◊〉 things to refuse the Communion of such another Church the obligation of whose particular Laws or Canons can only extend to its own members than for subjects to disobey those Laws which are Enacted by their own lawful superiors and thereby to make a Schism in the very body of that National Church of which they are or ought to be members Yet since the obligation to Ecclesiastical Union and Communion is universal and extends unto all Christians and Churches whatsoever wherever there is any separation or
parts of Worship but only as the means way or manner of performing it provided that such imposing proceed from Lawful Authority I have already shewn not to be unlawful and have answered all our Author's pretences to the contrary Nor can I upon his assertion believe that such a submission for peace and unities sake is any way a giving up of our Christian Liberty until I see some good proof for it either expressly contained in or evidently consequent from God's Words of which I believe he would not have been so sparing if the Bible would have afforded him any Texts upon which to have grounded an Argument Or if our Liturgy be on this account an infringement of Christian Liberty not only all other Churches are guilty of the same but even the Directory it self which imposes some things in themselves indifferent cannot be excused from it Which passage of my Address he has thought sit to slip over with a very lame and imperfect Answer Thirdly To impose any indifferent things as Conditions of Communion if it were done either with an express declaration or any evident implication or supposition that no Communion could lawfully be kept up in or held with any Church whatsoever without the use of those things which were so imposed this indeed would be to impose such things as essential and necessary parts of Worship and Religion and consequently on the imposers part an unlawful attempt upon Christian Liberty But as I have shewn that this is none of our Churches case who expressly owns such her Constitutions to be alterable as just cause shall require and neither rejects the Communion nor condemns the Practice of any other Church which differs from her in such things as these So if the matter were even thus it self yet if any private Christian should for Peace and Unity so far comply with the Church as to submit to what she had required and practise what she had thus Prescribed but yet with an Express Declaration and open Protestation that he did this not out of any necessity which was supposed to be in the things themselves which he still asserted to be in their own Nature indifferent but only for peace sake and as far as in him lay to prevent all Schisms or Divisions I cannot see how such a Man as this could be condemned as therein guilty of any Sin or any way a betrayer of his Christian Liberty And if in this my Opinion I am perhaps mistaken I shall be very glad to be better informed provided it be done with Clear and Solid Arguments from plain Scripture and Reason and not with such perplexed and trisling Suggestions as we have hitherto met with from our Author But Fourthly Since as our Author grants p. 103 without Circumstances Worship cannot be performed and all outward Circumstances of Worship are not prescribed by God It must follow either that some outward Circumstances of Worship may be determined and appointed by Man or else the Worship of God cannot possibly be performed Suppose then that the Church appoints and determines some indifferent things as Circumstances in Gods Worship and requires them to be observed by all her Members And yet that some are so Obstinate and Refractory as that they will not submit to her Authority in these things What is to be done in such a Case as this must every particular Mâ—n be left to his liberty to introduce what Circumstances he pleases into the Worship of God according to his own Fancy or Inclination This would be the direct way to confound that Order and destroy that Decency for which the Apostle particularly provides 1 Cor. 14. 40 as I have said in my Address And to exclude the Directory as well as the Liturgy Or must the Church from time to time alter and new modell her Constitutions concerning the Circumstances of God Worship until matters are so setled as that every one may be pleased and fully satisfied This I confess were a most excellent way if the thing were at all practicable or possible to be performed But when it is considered that in such matters as relate to Order and Decency only we have not always a fixed and certain Rule as to particulars but Men have different Opinions of such things according to the difference of their Customs Tempers and Educations I believe it will be found a very hard and perhaps an impossible thing so to frame all the Circumstances of Divine Worship as that all sorts of Men how different soever in their Temper or Education shall be well pleased and satisfied with them And if this be not to be done then it may be if any Church should go about to make alterations in such things to please and gratifie some People they might hereby displease and disgust many others and so in