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
as does imply a Schism was most apparently all that there I intended to say Nor did I think it necessary by any deduction of Consequences to prove that which I thought so evident as not to be denied or doubted of But our Author it seems will not allow that there is a Schisin between them and us because the Presbyterians in the North never joyned with the Established Church in those things in which we now differ to wit Church Government Liturgy and Ceremonies and all Division pre-supposeth a prior Union To which I Answer that wherever there is an Obligation to the maintaining of Union and Communion if that Union and Communion be not accordingly maintained but denied and renounced from thence results what I mean by a Schism Which word I understand to signifie not only the Action of Dividing or separating what once was joyned and united but also the State of Separation between such Parties as stand obliged to Religious Union altho' they never were actually united Now that all Christians are by the Law of God obliged as far as lawfully they can to maintain Union and Communion one with another is what I never yet heard denied by any one And since this Union and Communion is not maintained between the Non-Conformists and us it will follow that there is a Schism between us and that either we are guilty of a Sin in giving them a just ground of keeping themselves separate from us or they in keeping themselves so separate without any just ground for it But if after all our Author will not allow the word Schâ—sm to be a term proper enough to denote such a State of Separation I am contented that he should put what other word he pleases in the room of it as long as the thing intended is sufficiently plain viz. That such a State of Separation necessarily implies a Sin in one or other of the Parties For the clearer discovering at whose door the Sin of this Schism which is between us lies I have in my Address proposed several things to be considered Against the manner of which first our Author takes this exception that I rather Catechize the Non-Conformists by asking them Questions than convince them by Reasons pag. 97. To which I Answer that there is not any Question put in my whole Address but what I think as plainly carries in it the force of an assertion as if I had set it down not in an interrogation but a preposition Nor have I there delivered or suggested any assertion but what I have given or sufficiently intimated my reason for except the thing were so evident as to need no proof But yet to take away all pretence of Cavill I shall in this Defence reduce my Questions into such Propositions as are naturally implyed in them and fairly examine which are strongest my Reasons for them or his against them The first Proposition then which on this occasion I have advanced tho' under the form of a Question is that in the Communion of our Church there is nothing wanting which is necessary to the Salvation of a Christian And as I have constantly served my Cure in my own Person Notwitstanding our Authors uncharitable Insinuation to the contrary pag. 98. So have I in my Address suggested such proof of this assertion as not to stand in need of him for my Curate or Delegate to prove it for me viz. Because our Church Teaches all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith requires all Men to lead Vertuous and Holy Lives and omits no part of Christ's Institution either in Baptism or the Lord's-Supper which things are all that are required as of necessity to any Mans Salvation Nor did I think it proper to offer any further Confirmation of these things besides the notoriety of them because I was not Disputing with Jews or Pagans to whom our Auther tell us Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines But with the Non-Conformists who do not deny what I have hitherto asserted as the others did the Doctrines of the Gospel but give other Reasons altogether for their separation from us And therefore why our Author would have me stand to prove these Points before they are gainsaid I know not except it may be to divert the Reader from attending unto that which is the knot and difficulty of the controversy if any real difficulty at all there be in so very plain and evident a Case Where an assertion is laid down in any Controversy there can be but two ways of returning an Answer to it viz. either first to deny the Truth of it or secondly to shew that tho' it may be true yet is it impertinent to the purpose for which it is alleged The former of these our Author I suppose knows he cannot do in relation to the above-mentioned Proposition Altho' according to his way he seems to suggest something like it by urging me to undertake the proof of it For the only reason why a man should produce his Arguments to prove a thing is because it may be denied or doubted of But in order to the latter without distinguishing between the case of our Church and that of Rome he produces pag. 99. a passage of the Learned Chillingworth which tho' levelled by its Author only against the Roman Church yet he sets down as equally applicable against that Church also of which Mr. Chillingworth himself was a Member And that without taking any care to caution his own Party against an unjust and false Opinion that some of them have seemed to be inclined to â—s if the Church of Rome and the Establish't Church were in a manner equally culpable The substance of what he recites out of Mr. Chillinwarth is comprised in the first words of the Quotation it self