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
A DEFENCE OF THE Peaceable and Friendly ADDRESS TO THE Non-Conformists AGAINST THE ANSVVER Lately given to it In which the Obligation to Conform to the Constitutions of the Established Church is Maintained and Vindicated The Answerers Objections Solv'd And his Calumnies Refuted Thou shalt not bear false Witness against thy Neighbour Exod. 20. 16. DUBLIN Printed by J. B. and S. P. at the back of Dick's Coffee-House in Skinner-Row for John Foster Bookseller 1698. ERRATA IN Epist Ded. near the latter end for disiagenious read disingenuous p. 14. l. 12. for preposition read proposition l. 30. for Auther tell read Author tells p. 15. l. 16. for professions read profession p. 22. l. 24. for forbidded read forbidden p. 24. l. 26. for other read others l. 40. for these read those p. 31. l. 31. no commâ— after presses p. 48. l. 1. for payly read dayly p. 50. l. 1. for places read place p. 56. l. 23. for ungratefull read ungratefully l. 38. for bulldle read bundle To His Grace Michael Lord Arch-Bishop of Ardmagh Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland My Lord WHen I writ my Peaceable and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists it was my design to â—â—press my self so clearly as to give no just occasion for mistake or cavill and so calmly as to give no Offence to any Man except he would be angry with me either for being of a disserent opinion from him or else for fairly offering my Reasons why I am so I was therefore in hopes that if any of our Nonconforming Brethren should think fit to answer what I had written he would lay aside all heat and animosity and all such Exceptions as are manifestly trifling and impertinent and only urge what might be of some real strength and moment in the Controversy and that with the same Mildness and Charity as I had endeavoured to do before him But instead hereof an Adversary has lately appeared against me who as he seems to have but very little regard either to Charity or even to Truth so has he taken very much pains to perplex and tangle instead of clearing and â—â—plaining the dispute that is between us And as he has raked together whatever dirt he could to throw at the Church the Law and Your Grace as well as at me but still without any just ground for all his Calumnies so has he by the ambiguity of his Expressionâ— the intâ—icâ—cy of his way of Reasoning and his Misâ—â—egatiâ— is of the Holy Scripture Raised such a mist of Sophistry in thiâ— Controversy as may pâ—rhaps dazle the eyes of an unâ—â—ry Reaâ—er or impose upon some of his own Party whose prâ—judicâ— will nâ—t permit thâ—m impartially to consider things but câ—nnot as I câ—â—ceive have any manner of Influence upon any sober and understanding Man Except it may be to move him to have the worse opinion of that Cause which is maintained and uphâ—ld after this manner and of that Person whoever he be that thus violates the plain Laws of God while he pretends his Conscience to be so tender as that he cannot Conform to the Constitutions of the Established Church To this disingenious Man I have here returned an Answer And have done it with as much mildness as I thought the Case would hear Yet not forbearing sometimes to express a just Indignation against such palpable prevarications as I have Convicted him of And whatever my performance is I humbly submit it to your Graces censure And with my most hearty Prayers for your Graces both Temporal and Eternal Happyness I remain Cork October 1. 1698. Your Graces Most Obedient Chaplain and Most Obliged Humble Servant Edward Synge A DEFENCE OF THE Peaceable and Friendly ADDRESS TO THE NON-Conformists AGAINST THE ANSVVER Lately given to it THE whole Book against a part of which I am to make my Defence consists of three parts â—irst A Preface to the Protestant Reader Secondly Animadveâ—sions on the Defence of the Answer c. And thirdly An Answer to my Peaceable and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists With the Second of these I am not concerned And therefore shall set my self to consider only the first and third In the first Paragraph of the Preface I am represented as one of those who judge it their Interest to misrepresent to the World them they are pleased to call Nonconforming Brethren as a â—â—â—â—â—ous and Sâ—hismatical People And as a Man who am inclined to be wise in my own concâ—â—â— a case more desperate than that of a fool which therefore the Author out of Compassion to me and such as I am endeavours in this his Book to prevent But since he does not offer any instance of what I have said or done to justify this odious Character which he ventures to insinuate of me I think it is enough for me to say that they who know me better than he can possibly do amongst whom I believe I may reckon some of my Nonconforming Neighbours have I hope a different opinion of me And I entreat him to consider that as he ought not to suggest such things to the prejudice of another without very good proof for