the end do more hurt than good by such Alterations What then remains but that every Church in such things as these must act according to the best of her prudence And if men will still be refractory and not submit to such Constitutions as lawful Authority enjoins and are no way contrary to the Law or Word of God I would gladly know what other course is at last to be taken with them but to exclude them from the Communion of the Society who thus obstinately refuse to conform to the Rules and Orders of it And if our Author judges this to be an infringement of Christian Liberty I desire he would not only say it but also clearly and solidly prove it But Christ has freed us from all parts and parcels of Worship which are not of his own Institution He has so But what is this to those Ceremonies which I have plainly proved to be no parts or parcels but only Circumstances of Worship He has freed us also from all Conditions of Communion but those of his own Prescribing very right But then we must remember that one Condition of Communion which Christ prescribes unto us is to obey them that have the rule over us and submit our selves Heb. 13. 17. To be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. 1. And to submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. And whosoever obstinately refuses to perform this condition is justly to be excluded from the Communion of the Church as a disobeyer of Christ's Commands Now the Question is Wherein and in what sort of things is this obedience and subjection to be shewn Not in things immediately or directly commanded by the Law of God For in such things as those our obedience is paid to God alone and not to our Earthly Superiours And the obligation is the same if my Inferiour informs me that such is the Will of God as if my Superiour lays his commands therein upon me Nor yet in such things as are contrary to God's Law For if our Superiours should command any thing of that nature we ought to obey God rather than man Acts 5. 29. It remains then that things
breach of Communion made between any Persons Churches or Congregations there must of necessity be a sin on the one side or other namely on their part who give a just cause for breaking Communion or on theirs who break it without any such cause given And this sin is what I call by the name of a Schism Having thus abundantly vindicated my Doctrine I come now in the last place of all to that which our Author calls the use of it In which my design was not as he he suggests to disswade the Non-Coâ—formists fâ—om the thoughts of a Legal Toleration but only from the thoughts of such a Toleration as might probably prove to be of dangerous consequence to the Establisht Church if not to the Civil State also And therefore in Answer to all that our Author has offered upon this occasion I think it is enough for me to say that I am not nor ever was against their having a full and free allowance to Worship God in their own way or for cutting them short in any advantages which are consistent with the publick peace and security of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Establishment and if they desire more than this I appeal to all indifferent men whether it be reasonable for the Government to grant it to them But before I make an end I must take the pains to wipe off a little dirt which our Author here also endeavours to cast as well upon me in particular as upon the Establiblished Church in general First then he tells me p. 115. That I have low thoughts of Salvation and rate it lower than employments of trust and proâ—it upon Earth For the former I seem to grant them liberty to seâ—k But the latter I would Monopolizâ— to our own Party But where I pray is the consequence of this Argument That I apprehend it as a thing of more dangerous consequence to our safety and security to admit the Nonconformists to a share in the Government than barely to permit them to seek for Eternal Salvation in their own way is a truth that may well be gathered from what I have suggested in my Address But that therefore I set a greater value upon Temporal Employments than upon everlasting Salvation is what no Man but one of our Authors Logick and Charity would pretend to infer from any thing that I have said But that I would deprive them of the Ordinary means of subsisting and serving God and their Countrey which he there also lays to my Charge but does not pretend to prove is such a bare-fac'd calumny as no one but a Man that wanted Conscience or Consideration would ever offer to load me with For he who has but half an Eye may very plainly see that it is very possible and very ordinary too for Men to subsist comfortably and grow Rich and serve God and their Countrey faithfully in a private Station without ever being put into any place of Power and Authority He tells me presently after That the Church may stand tho' she don't inhance all Offices of Power Trust and Proâ—it Thesâ— are not the Rock on which Chirst built his Church But whoever said they were Or to what purpose is this uncharitable insinuation I do not doubt or distrust the good Providence and protection of Almighty God