All says he that we forsake in you is the Belief Profession and Practice of your Errors c. Let but these Errors be taken away and in all the rest we shall agree very well In Answer whereunto I grant with that Learned man in what follows That to believe an Error knowing it to be an Error is absolutely impossible and for a man to profess what he does not believe is Hypocritical and Sinful and therefore ever to be avoided But altho' this bears close upon the Church of Rome which requires the Belief and Profession of divers things which from plain Scripture and Reason we abundantly prove to be false yet is it altogether wide from our case except our Author had plainly told us as we do the Papists what those Errors or false Doctrines are the Belief or Profession of which we require among the Conditions of our Communion Which till he undertakes to do he must I think acknowledge that what Mr. Chillingworth says as to the Believing and Professing of Errors is no way to his present purpose except it be to amuse and keep up the prejudice of his own Party against us But that Learned man excepts against Practising as well as against
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
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
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
and carried his provision with him or he went on horseback or in a coach and had such and such conveniencies for his Journey Thus also if we were inquiring after the Worship of any Church or Party whatsoever the natural order of our Questions would be this First to ask whom they Worshipped viz. whether the true God or a false God or any other Person besides God And if it appeared that they Worshipped the true God then the second thing to be asked would be wherein does that Worship which they pay to God consist Do they confess their Sins and Pray to him and give him Thanks Are they Baptized and do they celebrate the Lord's Supper according to God's own command And if we should find that in all this they followed the rule of God's word then in the third place this Question would fall in viz. After what way and manner or by what means or in what method do they pay and perform this Worship What time what place what words what gestures c. do they appoint or use in the several parts of it Thus far then our Author and I are agreed viz. First That to prescribe any thing as a part of God's Worship which he himself has not commanded is a sin But then I have shewn that our Forms and Ceremonies are not by us made such parts of the Worship of God Secondly I agree with him that our Liturgy and Ceremonies are the way means or method of performing our publick Devotions But then I have also shewn that this signifies no more but that these things which are thus by humane Law prescribed are the circumstances which do accompany and regulate the manner of our Worship Now if our Author's proofs do evince that to require any thing which God himself has not commanded as a way or means of Worship renders the thing it self unlawful and in effect forbiden without any other prohibition of it then I must confess he has not only sufficiently answered my Address to the Non-Conformists but also over-turned all the Liturgies and Rituals not of our Church only but of all other Churches also Nay I do not well see how the Directory it self will escape the stroke of so strict a Censure except he were able to shew that every Punctilio which is there prescribed is no more than what is I must not say allowed and left at liberty but positively commanded by God And as those Arguments upon the strength of which we renounce the Communion of any Church and refuse Obedience to the Law of the Land ought to be both very clear and very solid so that I may not abate the force of those which our Author brings I shall set them down in his own words without omitting a syllable First then says he p. 101. whatever part or means of divine Worship is not commanded is forbidden is evident from that reason given Lev. 10. 1. why God destroyed Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire which is this For I commanded them not Now besides that he perverts the Text by adding the word for to make the words run in an argumentative Style which are only part of an Historical Narration and by putting the word I instead of he as if those words were immediately spoken by God himself whereas they are only a part of that Relation which Moses makes of the matter of fact The Case of Nadab and Abihu was plainly this God had commanded that when Incense was to be burnt before him it should be done with Fire taken from off the Altar as appears from Lev. 16. 12. But these men neglecting the Command of God put other Strange Fire into their Censers for which they were destroyed by Fire from the Lord. Lev. 10. 1 2. All then that can be inferred from hence is that whosoever shall omit to do what God Commands as Nadab and Abihu did to take Fire from the Altar and instead thereof shall do another thing which God has not commanded as they did in putting strange Fire in their Censers is guilty of a sin But where nothing is omitted which God has commanded it does not follow from hence that the doing of any thing which is uncommanded in the Worship of God is therefore unlawful because it is not commanded But if he shall tell me that the Command for taking fire from the Altar was not given for ought that appears till after the death of Nadab and Abihu I shall desire him to let me know if there were no certain sort of Fire at that time ordained and appointed for the burning of Incense how could that Fire which these men offered be termed Strange Fire For the word Strange necessarily implys that there was some other Fire which was not Strange which they ought to have offered that is to say some certain sort of Fire particularly appointed for this purpose His next Argument is this The reason says he of Gods rejecting what was offered Is 1. 