THE whole Book, against a part of which I am to make my De­fence, consists of three parts: [...]irst, A Preface to the Protestant Reader. Secondly, Animadve [...]sions on the Defence of the Answer, &c. And thirdly An Answer to my Peaceable and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists. With the Second of these I am not concerned; And therefore shall set my self to consider only the first and third.

In the first Paragraph of the Preface I am represented as one of those who judge it their Interest to misrepresent to the World them they are pleased to call Nonconforming Brethren, as a [...]ous and S [...]hismatical People; And as a Man who am inclined to be wise in my own conc [...] (a case more desperate than that of a fool) which therefore the Author out of Compassion to me, and such as I am, endeavours in this his Book to prevent. But since he does not offer any instance of what I have said or done to justify this odious Character [Page] which he ventures to insinuate of me; I think it is enough for me to say that they who know me better than he can possibly do (amongst whom I believe I may reckon some of my Nonconforming Neighbours) have I hope a different opinion of me. And I entreat him to consider that as he ought not to suggest such things to the prejudice of another without very good proof (for assirmanti incumbit probatio, as he observes pag. 98.) so has our blessed Saviour pronounced a very severe Sentence against those who are so ready to give such sort o [...] Language to their Brother, Mat. 5 22. Which title I hope I shall never justly forfeit, notwithstanding that he is pleased to let me know that he is not [...]ond of that Relation to me, pag. 96.

Having thus suggested a very i'l Character of me, which I hope I do not deserve; In the next place he gives a very good one of the Nonconformists, which I never denied but they may, and I hope they do, very well deserve. But however I think he should have taken a little better care to prevent some uncharitable misapprehensions which may be apt to arise in Mens minds, through the uncautiousness of some of those Expressions which he here makes use of. As, for Example, when he tells us that the Noncon­formists are not the idle and consuming Caterpillars of the Nation; Does not this seem to look as if he would insinuate, either that we were such our Selves, or else had so accounted and misrepresented them? For if no one had ever thought either them or us to be idle and consuming Caterpillers, to what end and purpose should he so particularly inform the World that they are not such? And again (to omit other instances) when he tells us that their fear towards God is not taught by the Commandments of Men; would not some Men be apt to collect from hence that, in his Judgment at least, our fear towards God is taught by the Commandments of Men? For when Men do thus give Negative Characters of themselves, it is usually construed as if they intended them for positive ones of those from whom they seem thus to di­stinguish themselves. I am unwilling to believe that he purposely designed these and some other no less groundless than odious Insinuations against those of the Established Church, which seem to lye couched in this Paragraph: But when we consider how prevalent passion and ill nature are in some Men of all Persuasions; I think we cannot be too carefull to avoid such Expres­sions as may any way serve to administer false pretences to them.

But supposing this account which he has given of the Nonconformists to be no more than what in justice belongs to every sincere and well meaning Man among them; Yet may not even such Men as these be mistaken in some things? And since I have only endeavoured fai [...]ly to lay their mistakes be­fore them (without designing in any other thing, in the least, to detract from them) and that in such soft and gentle Language, that even this Author allows that there is a studied Temper and Calmness in my words, pag. 96. I will [Page] appeal to the Co [...]cience of every sober and peaceable Christian whether what I have done does any way deserve such severe and bitter Resentments as this Answer carries in it against me.

In the third and last Paragraph of his Preface he briefly sets forth the Mo­desty, as he supposes, o [...] what the Nonconformists desire. In the former part whereof I for my part do, and always did, fully agree with him. I would indeed, i [...] it lay in my power, persuade them all to Comform them­selves to the Worship and Discipline of the Established Church; because I am of opinion that they are bound in Conscience so to do; for which I have briefly suggested my reasons in my late Address to them. But since all that has been said and written in this Controversy does not convince them, I think it is very sit that they should be left to sland or fall to their own Master: And that a full and free Liberty should be granted them to serve God accord­ing to those Principles which he mentions, with a relie [...] from all Penal Laws whatsoever; As long as they are ready to give the Civil Government the same assurance that other Subjects do of their Loyal and Peaceable demean­or: And this Author does me very much wrong in endeavouring to make the World believe that I have said or suggested any thing to the contrary; as we shall more fully see hereafter. But as to the other Clause of their Pe­tition; viz. That no new ones be forged to their prejudice; He has left the meaning of it so doubtful, having set it down only in those general terms; that it is not to be answered, until the sense of it be first determined. It then his meaning be that no new penal Laws be forged against the Non-con­formists; they need not at this time make that their request; because they know very well that the contrary is not so much as thought of, or in the least proposed by any one. But if it be that no new Laws whatsoever be forged or contrived any way to their prejudice (which seems to be the literal purport of his words) no, not to cut them short in any thing, but that they should to all intents and purposes enjoy all manner of Priviledges, and be equally quallified with those of the Legal Church for all places and employ­ments whatsoever (Episcopal Grandeur, Jurisdiction and Revenue for their Mi­nisters, being all that he has excepted). If this I say, be the thing they would have; they may perhaps think their demands to be but just, because they apprehend themselves to be in the right: But it seems strange that they should give this out for so modest a Petition as this Author would insinuate; as if herein they asked less than what in reason they might; And if this be their modest Petition, what more with they or their successors in the next Generation proceed to demand, if ever they should venture to assume a little Confidence.