assirmanti incumbit probatio as he observes pag. 98. so has our blessed Saviour pronounced a very severe Sentence against those who are so ready to give such sort oâ— Language to their Brother Mat. 5 22. Which title I hope I shall never justly forfeit notwithstanding that he is pleased to let me know that he is not â—ond of that Relation to me pag. 96. Having thus suggested a very I 'l Character of me which I hope I do not deserve In the next place he gives a very good one of the Nonconformists which I never denied but they may and I hope they do very well deserve But however I think he should have taken a little better care to prevent some uncharitable misapprehensions which may be apt to arise in Mens minds through the uncautiousness of some of those Expressions which he here makes use of As for Example when he tells us that the Nonconformists are not the idle and consuming Caterpillars of the Nation Does not this seem to look as if he would insinuate either that we were such our Selves or else had so accounted and misrepresented them For if no one had ever thought either them or us to be idle and consuming Caterpillers to what end and purpose should he so particularly inform the World that they are not such And again to omit other instances when he tells us that their fear towards God is not taught by the Commandments of Men would not some Men be apt to collect from hence that in his Judgment at least our fear towards God is taught by the Commandments of Men For when Men do thus give Negative Characters of themselves it is usually construed as if they intended them for positive ones of those from whom they seem thus to distinguish themselves I am unwilling to believe that he purposely designed these and some other no
is altogether false However this pretence it self is easily answered If a Man who has a good Title to an Estate to obviate some scruples or prevent some differences which might perhaps arise shoulâ—â—ccept of a new conveyance of what before was in his possession does it foâ—â—ow from hence that such a man thereby renounces and disowns his former right and acknowledges himself to have unjustly detained what really was not his own If a Woman who has been lawfully married should for the Satisfaction of her Friends who might have some doubts lest all things might not have been performed as the Law required consent to be married again to the same Husband would this be a charitable inference from tâ—ence to conclude that therefore she acknowledged the nullity of her former mâ—riagâ— and consequently owned her self to be a Whore Or if a man has for some time hâ—d â— sufficient Commission for any employment and afterwards for the preventing of some occasional controversy which he for sees may be raised should accept of a new one for the same thing with a proteslation that he did not thereby renounce or disown that which he formerly had and this protestation allowed of would any honest or even modest Man pâ—etend that this Man had yet renounced his former Commission 〈◊〉 thereby owned all that he had done thereby to be null and void But that this was is in effect the case of those who having been formerly ordained by Presbyters did or do submit themselves again to be Episcopally ordained as our Law requires I think does most evidently appear from the Sense which my Lord Primate Bramhall had of the thing and his proceeding therein with whom I presume it will easily be allowed that the present Lord Primate and all the rest of our Bishops did and do still concurr For as we are told in his Life when he required those in his Diocess who before had been ordained by Presbyters to receive Episcopal Ordination they pleaded for themselves that they were already Ministers of the Gospel and therefore needed not again to be Ordained such which was the same thing as a Protestation against Renouncing their former Ordination Now this their Plea or Protestation His Grace was so far from disallowing or requiring them who had made it to retract it that on the contrary he rather expressed his approbation of it on their part In that he caused it to be inserted in the Letters of Orders of one Worthy and Reverend Gentleman And therefore I suppose of all the rest who were in the like Circumstances that he did not take upon him to annihilate his former Ordination nor to determine the validity or invalidity of it much less to condemn all the Ordinations of the foreign Resormed Churches whom he leaves to their proper Judge But observe only to supply what was formerly wanting which the Canons of the English Church required and to provide for the Churches peace that Schism might be avoided and satisfaction given to the Consciences of the faithful that they might not any way have a doubt of his Ordination or reject his Pastoral performances as if they were invalid And I very well remember that one of those Ministers who were re-ordained by the present Lord Primate gave me once an account of what he had done much to the same purpose and in words to this