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
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
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