Having thus done with the Preface, I pass by the second part of his Book, as I said, and address my self to the third. And here the Doctor (as in con­tempt [Page] he is pleased to call me, for I never took the degree or passed by that Title) in the entrance is taxed of downright Disingenuity, as having, under the Title of a Peaceable and Friendly Address to the Non-Conformists, published a Libel against them; and under a studied Temper and calmness of Words, de­sign'd a windy Storm and Tempest; with good Words and fair Speeches lying in wait to deceive; Having war in his heart while his words are smoother than but­ter; which tho' they were softer than Oyl, yet are as drawn Swords, while by them he is stirring up those who bear not the Sword in vain to imploy it against his Nonconforming Brethren, as he calls them, pag. 95. 96. But since he does not so much as offer the least shew of proof to make good this heavy Charge; I can­not think that any sober man will have the worse opinion of me for all this that he has alledged against me. God, who is the only searcher of hearts, knows that in my heart there is no war against the Non-conformists; Except I must therefore become their Enemy because I tell them the Truth: Nor have I the least design to deceive them; But on the contrary, to make them truly sensible of what I am perswaded is their Duty. There is not one railing or scurrilous Expression in all my Address to them; and therefore why it should be called a Libel, I cannot see: As for the Stormy wind and Tempest he talks of, I know not where it is, except in his own imagination; and if my words be as drawn Swords, it can be nothing but the Evidence of Truth, which touches his Conscience, that makes them seem so to him; for I am sure there is no manner of sharpness in the Style or Language. But whereas he accuses me of stirring up the Magistracy to employ the Sword against them; I desire him to produce but one single passage or expression in my Address, which does but look that way, and I promise him that I will publickly retract it: But if he cannot do this (as it is most evident he cannot) I leave it to his conscience whether he ought not to beg Gods pardon for inventing so soul a slander against me, for which, I bless God, I never gave the least oc­casion: For to persecute or punish men that are peaceable and obedient to the Civil Government, on account of their mistakes in matters of Religion or the Worship of God, is what I have never failed to declare against when­ever there was any occasion for it. And God is my witness, that I had not the least thought or design tending that way when I writ or published my address to the Nonconformists: Nor can I imagine how any man who im­partially considers what I have therein offered, can from thence pretend to lay the contrary to my charge.

Having formerly had the honour of being a Servant to my Lord Primate, I thought it might not be improper, when I put forth that small piece, to make a publick acknowledgment of that honour and respect which I bear to his Grace, in a short Epistle which I prefixed to it; Wherein amongst other things, I judged it sit to take notice what an Eminent example of Temper and [Page 9] Moderation his Grace has always been, as to all men in general, so to the Dissenters in particular: Of which I mention his mildness and lenity, even in those times when it was most in his Power to use severity towards them, as a very evident Demonstration. Now altho' one chief design of this Passage was to recommend a mild and gentle Temper towards the Dissenters, as a thing to be approved of, and imitated by all the World; yet this Author cannot let this pass without his Animadversion; And therefore he denies the matter of Fact, and gives this as a reason for it, namely, because the Non-conformists in the North never met with greater severity, than when the Primate of all Ireland and Chancellor rode both upon one Horse, as in a court­ly manner he is pleased to phrase it. pag. 96. Now, besides that, I have no great reason to believe any thing upon the testimony of that man, who can lay such ill things to my charge, o [...] which I know my self to be altogether innocent, as I have but just now remarked; suppose that what he says were true, yet still his inference plainly appears to have no more Logick than good nature in it: For if the Dissenters were more hardly used, whilst his Grace held both those honourable Stations of Lord Primate and Lord Chancellor, than they had been at other times (which yet I never heard before) yet will it not follow, but that he might bear a very mild and gentle temper towards them: For it is very possible that severe methods may be used by a Government, and yet neither the Lord Primate, nor the Lord Chancellor, be the Promoter of them; But rather, it may be, mitigate that rigour of Law, which others perhaps might be inclined to the utmost to put in execution.

But he seems in a manner desirous pag. 97. to be put upon the proof of what he has so odiously suggested against my Lord Primate. Now how well such a spightful Task may agree with his disposition, I know not: But if there were any necessity for saying such ill things as he has done, both of his Grace, and of me; more then raising the passion, and embittering the tem­per of his Party; I think he ought to have proved them, and that beyond exception, at the same time when he published them to the World. For if he would not have these things to be believed, why does he assert them? But if he would, what reason is there why he should not prove them? It cannot be any tenderness to his Grace's reputation, or mine; For he has en­deavoured, as much as he can, to wound them by accusing us; and what else it should be, except the want of clear and sufficient Evidence, I cannot imagine,

I have heard and read of grievous complaints, which both the Episcopal and Non-conforming Parties have made of having been hardly dealt with, either by other, as they have had the Power in their hands. Now altho' the former in this Kingdom have ever had this to plead in their Justification, [Page 10] that they have been warranted by the Law in what they did, which the latter cannot pretend to; yet what good there can be in ripping up past Stories of this nature, I know not. Methinks the business of every good Christian should rather be to heal, than unnec [...]ss [...]rily to rub and fret such old sores; that peace and charity, at the least, may be established between us, if we cannot all come to be of one oppinion and judgment in all things. But this Author may do as his charity and discretion shall prompt him: My Lord Primate is not afraid of him; only let him say no more against him, than what he clearly proves to be true.