But I cannot think it Reasonable willingly to put a Power into any Mans hands which I have reason to fear that he will employ to my hurt whenever he has a fair opportunity for it Well! but that their design is not to overthrow our Church is evident because they have not moved for the withdrawing either Power or Profit from us But how shall we be secure that they or their successors never will make such a motion or entertain such a design If they judge our legal Establishment to be lawful why do they not conâ—orm to it But if unlawful are they not then in Conscience bound to use their best endeavours to get it altered But whereas I had objected that the Presbyterian Party had formerly in all the three Kingdoms and again lately in one of them actually overthrown the Establish't Episcopal Church And that therefore there is much reason to fear that if not at present yet in succeeding times they may if not carefully prevented do the same thing again in this Kingdom our Author instead of offering us any manner of security against such an impendent evil freely supposes the truth of what I have said and tells me p. 117. That tho' all this should come to pass yet it is severe justice to punish the Predecessâ—rs for the probable faults oâ— the Successors not as yet commâ—tted In â—ell there is more justice where Men are only punisht for real and past Crimes Which is plainly in other words to say that tho' we clearly foresee the ruine of our selves or our Posterity by granting all that the Nonconformists desire yet we must not take any care to prevent it Here is a sample of those modest Petitions of which our Author speaks in his Preface But the Objection it self is most weak and foolish For altho' it is not just to punâ—sh any Man â—â—r a Crime not as yet committed yet to prevent Men from committing a crime into which â—â— is likely that they may run and by such prudent caution to save the Church and State fro a confuâ—ion or ruine was never I believe accounted as a piece of Injustice And more than this I never thought of or pleaded for But says our Author the Consequences of denying this Toleration desired will be burtful viz. 1. The discouraging of many industrious and prositable Subjects 2. The alienating the affections of all sober men from Church-men who are the sole opposers of this desire 3. An impossibility ever hereafter to induce the Non-Conformists to join with us if there should be occasion for their service All which I grant might have a fair appearance of truth if so be that a Toleration were really denyed to the Non-Conformists But since the case is quite otherwise and that a free and legal Tolâ—ration is offered them upon the very same terms with which those of their perswasion in England are well satisfied which is as great an encouragement as can be to every thing except the ambition of a few Leading-men among them If this Toleration be refused by themselves and if the Penal Laws which are still in force in this Kingdom should ever liereafter come to be put in Execution against them I desire to know who but their own Leading-men will be to be blamed for it Who it seems are not contented to have their industrious Labourers ingenious Artists and honest Traders as our Author speaks of them in his Preface secured from trouble and encouraged in their honest employments if they at the same time must be excluded from offices of power and trust in the Civil State So that the true and only reason why an Act of Toleration is not here passed as well as in England is because a few men among the Non-Conformists do obstinately refuse to sacrifice their ambition to the peace and safety of their Brethren But our Author taxes us with ungrateful breaking the promises which we made to the Non conformists and discovering heart-enmity against thâ—m But when he thus draws up his Indictments he ought to produce his proofs for he has hitherto given us no great reason to believe him upon his bare word It was and I think iâ— still the opinion of all sober men among us that the Non-Conformists ought to have a free Tolâ—ration upon such terms as may be consistent with the safety of the Established Church and Civil State which shews that we bear no heart-enmity against them and 't is I think their own fault if they refuse it But if more than this was ever promised them by us I desire our Author to let us know when and by whom and what Authority they had to make such promises to them As for the buffoon story of a sool a quart of ale and a gallows at the Bridge of Stirling with which our Author concludes his Book All that I can gather from it is that notwithstanding all his pretences to Sanctity and tenderness of Conscience he is not a man of that seriousness which becomes a Minister of the Gospel Otherwise he would never have so impertinently pulled in such a nonsensical piece in a matter of such weighty concern as the Peace and Unity of the Church And thus I likewise conclude that there can be no harm done by his Answer to my Address except men will be so foolish as to be imposed on by a buâ—dle of Sophistry and Calumny without any manner of sound or solid Proof FINIS