12. is given Who hath required these things at your hands To which I answer that the things there spoken of and which God at that time rejected were such as he had positively commanded and required from the people of Israel namely Sacrifices burnt-Offerings Incense c. as every man that reads the precedent and following Verses may plainly see The reason then why God rejected them could not be as our Author would insinuate because he had not required them for 't is plain that he had required them in the Mosaick Law But because the People rested in these outward performances and were not truly sanctified in their hearts nor holy in their lives which was what he chiefly and so in a manner only required from them as in comparison thereof almost not to regard those outward Performances altho' of his own appointment That this is the plain and only purport of that place appears so evidently from the Context and whole design of that Chapter that it is not to be imagined how any man could mistake it except he did it wilfully And all that can be inferred from this whole Passage is that outward Performances altho' of God's own Appointment are yet of no esteem with him if they are not accompanied with true Holiness of Mind and Actions Which how it can be applied to our present Controversy I am at a loss to find His next Argument is this The cause of God's Judgments on false Prophets Jer. 14 14 15. is I sent them not neither have I commanded them Now observe the Consequence God Almighty denounces a heavy Judgment upon those pretended Prophets who being not sent nor commanded by him did yet presume not only to tell Lyes but also to Prophesy them in his Name which was a most abominable Sin and from hence our Author would infer that therefore whatsoever is not commanded in the Worship of God is forbidded to be used as a way or means of it But how this Inference or any thing like it can be justified I
know not His last Argument is this Fear or Worship of God taught by the Commandments of Men is not only vain Matth. 15. 9. but brings Plagues on them who abuse their wisdom that way Is 29. 14. Where tho' he very crudely and indistinctly represents the meaning of the former of these two Texts which he alleges yet I freely grant the truth of what he asserts if the thing be rightly understood But where the fear of God proceeds from an awful sense of his Greatness and Majesty and the Worship of God is such as he himself has taught and prescribed consisting in Confession Prayer Thanksgiving and the Celebration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper without omitting any thing which is of divine institution And Men are taught and urged thus to Fear and Worship God because God himself has commanded them so to do And the Law of the Land which may be termed the Commandment of Alan interposes no farther but only to enforce and not to alter the Law of God and to settle and regulate the outward Circumstances of this Worship which the Law of God has not determined I cannot see what from either of these Texts can with any colour be objected against such a constitution of things as this except it be where prejudice and not sober and impartial reason is the Interpreter of them To strengthen these his proofs from Scripture which of themselves I am sure are very weak our Author adds that we are lately taught what he has asserted to be the Doctrine of the Established Church by the Bâ—shop of Derry in his Vanity of Humane Inventions And after having recited some of His Lordship's words out of the Introduction of the Book mentioned he concludes thus Now if Cross Ring c. be not exprâ—sly contained in Scripture or warranted by the Examples of holy Men therein they must according to the Bishop of Derry's reasoning be displeasing to God and so forbidden by him p. 101 102. But here sure our Author cannot but know that he is guilty in a most palpable manner of a double piece of disingenuity For neither does my Lord Bishop of Derry there teach us that what is contained in those words is the Doctrine of the established Church but only offers his own judgment of those things as being highly reasonable nor does our Author faithfully recite what his Lordship has said but omits part of the last Sentence without which it is not possible fully to understand the meaning and design of that Paragraph His Lordships Conclusion is this Sâ—nce God has vouchsasâ—d us a certain Direction or his Worship in the holy Scriptures it is to be supposed that all ways of Worship are displeasing to him that are not â—â—presâ—ly contained or warranted by Examples of holy Men mentioned therein OR MAY NOT BE DEDUCED BY PLAIN CONSEQUENCE OR BY PARTTY OF REASON FROM THEM which last words our Author has very unfairly left out so that altho' our Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—xpâ—â—sly contained in the Scriptures or warranted in particular by the â—xampâ—â—â— of â—oly Men therein Yet still according to my Lord Bishop of 〈◊〉 in that very Paragraph which our Author quotes they may 〈◊〉 be 〈…〉 to God if they can be deduced by plain Consâ—â—â—â—rce or by 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 And that all our Forms and