As a good effect of my Lord Primat's moderate and gentle behaviour while he was Bishop of Cork, I took notice that several Nonconforming Mini­sters were won by him to receive Ordination at his Hands, and Conform to the Wor­ship and Discipline of our Church. Agai [...]t which our Author suggests such things as have neither Truth nor Charity in them. For he takes it for granted that those Ministers renounced their former Ordination, which was by Presbyters; and therefore censures this whole matter as the effect not of mo­deration; but rather in his Grace o [...] Prelatick Domination, and an uncharitable condemning of the Foreign Reformed Churches, who want Episcopal Ordination: And, in the Ministers that were so Ordained, of the love of the World more than any other Arguments that were used to convince them, pag. 97. But sure if this uncharitable Man did not take some extraordinary delight to put al­ways the worst Construction upon things, where any of the Established Church are concerned, he would never take upon him at this rate to judge the Hearts and Consciences of other M [...]n, which can only be known to Almighty God; And he would have contented himself in saying that how­ever my Lord Primate and those Ministers who were so Ordained might possibly act according to the genuine dictates of their own Persuasion; Yet that they were guilty of a great Error in what they did; which would have been as much as was necessary to be ossered on his part; without an uncha­ritable condemning of his Brethren, who ought not, without evident reason, to be thus judged of insincerity; being to stand or fall to their own Master.

But what if (after all) this matter of Fact, viz. that these Ministers Re­nounced their former Ordination, which he so considently supposes; be a meer Fable and Invention, without any other ground but some Mens Uncharita­ble Imagination? I have heard indeed this Matter, of Renouncing their former Ordination, sometimes urged in the behalf of Presbyterian Mini­sters, as sufficient alone to justify their Refusal to be again Ordained by a Bishop: But upon the best enquiry that I could make I could never find that this was any more than a false Story Invented by some unpeaceable Men, in order to make a breach between the Foreign Reformed Churches and ours. For as such a Renu [...]iation is not the least required by any Law or Ca­non [Page 11] of our Church, that I know of; so could I never yet have any credible Information that any one of our Bishops ever insisted upon any such thing: And the Reader may assure himself that upon this occasion, which is now under consideration, nothing of that nature was required or thought of.

But here perhaps I shall be told that our Author's meaning was no more than this, that they who submitted a second time to be ordained to that Office which they before had Exercised, did thereby, at least implicitly re­nounce, and acknowledg the nullity of their former ordination. If this were all he intended, methinks he should plainly have said so, without seem­ing to insinuate a matter of [...]ct which 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, shoul [...] [...]ccept of a new conveyance of what before was in his possession; does it fo [...]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 t [...]ence to conclude, that therefore she acknowledged the nullity of her former m [...]riag [...]; and consequently owned her self to be a Whore? Or if a man has for some time h [...]d [...] 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 p [...]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 [Page 12] 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 re­ordained 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 re­ordained 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 ev [...]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 [Page 13] 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 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 Sch [...]sm [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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; [...]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 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 o [...] inconvenient; and therefore may be accounted an Error in Point, not o [...] lawfulness, but of prudence, decency or the like; If any Church requires [Page] 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 be [...]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 [Page 17] 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 o [...] 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 [Page 18] that the laying aside of any of her Ceremonies would render the Worship of God, in it self, imperfect or defective then, and not till then, he may truly lay it to her charge that she requires these Ceremonies as a part of God's Worship.

But the Liturgy, says he, is a pa [...]t of the Worship of God, and these Ceremonies are a part of the Liturgy, therefore, &c. I answer, that the substance and purport of our Liturgy, viz. Consession, Prayer, Thanksgiving, &c. are indeed parts of the Worship of God; for without any one of them the Worship would be imperfect: But the particular words, in which these Devotions are there exprest, and the concomitant Ceremonies which are prescribed to be used, are not, nor ever were, by our Church esteemed as parts of Worship; but only as the Modes, Regulations and Method of it, alterable in themselves by humane authority, and variable in divers particular Churches, without making thereby any alteration or variation in the substance of the Worship. Altho' therefore, our Author's proofs, as he has managed them, are but very lame; yet because the thing is true, I freel [...] grant, that to require any thing as a part of God's Worship, which he himself has not commanded, is utterly unlawful; But then it is most evident from what I have said, that our Liturgy or Ceremonies are no way concerned herein.

Well, but if they are not to be esteemed as parts, yet he will prove that they are required as means of the Worship of God, which is altogether as bad. Let us therefore enquire into the sense and signification of this word also.