effect viz. That when he first received Ordination from the Presbytery in the time of the Troubles he did it because it was the best Authority that then he could get to empower him to serve God and the Church in the Office of the Ministry But when the Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Laws were restored to their Force throughout the Kingdom and Bishops Established in every Diocess for the Government of the Church he submitted to be again Episcopally Ordained not that he renounced his former Ordination or thought he had any reason to repent that as the times then were he accepted of it But because he looked upon it to be his Duty now he had it in his power to become conformable to the Laws and Canons not of this Church only but as he apprehended of the whole Ancient universal Church throughout the World And now upon a due Consideration of this whole matter I will appeal to the Conscience even of any sober and Charitable Nonconformist whether either my Lord Primate or those Ministers who are re-ordained by him do deserve so severe and bitter a Censure as our Author has ventured to pass upon them upon the account of this Transaction Having thus animadverted upon my Title page and Epistle Dedicatory he proceeds to apply himself to the Address it self In which the first thing that I laid down as the main Foundation of what I had to offer was that it is the Duty of every Christian to promote the Peace and Unity of the Church In answer to which because it was impossible to make any exception to the principle it self he tells me pag. 97. That tho' it hath ever been the honour of peace to be well spoken of by all men yet is it the unhappiness of many men to be under the Dominion of such Lusts as disenable them to pursue it Now if it was his design to include me amongst those many men he speaks of as evâ—â—y man I think will be apt to construe this insinuation I think in common Justice he ought to have brought some solid proof to have made it good But if it was not his intent to reckon me in this number methinks in Charity he ought to have said so and not to have given such an occasion to the world of fastening an unjust aspersion upon me But however he might imagine hereby to bring my Person under an odium yet what this has to do with the merit of the Cause which is in Dispute I know not and therefore have no farther to say to it In the next place in my Address I take it for granted as a thing which is too apparent that there is a separation between the Non-Conformists and us and thereby a Schism made in our National Church For the latter of which assertions our Author taxes me with Confidence and tells me that the Consequence is not good when I would infer it from the former Because says he there may be a separation without Schism as there is between all the Parochial Churches which are locally separate And Schisms where there is no separation of Churches 1 Cor. 3. 1. pag. 98. But instead of justifying this consequence which he thus finds fault with I shall only tell him that I never designed in those words to advance any Consequence at all That all Separation does not necessarily imply Schism I readily grant but yet that some Separations are certainly Schismatical in one or other of the separating Parties is what I presume no man in his Wits will deny Now that there is such a Separation between the Non-Conformists and the Establish't Church
Believing or Professing of Errors Now if by Practising an Error be meant the doing any thing which is contrary to God's Law such as praying to Saints or worshipping the Host or Images to which and such like things undoubtedly he had an Eye In that Expression I grant that it is a cause abundantly sufficient to refuse the Communion of any Church if she requires any such Practice as a Condition of it But then it must be shewn that some such Practice is so required by our Church or else this Clause will be as little to the purpose as the former But if by Practising an Error be meant the doing of a thing which is not Sinful but yet is apprehended to be improper oâ— inconvenient and therefore may be accounted an Error in Point not oâ— lawfulness but of prudence decency or the like If any Church requires the practice only of such an Error as this however it may be proper to desire and with a modest earnestness to press for an alteration in such things for the better yet I cannot see how upon this ground it can be justified to renounce or refuse the Communion of such a Church But of this anon As to Mr. Chillingworth's Proposal to the Papists that he was ready to join with them in any such Form of Worshipping God as should be wholly taken out of the Scriptures If the same be made to us I Answer that if by a Form of Worship wholly taken out of the Scriptures be meant such an one every of whose Words and Expressions are immediately and in terms contained in the Scriptures the thing is hardly practicable For as it is possible that the very Words and Phrases of Scripture may be so joined