Ceremonies are justified by plain 〈◊〉 or an evident congruity and parity of Reason either from the Rules or â—â—amples of holy Men in Scripture is what his Lordship has partly proved in the Seqâ—â—l of that Book and may very eâ—â—ectually be made good touching those other things of which he has not there had â—ccasion to speak From what our Author has hitherto been discoursiâ—â— he p. 1â—2 insâ—rs an Answer to this Question which I had put viz. Can aâ—y thing be called a Sin which God has not sorbid And he tells me It may 〈◊〉 â—aâ—s he uncommanded Worship is Sin Now see how an ill cause runs a man into Perplexities and Contradictions He had just before been proving that uncommanded Worship is â—â—rbidden and yet almost in the same breath he gives it as an Instance of a thing that is a Sin altho' it be not 〈◊〉 But altho' I have already granted that the use of any uncommanded thing 〈…〉 part of God's Worship is unlawful and the only reason why it is so is because it is forbidden yet neither does it follow from hence nor has our Author proved that uncommanded Circumstances of Worship are sinful And upon a Supposition that they were sinful yet upon what other account they could be so besides their being forbidden I should be very glad to learn from him But he gives another Instance To Baptize says he without the Sign of the Cross Communicate without Kneeling c. are not forbidden of God and yet the Established Church account these Sins To which the Answer is very easy viz. That the Established Church accounts these things to be no farther Sins than as they are forbidden by God Disobedience to lawful Authority in such things as are in themselves lawful is most certainly forbidden since then the Cross after Baptism Kneeling at the Communion c. are in themselves lawful and commanded by lawful Authority For any man wilfully to omit any of these Circumstances in the performance of these Offices as long as the Laws for them do stand in force is an Act of Disobedience to the higher Powers and upon this account and no other is reckoned as a Sin by us But Nonconformity with us is punished more severely than some gross Immoralities I answer that tho' this were true yet makes it nothing to our present Controversy nor can it any way be proved from thence that Conformity is unlawful and therefore for what purpose this is here mentioned except it be to raise the passion and thereby more effectually to cloud the reason of his own Party I cannot imagine What ever errors there may be in the Discipline of a Church as no Humane Constitution perhaps was ever throughly perfect if some part of it be too strict and other too loose or whatever else the fault may be I think it is the Duty of every good Christian fairly to represent such things to those who are in Authority that they may in a due manner be rectisied But as such defects as these are no just ground to refuse the Communion of any Church whatsoever so to upbraid her with them upon an improper occasion and when such a reproach makes nothing to the Argument in hand in my apprehension seems not altogether agreeable to the true Christian spirit of meekness and Charity That this hint then which he here gives is not to the direct purpose of our present Dispute is most plain But what if after he has affirmed it so positively and that too with an Asseveration it should not appear to be so clear and evident a truth as he supposes it He tells us that for Nonconformity Men are to be Excommunicated Ipso
in express words or by a fair and just consequence as I have plainly shewn by examining all the placâ—s of Scriptur◠〈…〉 him I 〈◊〉 therefore â—â—aâ— this is an Addition of his own And there one let him see to it how he can avoid or excuse the breaking of that 〈◊〉 which he Quotes Deut. 12. 32. The â—â—rd main propoâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 I have 〈◊〉 in my Address is a Corollary whâ—â—◠〈…〉 the two prâ—â—â—ding ones viz. If in the Communion of our Church there be neither any thing wanting which is necessary to Salvation which was my first proposition nor any thing prescribed in it which is sinful which was my second Proposition then certainly our Communion is at least innocent and not unlawful In which sequel if the Premises hold good as I think I have justified them against all our Authors Objections the conclusion cannot be denied or doubted of But because mens Actions are generally regulated not so much according to the Reallity of things as according to their own Judgment and Apprehension of them I proceeded to consider whether it might be a just cause for men to refuse communion with us upon either of these accounts viz. That they judged our Communion unlawful altho' really and in it self it were not so or else that they doubted whether it were lawful or not and therefore thought it the best way not to joyn with us as long as this doubt remained unresolved As to the former of these who judge our communion absolutely unlawful I in my Address refer them to what I had before said And tell them that except they can shew wherein the Sin of our Communion lies their Judgment must needs be false and uncharitable And as our Author desires that what he has said upon this Subject may be considered so I entreat the Reader likewise to consider the Answers which I have now returned to every material thing which he has urged As to the other sort who do not absolutely judge our Communion unlawful but only doubt or are not well assured concerning the lawfulness of it I propose to them the common rule which is given in doubtful