To explain this word means, he adds, p. 102, the word ways to it; and tells us that our Liturgy and Ceremonies are reputed ways and means of the Worship of God: Now the way of doing a thing always denotes, not directly the action it self, but the method and manner of performing it; one and the same action for substance, being often capable of being performed after divers ways or manners. I agree with him therefore that our Liturgy and Cere­monies are to us, as the Directory to him, the way, means or method of our publick Worship of God: But yet the premisses out of which he infers this conclusion, are so crude and confused, that they are by no means to be ad­mitted into discourse, much less granted as truth, until their meaning be di­stinctly cleared, viz. because, says he, no solemn publick Worship can be perform­ed, nor Sacraments administred without them: By which if he means that our Church has such an opinion of her Liturgy and Ceremonies, as to think it impossible, in it self, rightly to Worship God or administer the Sacraments without them; it is notoriously false: But if he means no more than this, namely, that we judge that every man, who is subject to the authority of the law of the Land, is bound in Conscience always to perform the publick Worship of God, and Celebration of the Sacraments, according to that manner pre­scribed in our Liturgy; this obligation arising not from the nature of the [Page 19] particular Forms and Ceremonies there enjoyned, nor from any particular command of God appointing them; but only from the general Law of God, which requires Obedience to be paid to our lawful Superiors, and from the Laws of the Land consequent thereto; and therefore lasting no longer than such Laws of the Land shall remain in force: If this, I say, be all he means, we grant it, and are ready to justifie our Judgment in this matter.

But here he presses me with a great absurdity as he thinks; If all Mini­sters, says he, should refuse to say Common-Prayer or administer the Sacraments, with all these Ceremonies, then, according to the Act of Ʋniformity, it would be un­lawful to Woship God publickly in this Kingdom. Now if he would infer from hence, that therefore our Liturgy ought to be abolished; by the same reason it will follow, that no Law whatsoever must any where be made for the Regulating the Worship of God, or administration o [...] th [...] Sa [...]raments. For if [...]ll Ministers should refuse to celebrate the publick Worship, and administer the Sacraments according to that Law; then, according to that Law, it would be unlawful to Worship God publickly in that Kingdom or Common-wealth where any such Law should be Enacted. A consequence fit only for such wild Sectaries as would reject all rules of order and decency, and follow their own extravagant fancies only in maettrs of Religion and the Worship of God.

But let us for once put this mad supposition with him that all Ministers should refuse to officiate according to our Liturgy: What would be the conse­quence? or what must be done in such a case? I answer if such a refusal should proceed from wilfulness, it would be a great sin in the Ministers that refused; but if from want of information or due apprehension, it would only be a sin of Ignorance, and therefore more easily pardonable before God. But in such an extraordinary case, the necessity of things would probably put the Government upon some speedy Resolution, either of pro­viding other Ministers, if all those lately in office should, on a suddain, lose their Wits; or else of altering their Ecclesiastical Laws, in condescension to the infirmity of their Ministers, rather than the publick Worship of God and administration of the Sacraments should cease among them.

But because I call the Ceremonies prescribed by our Liturgy circumstances in the worship of God, which he will not allow that they are; it will not be amiss to explain what is meant by the word circumstance. Whatsoever then is a means or concomitant of any action, but no part of the action it self; that I call (and so I thing do all People) a circumstance of it. Thus for example: To travel from Dubl [...]n to Drog [...]eda is an action; but to go either on foot, or on horseback, or in a coach, to wear a cloak and b [...], [...] wear them, and the like, are only circumstances of this Journey: for a [...] is said never the more or the less to travel, whatever convenienci [...]s he [...] [Page 20] have or want for the performance of his Journey. Thus also to Worship God is an action; but to perform this Service either by a Printed Form of Words, or by no set Form at all, to wear a black or a white garment, to kneel or to stand at the time of doing it, and such like things, are no more but circumstances of this Worship; because a man may truly and acceptably Worship God in any of these ways, if the substance of his Worship be right, and his heart be rightly disposed (altho', for decency sake, it is very sit that in a Congregation there should be some settled Uniformity in these things), and an aggregate of these circumstances taken together, is what is usually called the way of doing a thing. Thus if it be asked which way (I do not mean by what road, but in what manner) did such a man travel to Drogheda? It may properly be answered, he went on foot, with a coat to keep him from the rain and cold, 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 'tis 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 [Page 23] 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 B [...]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 expr [...]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, S [...]nce God has vouchsas [...]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 [...]pres [...]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 [...] [...]xp [...]sly contained in the Scriptures, or warranted, in particular, by the [...]xamp [...] of [...]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 Cons [...]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 [...]amples of holy Men in Scripture, is what his Lordship has partly proved in the Seq [...]l of that Book, and may very e [...]ectually be made good touching those other things of which he has not there had [...]ccasion to speak.

From what our Author has hitherto been discoursi [...], he p. 1 [...]2. ins [...]rs an Answer to this Question which I had put, viz. Can a [...]y thing be called a Sin which God has not sorbid? And he tells me, It may [...], [...]a [...]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 [...]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, [...] [Page 24] 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 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 [Page 25] 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 Ordi [...]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 th [...]ir own inclinations led them. To conclude this digression: As every honest Man ought sincerely to desire and heartily to [...] his endeavours th [...]t true piety may be promoted, and all wickedness suppressed; so [...] for my part am fully of opi [...]ion that no sober and peaceable Man should at all be punished, on account of the mistakes of his Conscience, [...]or which re [...]son I am altogether [...]or having the penalty of our Laws against Non­conformity wholly relaxed: Which yet I think ought to be done with that [...]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 fr [...]e liberty ought not to be given to every one at pleasure who want only to insult and trample upon a legal [...] [...]shment.