and put together as to wrest and pervert the sense and meaning thereof which might easily occasion new Disputes So I believe will it be very difficult nor certainly is it necessary for any Church so to contrive all her Forms of Worship as to use no word or action in any of them but what is expressly contained in or prescribed by the Scripture But if such a Form be meant which for substance is wholly taken from the Scripture and has nothing either in its concomitant actions or expressions which is contrary to the Scripture which I believe was all that Learned man intended I accept the proposal and offer our Liturgy as such a Form of worship as undoubtedly Mr. Chillingworth judged it to be or else he would not have conformed to it And if then our Author cannot shew that there is something therein contained and thereby required which is contrary to the holy Scriptures he must I think by his own Confession be judged guilty of Schism for refusing to join with us in the use of it The second proposition which in my Address I offer and that also couched under a Question is that nothing which is Sinful is required by us from those who communicate with us For which I there offer this as my reason namely because none of our constitutions are forbidden by the Law of God and nothing can be a Sin but what is so forbidden To this he Answers pag. 100. that there are such things required by our Church as to them are sinful and some of our constitutions which to them do appear to be contrary to God's Law For the proof of which he lays down p. 101 a distinction rational indeed in it self but here I think not rightly applyed namely that things are forbidden either expressly or by iust and necessary consequence That some of our constitutions then tho' not expressly are yet by good consequence forbidden he endeavours to prove because beâ—ng not commanded by God they are yet required by men as parts or means of the Worship of God Which as he pretends is contrary to the Word of God and for the proof of what he says he produces some Texts of Scripture and then confirms all by the Authority of my Lord Bishop of Derry in his late Discourse of Humane Inventions c. In that Paragraph of my Address now under consideration I had called those Rites and Ceremonies which by Authority are appointed to be used by the name of Circumstances of God's Worship and as such asserted the lawfulness of them Now whereas he would prove the unlawfulness of these things as being required not as Circumstances but as parts and means of the Worship of God He ought very clearly and distinctly to have told us what he meant by a Circumstance what by a Part and what by the Means of Worship and how these are distinguished one from another For as long as these terms in which he seems to place the knot of the Controversy remain obscure it is not possible to clear the Dispute or rightly to apply the proofs which he brings And yet without any explication oâ— these terms or shewing wherein the things signified by them do differ one from another he proceeds to prove pag. 102 that our Rites and Ceremonies are with us both Parts and Means of God's Worship But that we may not be like men who are scuffling in the dark and not distinctly knowing what it is we contend about I must as I proceed endeavour to do what he has thought fit to leave undone I mean to state the signification of these words that thereby we may know the difference of the things one from another It being then premised what all I suppose will grant that the true Worship of God consists in those things and in those only which he himself has commanded That and nothing else but that is properly to be called a Part of any thing without which the thing would be in it self imperfect and defective Thus every Limb of a Man is a Part of him because the want of any of them would be a defect in the Man himself But his garment tho' a decent ornament is yet no part of him because if he were stript stark naked or cloathed in an undecent garb tho' this might perhaps expose him to the scorn of some men yet would he in himself be never the less a perfect and compleat man upon that account Thus also Prayer Thanksgiving Consession the Susception of Baptism and the receiving the Lord's-Supper are each of them Parts of God's Worship because he who omits any one of them in its proper season thereby renders his Worship in it self defective and imperfect But the outward Modes or Ceremonies which may be annexed to this Worship or any part of it are not themselves any part of the Worship altho' they may be a decent ornament of it because the absence of them altho' it might perhaps in some mens eyes render the Worship mean and contemptible yet would not make it in it self to be ever the less compleat perfect or acceptable to Almighty God If then our Author can prove that it is the Judgment of our Church that the laying aside of any of her Ceremonies would render the Worship of
