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
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
of the word unlawful puts the word lawful p. 105. So that whereas my Argument in effect runs thus viz. Because a Man is no way convinâ—'d that such a thing is unlawful thereâ—ore be ought to do it if lawful Authority commands it which I take to be very Reasonable Our Author would insinuate to the World as if I had meâ—nt that because a Man is not convinc'd that such a thing is lawful therefore he ought to do it if Authority requires it which is altogether absurd and void of Consâ—quence But why say I is it not as much a Sin doubtingly to refuse Conformity as doubtingly to conform To this Question he returns me pag. 106 back to S. Paul for an Answer who says that he that doubteth is Damned if he eat But does not say that he who doubteth is Damned if he refuse to eat But I find that a little more Reason and Divinity would do our Author no more hurt than it would me which if he had it would have taught him that in the Case proposed by S. Paul the doubt could only be upon one side of the Question because there was no Law either of God or Man which Commanded them to eat the things there spoken of and therefore there could be no suspicion of Sin in refusing to eat them For where there is no Law there is no Transgression But in our Case there are two plain Laws viz. That of Peace and Vnion in the Church and that of Obedience unto the higher Powers both of them enacted by God and both of them requiring our Conformity to the Established Worship except we can assign something therein which is unlawful And therefore here the doubt must be as well on this side of the Question as the other And why a man's doubts in such a Case as this should determine him to Disobedience and not rather to Obedience the later being plainly and expressly required and the former being only grounded upon some dark and obscure suggestions is what I believe all our Authors Reason and Divinity will not be able plainly and clearly to account for But our Author will not allow those who so halt between two Opinions as neither to follow God nor Baal to be Nonconformists or of his Party any more than of ours The plain English of which seems to be that to be a Nonconformist is to follow God But to be of the Established Church is a following of Baal And if such little scruples and doubts as may arise upon what he has above insinuated concerning Nadab and Abihu c. do keep a Man fixed in Non-conformity it shall be well approved of But if the Peace and Unity of the Church and Obedience to the Law of the Land shall have so much influence upon him as to put him but in suspense concerning what is best to be done Away with him he halts between God and Baal And since he gathereth not with our Author he is to be rejected as one that scattereth But I must return to the preceding Paragraph in which as I said he endeavours to run down my Conclusion without so much as offering to refute my Premisses And here he goes on and tells me that a little more Reason and Divinity would have taught me that Negative Precepts bind ad semper But positive precepts bind only Semper I Answer that I have indeed met with this in my small reading in Divinity but how to apply it to his Purpose my Reason does not instruct me And therefore since he was so sensible of my defects herein he should have informed and nâ—t amused me All that â—urge is that the positive precepts of the Churches Unity and Obedience to the Laws may be allowed to oblige us so far as not to Act contrary to them without a real necessity And that a Negative precept of not acting with a doubting mind may not be so far extended beyond its due intent and meaning as that little and groundless scruples should be allowed to out-ballance the plain and evident commands of God And how our Authors School Notions do any way contradict this reasonable offer I protest I cannot find out He tells me 2. That a Rule against which there is no Exception will over-ballance that which is limited by Exceptions But if the former of these Rules which concerns a doubting mind presses with equal force upon both the Scales and makes as much against refusing Conformity as against Conforming as I have shewn it does then I hope the latter Rule which enjoyns Peace Unity â—and Obedience to Authority and inclines to one side only ought in all Reason to turn the Ballance But 3. he tells me that if my Episcopal brethren in Scotland should doubt of the lawfulness of submitting to Presbytery now by Law Established there by my Rule they are bound to Conform for Peace and in Obedience to Authority and why don't I preach this to them To which I answer that a bare doubt which never comes to a positive determination on the one side or other and therefore in my Opinion must proceed from fancy or prejudice only and not from sound Reason ought not I think to be put in the Ballance against the Commands of lawful Authority But to apply this general Rule to the Constitutions of any other Church except our own I conceive to be none of my business But if our Author has a mind to have my Doctrine Propagated in Scotland he may if he pleases send my Address into that Kingdom But says he by this Rule if a Man in France or Spain should be in doubt â—â—â—ether Popery or Protestantisâ—â— were the safest he ought to be a Papist in Obedâ—â—nce to Authority I answer that the consequence will not hold For altho' it may be a Mans duty to obey such Commands of Authority aâ— are in themselves lawful not withstanding some doubts or scruples which he has to the contrary yet will it not follow from hence that therefore he is equally obliged to obey such Commands as are in themselves unlawful which is what he would fasten upon me But how far even in this Case a man may be obliged to follow the dectates of a Conscience which is but imperfectly informed is none of my business here to enquire Our Author tells us that we may not follow Peace or obey superiors except in Faith And therefore to conform doubtingly is a Sin From whence I may certainly à Fortiori infer that therefore we ought not to bâ—cak Peace or disobey Superiors except in Faith and therefore doubtingly to refuse Conformity will be a greater Sin which is what I offered in my Address He tells us also that our Obedience to Superiors is limited by lawfulness possibility expedience and edification Now that no Authority can lay an obligation upon any Man to do a thing which is either unlawful or impossible is very certain But where the thing Commanded is both lawful and possible for a Subject to resuse Obedience because
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