Our Author proc [...]eds and tells us that O [...]le, Salt, C [...]ri [...]m, Sp [...]le, &c. are no more forbidden than the S [...]n of the Cross: Why then says he hath the Church rejected them? To which the Church has long since given a clear and s [...]tis­factory answer, in a short discourse pr [...]fixt to the Book of Common Prayer; which bears this Title Of Ceremo [...] why some be abolished and [...]eme reta [...]ned; [Page 26] 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 Paral­ [...]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 propha [...]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 com­ [...]anded by God to be used; as long as the obligation of that command [Page 27] 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 evidently appear that if either our Author's Logick or Charity had not been something defective, he needed not so hastily to have concluded our Ceremonies to be Prophane, because we place no holin [...]ss in them; but might have found out some other appellation for them. But since the pre­tended Popery and Idolatry of our Ceremonies has been so shamefully confuted; it may perhaps be a pretty new hint to give those People who are disasfected to them, to tell them that we do in effect own them to be Profane, because we place no holiness in them.

But still, says he, they cannot be free from Superstition, if they are superadded as parts of Worship! But I have shewn that they are not superadded as parts of Worship: And if he had but enquired into the true notion of a part of Wor­ship, as it is distinguished from the Circumstances of it, he could not in modesty have insisted upon such a poor pretence.

In the remaining part of this paragraph he offers three things more, by way of answer to what I had above affirmed. The first is, That tho' the nature of Ceremonies may, yet the use of them cannot be indifferent; because the end of using them must be either good, evil, or impertinent, and our actions are specified by their ends. Which is as much as to say, that to use indifferent Ceremonies for a good end, is a good action; to use them for an evil end, is an evil action; and to use them for an impertinent end, is an impertinent action: All which things I freely grant; and tho' something may be inferred thereout in fa­vour of our Church; yet what they here serve for, except it be for amuse­ment and perplexity, I am not able to discover. Secondly, he tells us that things indifferent can make nothing decent or orderly; seeing they have nothing of decency or order in them; for if they had, they would be really good, and not in­different. To which I answer that things indifferent, in their own nature, may yet contribute to the decency and order of a good action; not by any intrinsick goodness which is inherent in themselves, but as they are signs of the good intention of the persons who prescribe and practise them in the performace of such an action. Thus for Example, to bow the body, to kneel, to sing, and that in a stinted metre are things in their nature indif­ferent: For neither are they any necessary part of the Law of Nature, nor do we find that they were ever commanded by God, until pious and good [Page 28] men took up those customs of themselves in the Worship of God: And yet I believe our Author will not deny, but that these things may conduce to the more decent and orderly Performance of such Worship, where they are sincerely intended as outward marks of that inward Devotion and Re­verence which men do truly pay to God. And why may not the same thing be said of any other lawful Ceremonies or Ci [...]cumstances, which are sinc [...]ly intended and made use of to the very same purpose?

But thirdly, he comes in with a dilemma; If, says he, these Ceremonies are necessary means of decency and order, then Christ and his Apostles, who used them not, baptized, prayed and communicated und [...]cently. If not necessary, why is all this needless contention about them? To the first part of which argument I Answer, that our Church never pretended that these particular Ceremonies; were absolutely necessary to order and decency: But only (as things stood at the time of the Reformation) highly convenient to be [...]etained; and, all things considered, not so convenient to be altered. But to the second I reply more distinctly; First, that to alter the whole frame of our Liturgy (as some would have it) would, in my apprehension, be a thing of very ill consequence, as well upon the account of those plansible pretences is would give the Church of Rome against us; (who would be sure to make their advantage of it) as of the [...]candal it would give to a multitude of our own weaker members, who either having heard the manner of our Wor­ship so often decryed by the Non-conformi [...]s as Popi [...]h, Superstitious, and even Idolat [...]ous: would be apt to think that all this accusation was true, if all the things which were so [...]oun [...] [...]lt with, should wholly be laid aside; or else perhaps would be much dissa [...]sied to have those things abolished, which to them do appear to be so orde [...]ly and decent, and such others s [...]b [...] ­tuted in the room thereof as would not be so well ple [...] to them. But secondly as for some Alterations and improvements which mi [...]ht, I think, be very well made in our cons [...]iautions; I am altogether of opinion that no sober and well meaning Man of our Church would be against them, if it d [...]d but any way appear that the Noncon [...]o [...]misls, or any member of them, would thereby be won to our Communion. But while they seem to demand all, or else will be satisfied with nothing; it is feared by many [...]t even such al­terations as are out inconsiderable in themselves, would yet be o [...] i [...]co [...]ve­nient conseqa [...]nce. But if our Governours should be gr [...]ted to be to blame in insis [...]ing [...]o [...]istly upon things which are not necessary; Yet still I do not see how this con be ple [...]ded as a just excuse for refusing that obedience to them, which the l [...] of the Land requires, and the law of God does [...]ot forbid. For there are cases where tho' it may be a [...]ault in Legi [...]ors or Parents too strictly to command, yet still it would be the duty of the Sub­ject or the Child to obey.