sacto But not for some gross Immoralities Now besides that the Ipso sacto upon which he lays such a Stress is wanting in these Canons of the Church of Ireland which are made concerning this matter which is enough to render his Allegation false because our present controversy is confined within the bounds of this Kingdom Let him but consult the second and third Paragraphs of the Rubrick which is placed immediately before our Communion Service and there he shall find that notorious evil livers who are the same with those who are guilty of gross immoralities are to be excluded from the Holy Communion and an account of them to be forthwith given to the Ordiâ—ary who is to proceed against such Persons according to Canon which I think is much the same thing with an Excommunication ipso facto But it may be I shall be told that tho' our Ecclesiastical Laws may perhaps be found to be equally severe against immorality and Nonconformity yet we do not find that the former has been so strictly punished amongst us as the latter To which I answer that if this were true it may be indeed justly accounted as a great fault in those whose Office it was to put those Laws in Execution but ought not to be charged upon the Constitution of the Church it self And besides this it is not so easy a matter legally to punish many immoralities as at the first one would be apt to think For without sufficient proof punishment ought not to be inflicted and not only are People generally very unwilling to appear as witnesses against others in such cases as these But Men also do commonly take care so far to hide their Act of wickedness as to make it very difficult to produce any legal proof of such things against them altho' at the same time they may labour under great suspicion 〈◊〉 much Scandal upon that account Which I take to be the great cause why sometimes the best of Men when they have been in Authority have not been able with all their care and diligence to suppress vice as both the Laws have empowered and thâ—ir own inclinations led them To conclude this digression As every honest Man ought sincerely to desire and heartily to 〈◊〉 his endeavours thâ—t true piety may be promoted and all wickedness suppressed soâ— for my part am fully of opiâ—ion that no sober and peaceable Man should at all be punished on account of the mistakes of his Conscience â—or which reâ—son I am altogether â—or having the penalty of our Laws against Non-conformity wholly relaxed Which yet I think ought to be done with that â—â—utions prudence as that all publick disturbances both now and hereafter may as much as is possible be prevented And under the pretence of 〈◊〉 tender Consciences a frâ—e liberty ought not to be given to every one at pleasure who want only to insult and trample upon a legal 〈◊〉 â—â—shment Our Author procâ—eds and tells us that Oâ—le Salt Câ—riâ—m Spâ—â—le c. are no more forbidden than the Sâ—â—n of the Cross Why then says he hath the Church rejected them To which the Church has long since given a clear and sâ—tisfactory answer in a short discourse prâ—fixt to the Book of Common Prayer which bears this Title Of Ceremoâ—â—â—â— why some be abolished and â—eme retaâ—ned with which if he were not satisfied he ought to have made his exceptions against it before he had again renewed the Question But the same Arguments are used by the Papists for all their Ceremonies I answer if the Arguments are bad let him refuse them But if not why are they the worse because the Papists make use of them And as the Papists to run down Protestancy do not scruple vigorously to plead the Cause of the Socinians by racking their Wits to shew that the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity is liable to as many and as great seeming absurdities as that of Transubstantiation so it seems some Nonconformists in order to gain their point against the Established Church do perform no mean picce of Service for the Church of Rome in endeavouring to perswade the World that the case of that Church and that of our Established one are very near of kin But as I have already shewn that what our Author has quoted out of Mr. Chillingworth against them is no way to be applyed to us so between their Ceremonies and ours both as to the excessive number and great abuse of them there is such extraordinary difference as our Church takes notice in the place but now quoted that I wonder how any Ingenuous Man could offer to make a Paralâ—el between them And as for what he adds in the Conclusion of this Paragraph that selling Doves and changing Money were not forbidden yet Christ drove all out of the Temple I answer that thus to make a Market of that place which was dedicated and appropriated to the service of God was if not in express words yet by very good consequence forbidden As our Saviour shews Matth. 