cases viz. That they should choose that way which is most safe and free from the danger of Sin But how says our Author shall a Person who is not able to clear his doubts about which is the most safe way yet choose the most safe way I answer that such a Person indeed while the doubt is equal on both sides has no certain rule to choose by But if the doubt on the one side be very strong and founded upon the plain principles of Scripture or reason and that on the other side upon a strict Examination appears to be no more but a Scruple or groundless fear arising from fancy or prejudice and not from any clear and rational Judgment of things in such a case as this altho' some sort of doubt may yet remain concerning the lawfulness of the Action yet may it plainly appear which is the safest way and lest liable to the danger of Sin For tho' I allow with Cicerâ— whom our Author quotes as agreeing with St. Paul 〈◊〉 a Man ought not to do any thing concerning the lawfulness of which 〈…〉 doubt yet still I will venture to affirm with Dr. Ames De Cous◠〈…〉 6. That many sâ—rrples there are which 〈…〉 cannot be removed 〈…〉 to the contrary ought by a sâ—râ— of â—â—rce to be laid aside and not to 〈…〉 And I presume oâ—r Authâ—â— will allow this Doctor to be as 〈…〉 as the Paâ—an Ciâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 to acquaint the 〈…〉 I do not deserve the 〈…〉 so In Order then to find out which is the safest way for such doubting Persons to take and to shew that the scruples from whence such doubtfulness arises in them are groundless I very briefly yet I think plainly urged these following things viz. That no man ought to deviate from a plain and evident law of God on account of such Suggestions as he owns to be but obscure and doubtful That to promote the Peace and Vnity of the Church and to give Obedience to the Commands of Lawful Authority are very plainly and evidently commanded by God That in this present case the Suggestions upon which such a doubting Person refrains from our Communion are supposed to be but doubtful and obscure For if they were clear and plain it would alter the Case and the Person of whom we are speaking would no longer remain in doubt but be absolutely determined in his Judgment And lastly that a doubt in Point of Conscience which after a reasonable time for enquiry never comes to any positive Determination is more probably the effect of fancy or prejudice than of any Sober and impartial Reasoning And therefore ought not to be put into the Ballanco against such plain Commands of God as do not admit of any doubt at all Now he that has as little Reason and Divinity as our Author will allow me to have may yet see that he gives a very illogical Answer to these things which I have thus offered For without the lest offer made to confute my premises or shew they are unconclusive he falls directly foul upon the conclusion it self and repeats the same Objection which I had before made viz. That to conform doubtingly either for Peace or in Obedience to the Magistrate is Sinful Conformity For he that doubteth is damned if he eat and whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin p. 105. To which I Answer that a doubt concerning the lawfulness of Obedience to any humane Command is a very just reason for a man to suspend acting until such time as he has made enquiry into the matter But if after all he can find no solid and rational Foundation for this doubt he ought to look upon it as no more but a meer Scruple and to deal with it according to the direction which I have just now quoted out of Dr. Ames For iâ— we must forever forbear Acting upon account of such sort of doubts as these the consequence will be almost perpetual perplexity of Conscience to all those who are not able clearly and distinctly to Solve all the little Scruples which either the Devil or their own weak fancies may at any time raise in their minds which would render Religion unto such Persons as a yoke impossible to be born And here by the way I desire the Reader to take Notice how dexterously our Author perverts my words only by the omission of one Syllable in his recital of them In that part of my Address now under Consideration I have these words If aâ—ter a reasonable time for enquiry be is not able to determine this doubt so as positively to satisfie himself upon solid grounds that such Conformity is unlawful what reason can be given why such a doubt should be put in the Ballance against those plain Commands of God which I have mention'd Now in the recital of these words of mine our Author instead
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
their complaint as he did without breaking the Unity of the Church or causing any Schism in it altho' I should think that there were no reason for their so complaining yet should I not â—erein accâ—se them as guilty of any sin But our Author tells us that if St. Austin had lived in some places of the world and complained of such a luâ—then there is a Canon called the tenth by which he had been Ipso faâ—â—â— shut out of the Church To which I Answer that neither are the wâ—â—â—â— Ipso fâ—cio upon which he lays such weight in the Tenth Canon of the Church of England nor is the Excommunication there threatned but upon a supposition that such a complaint is made and published for the abetting and justifying of such as make a Schism in the Church by taking to themselvâ—s the name of another Church not Established by Law which farther â—hews how disingenuous a man this is in quotations In the next place he demands how do I know