In the next paragraph he grants, with me, that Worship cannot be perform [...] without Circumstances, and that all outward Circumstances of Worship are not ex­pressly prescribed by God: From whence it demonstratively follows, that same Circumstance of Worship may be used (and therefore why not by lawful authority appointed and determined) which God himself has not com­manded. What then can justly be said agaist our Ceremonies, which [...] have so evidently proved to be Circumstances only, and not parts of [...] Why this, says our Author here, that they are mys [...]cal Rites and Cerem [...]s, and not Circumstances, which things, in his opinion, are very different; tho' craftily or ignorantly they be consounded Now whether it may be our Au­thor's eras [...] or ignorance, I know not; but this I am sure of, that to lay such a stress, as he does, upon hard words, without distinctly explaining their signification, is the way eternally to confound, and perplex all, and ne­ver to determine any Disputes or Controversies: And therefore if he would have avoided that Censure which here obliquely he casts upon us, he should have desined and carefully distinguished those things, which in his opinion, we consound; and have told us particularly what was to be understood by a Mystical Rite; and wherein it dissered from a Circumstance. And what those same mysteries are, which he supposes to be comprehended under any of our Ceremonies. And lastly, whether all such mysteries are absolutely unlawful; or if not, for what reason ours are so: For my part I know no other mysticalness in any or our Ceremonles, save only that we use them as apt and proper marks of what we inwardly intend: We uncover our heads, and kneel on our knees in the Worship of God, for no other reason, but to denote that profound Reverence which we ought always to have for his Majesty; and something of the like nature we design in all the rest of our Ceremonies: And if he will call this a Mystery; yet I think he ought c [...] early to prove the thing to be unlawful. And not take it for a sufficient contutation of us, that he has improperly applyed a hard word upon this occasion, without any distinct explication of its meaning.

But time, place, person, &c. which are Circumstances of humane actions cannot, says he, be called Rites or Ceremonies. I pray, why so? were not the time of the Jewish Sabbath, and other Festivals, the place Jerusalem, and the [...]e [...] [...] where they kept their Feasts, and performed much of their Worship; And the persons of the particular Tribe of [...]evi, who were immediately appoin­ted to minister to God in their publick Service; were not the observation of all these, I say, parts of the Ceremonial Law of Moses? And if they were, why may not the particular [...] pl [...]e and pe [...] appointed [...]or the per­formance of an action, be called Ceremonies of it as well as the p [...]i [...] I [...]dy or the [...] in which the same is to be do [...].

But if Ceremony and Circumstance do thus in a manner signifie the same thing, Ceremonies should be necessary and not indifferent, seeing it is impossible to do any thing without Circumstances! I Answer, That tho' to do an action with­out all Circumstances be impossible, yet this or that particular Circumstance may b [...] indifferent, and not necessary; because it may be changed for another: [...]nd if we will be nice in distinguishing these words Ceremony and Circum­stance, one from the other; all the difference that I know between them [...] [...]is, viz. That as every thing which is a concomitant of an action, is ordi [...]ily called a Circumstance of it; so those Circumstances, which by any Law or Custom generally observed, are particularly determined and a [...]exed to the performance of that action, are usually termed the [...] of it. And accordingly there may be Ceremonies of Divine, Civil, Ecclesia­stical, or b [...]re customary Determination and Appointment, as I have but now said.

But if a Ceremony in Worship, which I a [...]rm to be but a Circumstance, be not natural and necessary for a decent performance of the action, nor compre­hended in any general Law of Christ; it must be an addition to his Institutions, and contrary to that precept, Deut. 12. 32. But here again is a great stress laid upon doubtful expressions, without so much as one word offered toward [...]ea [...]ing the meaning, and removing the ambiguity of them. For neither has he told us what he means by these words, Natural and Ne­cessary; which sometimes are taken in a strict Sense, to denote such things as are absolutely and indispensably required, or dictated by the meer instinct [...] [...], and sometimes, in a larger Sense, to signifie such things as are only very proper and convenient: Nor has he informed us what [...] by b [...]ing Comprehended [...]n a General Law of Christ: For [...] th [...]g may be thus comprehended in a general Law, either immediately and [...] (as every dire [...]t Act of Sin is comprehended under some ge­ [...] p [...]hilition; and every positive and direct Act of Duty under some of the General Commands) or else more remotely and reductively, (as the means of performing a Duty, or resisting a Temptation, and also some of the most Congruous and proper Circumstances of Action; which tho' variable in themselves, according to the various cases which fall out; yet accor­ding [...] the rules of Prudence and Congruity are often Reducible, tho' more [...]mot [...]ly, and not so directly, to some of the general rules of Duty, because from such things as these the goodness of Actions may be enhan­s [...], [...] aggravated). Nor lastly has he fixed the signification of this [...]. An Addition to Christ's Institutions: By which if he [...] the doing any thing more in the performance of a Duty, than what strictly and ex [...]ly Christ has Commanded; Either he must prove that Christ has Comm [...]nded every Punc [...] of what is prescribed in the Directo­ry, [Page 31] or else he must condemn that as well as the Liturgy, as an Addition to Christ's Institutions. But if by this Expression he means the enjoyning and enacting an uncommanded thing, as if God himself had immediately Com­manded it; and so counterfeiting and stamping the Divine Authority, upon that which is no more but a humane Tradition, or Institution (which to me seems the very utmost intent of that part of the Precept which he quotes Deut. 12. 32.) He cannot but know that no manner of guilt can be fastned on our Church upon this account: Because she plainly and fully di­stinguishes between the unalterable Commands of God, and her own Eccle­siastical institutions, which she acknowledges to be alterable, and not of E­ternal Obligation.