21 13. Or if it were not forbidden I desire to know upon what account were they to be blamed who there sold Doves and changed Money And let him but prove that any of our Ceremonies are equally forbidden and I will renounce them Or if he cannot do this to what purpose is this instance given except it be to keep up an unreasonable prejudice against our way of Worship To vindicate our selves from the imputation of Superstition in the use of Ceremonies as well as our Ceremonies themselves from that of unlawfulness I took notice in my Address that we have sufficiently declared that we place no holiness in them but only use them as things in themselves indifferent ordained by authority for decency and order and alterable at any time by the same authority From whence our Author smartly as he thinks infers upon me pag. 103. that if our Ceremonies be not holy they are not civil nor natural ones and therefore must be prophaâ—e But is not this meer trifling thus to perplex a dispute with variety of terms without explaining and determining the sense of them For had he but laid down the definitions and distinctions of and belonging to these things this pretence would immediately appear to be vain and ridiculous Whatever Ceremony is comâ—anded by God to be used as long as the obligation of that command lasts may properly be called holy whatsoever such is commanded by the Law of the Land only altho' to be used in the exercise of Religion may yet if you please be called a civil Ceremony And where the Christian Religion is not upheld by the Civil Authority whatsoever is appointed by the Church it self may reasonably be termed by the name of Ecclesiastical And to give no more instances where bare custom without any other institution has introduced the practice of any such thing if there be nothing therein which is sinful why may it not bear the name of customary From whence it will
favour that ought to be extended to him on account of the tenderness of his Conscience But let a mans Consciences be disposed as it will the bare omission of Ceremonies is not by any of our Laws so severely censured as our Author pretends but was so wife as not to produce his proofs nor is any man thereby condemned of Schism except he makes or keeps up a separation in the Church nor of Sedition or Rebellion except he helps to maintain a faction or takes up arms against the Civil State nor lastly made subject to Fining Imprisonment or Excommunication except it be for publick Opposition to the Establâ—shed Laws And if our Author had not consulted more with passion or ill nature than with sober reason or charity he would never have so strained things beyond their due pitch as he has most evidently done in the above mentioned suggestion which he brings in charge against us Nor Secondly do I any where find it to be the Judgment of our Church that every one who comes under the sentence of Excommunication must necessarily be supposed to be delivered to Satan which is another of his good natured insinuations That those Persons who by publick disobedience and opposition to the lawful commands of lawful Authority do cause divisions and â—ffences in the Church should be avoided and excluded from her visible Communion is no more than what I think to be sufficiently warranted by the Apostle St. Paul Rom. 16. 17. But because it is possible and sometimes probable enough that many men are thus missed not so much by wilfulness or obstinacy as by some great mistakes or strong prejudices which they have entertained or it may be by a real zeal of God but not according to knowledge we are so far from concluding any of them to be absolutely given into the possession of the Devil that on the contrary we charitably hope that the generality of them will obtain mercy at the hand of God not do we at all doubt it where the disobedience to Authority prâ—câ—eds not from perverseness but ignorance of their Duty in this particular Thirdly Whereas he would have the world believe that the omission of Ceremonies makes a Minister more liable to deprivation than Whoredom Drunkenness c. If he means that it is commonly more easie to convict such an one of Nonconformity which must be open and notorious than of immorality which may be kept so secret as in many cases scarcely to admit of legal proof I desire to know how is this to be helpt or the Church to be blamed for it Or if he means that immorality in Ministers has not been so strictly prosecuted and punished as Nonconformity Besides that he offers no manner of proof even of this the utmost it could amount to if true would be to fasten a just blame not upon the Laws of the Church but upon those Persons who should have put them in execution wherein I will join with him with all my heart if he can but furnish me with sufficient proof of the matter of fact But if he means that by our Ecclesiastical Laws a Minister who is convicted of such immorality as he mentions is not as liable to deprivation as he that is found guilty of Nonconformity which I think is the only meaning of his words that can be any way to the purpose I challenge the abominable falsehood of this assertion and demand the proof of it from him Fourthly Whereas he suggests that the refusers of Conformity are judged worse than Idolatrous Papists This is