that St. Ausâ—in did not separate But was ever such a Question askt Or is there the least intimation either in his own or any other of the Books of that Age that ever he did separate And if such a man as he had separated is it to be imagined that great notice would not have been taken of it Or lastly do I pretend to know positively that he did not separate or to say any more but that we never find that he did But our Author has a dilemma to prove St. Austin either to have separated or sinneâ— For if he refused to use those same Ceremonies of which he complained then he separated as well as the present Non-consormists but if he used them after his complaint of theâ—â— leâ—ng burthensome and too numerous it would be hard to excuse him from sin To this I Ansâ—er first that many Ceremonies in St. Austin's days being probably introduced by meer custom without any Law or Canon to establish and confirm them it was certainly lawful for him in his own Church and Diocess â—o reâ—râ—nâ—h the use of such Ceremonies as these as in prudence he might think sit because in strictness there lay no obligation upon him at all to make use of them But secondly if he had renounced and absolutely refused to communicate with any Christian Church whatsoever against which he had no other Objection but only that they required the use of some Ceremonies in the Worship of God which God had not commanded nor yet had any way forbidden altho' these Ceremonies might have been too numerous and upon that account troublesome yet iâ— he had no other jâ—sâ— plea to bring against them I cannot see how this alone could have justified him in breaking the Unity of the Church which every Christian is bâ—â—nd as far as in him lyes to preserve But that ever he did any thing like this does not in the least appear But Thirdly if St. Auslin for the sake of Peace and Unity was content to submit to the use of so many Ceremonies as in his opinion were too numerous and therefore burthensome I desire our Author to inform mâ— by what Law of God he can on this account be taxed or with any reason so much as suspected of sin â—â—â— tho' it is not lawful to do evil that â—â—â— may come Rom. 3. 8. Yet that â—â— shâ—uld bâ— any â—ay unlawful to do a thing which is not evil but only troublesome and uneasy when the â—â—â— a man has in doing it is really good is what no man I think of common sense will offer to say The last Objection of the Nonconformists which under this head I proposed in my Address was that Our Ceremonies are unnecessary and therefore ought not to be imposed To which I there returned a two fold Answer First That what some may think unnecessary others may judge Expedient Secondly supposing but not granting that our Governours were faulty in imposing some needless things upon us Yet that our Compliance even with such things for Peace and Unity's sake would rather be a Vertue than a Sin In return to which he tells me first that what I dâ—oiously suppose is a plain Truth and in effect conâ—est by us viz. That our Ceremonies are unnecessary because we declare them to be indisserent But will this Man never leave Trifling with the Ambiguity of Words If by unnecessary he mâ—ans not absolutely and perpetually necessary to Salvation I grant that every indifferent thing is in this Sense unnecessary But if by unnecessary he means altogether useless and insignificant to any good purpose I deny that what is in it's own nature indifferent is always thus to be judged unnecessary For there may be such Circumstances of things and Persons wherein such things may be Instruments and occasions of much good And accordingly it is very evident that the retaining of the use of some indifferent things in our Church did not a little contribute to the advancing of the Reformation amongst us and bringing over many thereto who otherwise would not probably have to easily forsaken Popery And I have already given my Reasons why it is not sit or proper as matters stand wholly now to lay all such things aside In the next place he tells me That he knows of no Command of Christ for complyâ—ng with Governours in their unnecessary impositions for the sake of Peace and Unity and therefore he will not own it to be a Vertue rather than a Sin I am sorry that he is so ignorant of the Laws of the Gospel But seriously has he never heard of a Command of Christ which the Apostle thus delivers to us If it be possible as much as lyeth in you live Peaceably with all Men Rom. 12. 18. If then a thing be otherwise never so unnecessary yet if it be possible and if no Law of God has forbidden it but that it lyeth in us and we are at liberty to do it we ought to comply with it if it be necessary in order to Peace Or has he never met with another Command which S. Paul thus sets down Rom. 13. 1. Iâ—â—t every Soul be subject to the higher Powers And S. Peter thus Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. And to which there is no other exception made in the whole word of God but only this that we ought to obey God rather than Men Aâ—ts 5. 29. If then a thing be commanded by the higher Powers and Ordained by the Authority of those Men in whom the Legislature resides However unnecessary it may be thought to be yet still it is to be submitted to except it appears to be forbidden by some Law of Almighty God But our Author it seems would bring Government to a very Fine pass when he would make every private Man to be Judge not only whether the thing Commanded be agreeâ—ble to the Law of God but also whether there were any nâ—cessity for issuing such a Command