Towards the end of that Paragraph o [...] my Address which we are still upon, I had desired to know, since Cerem [...]s might be used without Super­stition; how we could more effectually d [...]scl [...] [...] the use of them, than we already do? To which he returns me th [...] [...] more effectual way is to disclaim all use of them: Which is just as if [...] said, that the best way to use Ceremonies without Superstition is [...] at all; And if that be not a Contradiction, I know not what is. But here I must tell him that as there is no manner of Superstition, either in prescribing or practising a thing which God has le [...]t in it sel [...] indifferent, as long as we retain and profess the true Opinion of its indifferency; so to disclaim wholly the use of any thing, which in it self is lawful, as if it were forbidden by God, when really it is not so; is in my apprehension a gross piece of Superstiti­on: And therefore to disclaim all use of Ceremonies is not so effectual a way to avoid Superstition, as our Author would have us believe; but rather the quite contrary: For to lay any Weight upon, and to be guided by, groundless imaginations of our own, in matters relating either to God's Providence or Religi­on is what I take to be the proper and true notion of Superst [...]n. And as this Practise of disclaiming all our Ceremonies in the Worship of God would Evidently be Superstition; so the Principle upon which our Author presses, it is, as plainly as can be, no less than the Addition of a Negative Precept to the Law of God. For he tells us that whatever i [...] not Commanded by God, and is required by Men, as a means of the Worsh [...]p of God, is forbidden by God; Upon which he would have us lay all our Ceremonies aside. But no such Prohibition as this appears in the Law of God, either in express words or by a fair and just consequence, (as I have plainly shewn by examining all the plac [...]s of Scriptur [...] [...] him). I [...] therefore [...]a [...] 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 [...]rd main propo [...] [...] I have [...] in my Address, is a Corollary wh [...] [...] the two pr [...]ding ones; [Page 32] 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 Cicer [...], 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 s [...]rrples there are which, [...] cannot be removed [...] to the contrary, ought, by a s [...]r [...] of [...]rce, to be laid aside, and not to [...]. And I presume o [...]r Auth [...], will allow this Doctor to be as [...] as the Pa [...]an Ci [...]; [...] 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 Ʋnity 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 i [...] 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 a [...]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 [Page 34] 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 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 convin [...]'d that such a thing is unlawful, there [...]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 me [...]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 Cons [...]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 Ʋnion 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 Non­conformity, 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 [Page 35] 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 n [...]t amused me. All that [...]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, [...]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 [...]ether Popery, or Protestantis [...] were the safest, he ought to be a Papist in Obed [...]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, a [...] 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; [Page 36] 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 b [...]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 it is not Expedient; or does not tend to Edification; is what I cannot so readily approve of, except I have some bet­ter Argument for it than our Author's bare Assertion. And I would fain be informed by him, who in this Case, is to be judge of the expediency and edification of the thing commanded? If the Superiors; then since our Legis­lators have judged our Constitutions, to be expedient and edifying, no Ar­gument can be drawn from hence, against our Conformity to them. But if every Subject must herein be a Judge for himself; since the Expediency and Edification of things, cannot always be brought under certain and fixed Rules, but are many times very variable in divers Cases, and different cir­cumstances; And since the Apprehensions also of different Men, are herein very various, according to their divers Fancies, Prejudices or Inclinations; What is this but to set up, not only the Conscience, but even the sickle Im­agination of every private Man to control Authority, whensoever the Humour shall take him, or any crafty Man, who would gain him to his Par­ty, shall impose upon him? Which is much more easy to do, in relation to the Expediency or Edification of a thing, than the lawfulness or possibility of it.

Having dispatch'd the Objection against our Communion, which is drawn from the doubts and scruples, which some men have entertain'd, concerning the lawfulness of it; I proceed in the next place in my Address, to propose and answer that which is taken from the pretence of Christian Liberty: And because our Author seems to have taken more than ordinary care to per­plex this part of the Dispute; I must crave the Readers patience, while I take a little pains fai [...]ly to open and clear it.

As God Almighty had by Moses given a Written Law unto the Children of Israel; so, in process of time, the Scribes and Pharisees had not only in­troduced divers Traditions of their own, (some of which might possibly in themselves have been innocent, tho' unnec [...]ssary) but also required the ob­servation of these Traditions, not only as immediate parts of the Law of God; but also, in some cases, to be preferred even before the precepts of [Page 37] the written Law, whenever they should come in competition one with the other; of which we have a pretty full account in the former part of the 7th Chapter of St. Mark's Gospel. Now when many of the Jews began to re­ceive the Christian Faith; some there were who either out of a secret design to obstruct the progress of the Gospel, or a profound veneration for that Institution, under which they had been brought up; taught this Doctrine in the Christian Church, viz. that Circumcision and the Observation of the Law of Moses, were absolutely necessary to Salvation, notwithstanding that Christ was come into the World, as we are informed, Acts 15. 1. 24. And as they had generally received the above mention'd Traditions with an equal, and in some cases a greater respect than what they had for the written Law; so did they no less endeavour to obtrude the one than the other upon all those who had, or should Embrace Christianity. And notwithstanding that the Apo­stles and Elders upon the first broaching of this Doctrine, endeavoured to suppress and put a stop to it, Act. 15. 6, &c. yet, for all this, we find that it took root and prevailed, more or less, in divers of the Christian Churches.