an imputation so notoriously unjust and immodest that none but a man of such a tender Conscience as our Author would ever lay it to our charge But 't is no matter for that his party will probably believe that he would never affirm a thing so extraordinary if it were not so And if he does but calumniate stoutly something perhaps may stick But methinks this man who so solemnly in his Preface appeals to the Judge that standeth at the door should remember the account which one day he must give of his words as well as actions unto that same Judge And lastly Whereas he accuses us that we esteem our Ceremonies to be more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church I Answer that if any man were once convinced that the abolition of any Ceremonies which lawfully may be laid aside would generally conduce to the Unity and Peace of the Church and that without doing any other hurt which might over-ballance this good and if in this case he should refuse to have these Ceremonies abolished it might indeed justly be said of him that he preferred them before Peace and Unity But where it no way appears that men are thus convinced But on the contrary that there is much reason to fear that the prohibition or disuse of such Ceremonies would not only give a very plausible advantage to the Churches enemies and scandalize a multitude of her own weak Members but also encourage those that causelesly dissent from her to insult and triumph and to demand other things which are yet more unreasonable Where men I say are under these or such like apprehensions as many sober and prudent men of our Church are altho' a man should be of opinion that they were mistaken yet could he not with truth or charity affirm that they preferred their Ceremonies or thought them more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church For in this case bare Ceremonies are not put into the Scale against Peace and Unity as our Author would insinuate But all the evil consequences which would attend the abolition of our Ceremonies are ballanced against the uncertain satisfaction which might be given to some mistaken men whose principles if they are followed must continually lead them into new scruples and exception against all humane establishments in matters of Religion and the Worship of God In the conclusion of this point of Christian Liberty I had said in my Address that if our Liturgy were an insringement of Christian Liberry not only all other Churches were guilty of the same but even the Directory which imposes some things which in themselves are indifferent cannot be excused from it To which all the Answer that our Author gives is p. 109. to deny and to demand proof from all who assert that the Directory requireth any Ceremonies of mystical signification or imposeth any indifferent thing save such Circumstances as nature and reason direct But is not this meer shuffling thus to take no notice of the thing which I had asserted and to require me to prove that which I had never affirm'd or so much as insinuated I had no occasion to speak of any such thing as mystical Ceremonies or improper Circumstances to be prescribed by the Directory Nor therefore should he have amused the Reader with the mention of them The whole force of my Argument lay plainly in this alone that if it be a violation of Christian
Liberty for order and decency's sake to settle and determine any thing in the manner or circumstances of God's Worship which God by his own immediate Law had not determined From hence it would follow not only that all other Churches but even the Directory it self which does determine some things which God had left indifferent must be guilty of the violation of Christian Liberty To which he does not think sit to return any manner of Answer However that our Author may not complain that I accuse the Directory as equally culpable with our Liturgy in the violation of Christian Liberty without giving any instances to make good what I say It will not be amiss here to give an Example or two of such things as I hint at for the Readers better satisfaction A sixt stated and perpâ—tual compulsion to do what God has permitted us to omit or a prohibition to do what he has made lawful sor us is according to our Author the main violation of Christian liberty p. 107. Now as it was lawful for the People of the Jews to Worship towards Gods Holy Temple where they dayly Sacrifice was offered 2 Chro. 6. 26. Ps 5. 7. and 138. 2. And for Daniel to Worship towards Jerusalem Dan. 6. 10. As being the place where their solemn Devotions wereto be paid whenever they could there be personâ—lly present By a fair parity of reason it is undoubtedly Lawful for a Christian to Worship God towards the reading desk from whence the Prayers of the Congregation are offer'd up and the Word of God read unto the People by the Minister or towards the Pulpit from whence the Word of God is opened and explained for our Use and Instruction or towards the Communion Table where we often receive the Holy Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ which are the means appointed by him whereby we are to Communicate in the Merits of his Passion Nor is there any Law of God which either in Words or by good Consequence in the least forbids us to express this Worship by the bowing our Bodies But the Directory p. 10 does positively prohibit Adoration that is Worship or bowing ones self towards one place or other which is not only to forbid what God has made lawful But also seems to require that which is in it self Impossible For in all Acts of Adoration as long as we have Bodies we must of necessity turn our selves towards some place or other And I desire our Author if he can to shew me such a prohibition in any part of our Liturgy Again God has undoubtedly permitted us to omit the posture of sitting at the Reception of the Holy Communion because it neither appears that this was the very posture in which Christ and his Apostles received it nor if it were is there any Command that we should imitate them in that Circumstance any more than in the time or place wherein they performed that Office which was after Supper and in an Upper Room But by the Directory Men are as much compelled to sit as by the liturgy to kneel at the Holy Communion The words of the former p. 51 that the Table is to be so conveniently plated that the Communicants may orderly sit about it being altogether as directive as the Rubrick of the Latter that the Minister shall deliver the Communion in both kinds to the People all meekly kneeling And the words of the Ordinance of Parliament for the Establishing and putting in Execution the Directory viz. That the Directory shall be used pursued and Observed in all Exercises of the Publick Worship of God in every Congregation c. Being tho' Illegal yet as injunctive as any Clause in either of the Acts of Uniformity for the Using of the Liturgy And lastly the posture of sitting if I am rightly informed having been as exâ—ctly observed and kept to by the Nonconformists in the receiving of the Holy Communion as that of kneeling by those of the Established Church And therefore the Directory according to our Author must be as much an infringement of Christian Liberty in this also as our Liturgy Having done with the Objection which was drawn from the pretence of Christian Liberty In the next place I proposed that which is raised from the pretended numerousness and burthen of our Ceremonies to which I Answered that the utmost that this could amount to if it were true as I do not conceive that it is would be only an inconvenience and not a sin To which he Replies p. 109 that God's word tells us that to do what is not convenient is sinful Rom. 1. 28. Ephes 5. 4. But is not this still meer trisling and playing with the ambiguity of a word which I plainly take in one sense and he wilfully mistakes in another For whereas a thing may be said to be inconvenient either first because it is troublesome or secondly because it is unlawful Nothing can be more manifest than that here I take the word inconvenient in the former sense only and St. Paul in the places he assigns only in the latter If our Ceremonies were too numerous and burthensom as I cannot see why they should be so thought yet this would only render them troublesome and upon that account inconvenient but not unlawful Whereas it is plainly the unlawfulness and not the troublesomness of unrighteousness fornication wickedness covetousness c. and of filthiness and foolish talking and jesting which makes the Apostle in the above mentioned places to call them by the name of inconvenient But says he Was not this the sin of the Pharisees Mat. 23 4. that they burthened mens Consciences with their own inventions To which I Answer that the sin of the Pharisees in that place must needs be one or both of these viz. either first the imposing of humane Traditions as a part of God's Law of which I have already spoken under the Objection about Christian Liberty or secondly the requiring a much more strict and exact obedience to God's Law from other People than what they themselves performed as appears from the two proceding verses which was a piece of most gross Hypocrisie But what relation this has to Rites and Ceremonies appointed by Authority for order and decency in the Worship of God our Author must inform me for of my self I am not able to find it out In my Address I had taken notice that tho' St. Austin complained of the number and burthen of Ceremonies in his time yet â—â— never find that he looked upon that as any cause for separating from the Established Church Upon which he thinks he has caught me several ways And first he demands why the Dissenters may not now complain as well as St. Austin did in his time To which I Answer because they have not the same reason the number of Ceremonies which were brought into the Church in his days being much greater and more perplexing than what is now in use amongst us But yet if they now made
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