To ease the Consciences therefore of all the Faithful from such an unne­cessary and unsupportable burden, and also to free Christianity from such a clog as must needs very much retard the progress of it; the Apostles of Christ, wherever there was occasion, took constant care to inform all who had received the Faith; of that freedom which Christ had given them from the Ordinances of the Mosaick Law, as well as from all other uncertain Traditions, which some men, without any other Authority but their own groundless fancies, would impose upon them; and also to exhort them to maintain, and by no means betray that liberty which was thus vouchsafed unto them: Of which I need not stand to produce any In­stances, because the thing is not only confest on all hands, but also most notorious to all who do but read the Epistles of St. Paul, and particularly those to the Galatians and Colossians.

Thus far then the Scripture does, undoubtedly, require every Christian to assert and stand fast in his liberty; viz. Not to [...]d [...]it or own any thing as an essential part of Religion, and therefore necessary to S [...]lv [...]ion, which God has not directly required and prescribed as such. For which, the Reason I have given in my Address, is unanswerable; namely, that if way be given to such s [...]rt of imposi­tions, so many things, through pride or ignorance, may be introduced into Christia­nity, as to make it a yoke too heavy [...]o be born.

Two things then I think there are, which, if fainly stated and cleared, must, one way or other, put an end to the difference between our Author and me, concerning this point: Namely, first, whether the obligation which lies upon us to maintain our Christian Liberty, ought to be extended [Page 38] any farther than those bounds which I have now set toit? And if not, then secondly, whether this obligation (even as I have stated it) can, either by the letter of Scripture, or parity of Reason, be-justly so construed as to re­strain any man from yielding Conformity to any of the Constitutions of the Established Church? upon which two things I desire the Reader still to have an eye, whilst I am examining what our Author has said, which may relate to either of them: For I cannot so well handle them each a-part, because I am confined to follow that path in which he has thought fit to lead me.

He tells me then, pag. 107. that I have not faithfully framed the Non-Con­formists Objection; For their Notion, it seems, of Christian Liberty, and the obligation to maintain it, is some what different from mine; and if things in their own nature indifferent are imposed (tho not as essential parts of Religion, or necessary to Salvation) but only as parts or means of Worship, or Conditions of Communion in it; this, according to him, is an infringement of that Chri­stian Liberty, in which we are bound to stand fast. To which I answer, First, That since the Worship of God is an essential part of Religion; to impose any thing as a part of Worship, would be to impose it as an essential part of Religion: For (as he has thought it necessary to inform me, p. 102.) quod est pars partis est pars totius. As therefore he has, thus far, said no more than what I had said before him; so have I already shewn that those in­different things, which by our Liturgy are required in the service of God, are not imposed as parts of Worship; and therefore there ought on this ac­count to be no Controversie about them. Secondly, To submit to such in­different things as are imposed expressly not as 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 [Page 39] 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 M [...]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, [Page 40] 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 in their own nature in­different, when required by lawful Authority, are the proper and adequate matter wherein our obedience to our Superiours, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, is to be shewn. And as all Superiours ought to exercise their power of commanding with Prudence and Charity, as they shall answer for the same before the Throne of God; so are all inferiours most evidently obliged in Conscience to be conformable and obedient to such commands, when the matter there [...] [Page 41] is lawful in it self: nor is such conformity any way inconsistent with our Christian Liberty.

But Christ, says he, hath allowed us the use of indifferent things indifferently, as Christian Prudence and Charity shall determine! I grant it. But then I would know why the use of such things may not, in some cases, as well be determi­ned by the Christian Prudence and Charity of the Church for the whole Society, as in other cases by those of every private man for himself? Except it be that some men have a very strong inclination to be guided by their own fancies, rather than by the will of their Superiors. But this, says he, would be so to determine our practice, as to destroy its indifferency! I Answer, that this indeed would make it the duty of every private man to conform his practice in such indifferent things, to the Law that is over him, as long as that Law re­mains in force (in which I see not the least inconvenience or absurdity): but would not so far destroy the indifferency either of the thing, or our pra­ctice; but that, upon the repeal of that Law which bound us, we should be as much at liberty as ever we were. But our Author tells us, that the main violation of Christian Liberty lies in a fixt, stated and perpetual compulsion, to do what God hath permitted us to omit; or a prohibition to do what he hath made law­ful for us. I Answer; if, 1. The subject matter of this Compulsion or Prohi­bition be in its own nature lawful or indifferent; If, 2. The Compulsion or Prohibition proceed from lawful Authority; And if, 3. It be by that Au­thority sufficiently declared, that this same Compulsion or Prohibition is not to be esteemed as anexpress or immediate part of Gods Law; but only as a humane constitution, to which, while it remains in force (and no longer) we are in Conscience obliged to give obedience, on account of the general Commands of God, which require us to be subject to our lawful Governours: Such a Compulsion or Prohibition as this, is no manner of violation of Christian Liberty.

But he will prove that it is, and that by the Authority of St. Paul; For thus, says he, the Apostle teacheth, 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any person or thing in matters in­different. But, I say, the Apostle does not thus teach: And it is not only a most disingenuous, but even an impious presumption in this bold man thus to falsifie the Text of St. Paul, and to add unto the Word of God, what­ever his design therein may be. The words of St. Paul in the place quoted, are neither more nor less than these, All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Where it is evident from the following verse, that he speaks only concerning the eating or forbearing of such Meats as some indeed scrupled out of weakness; but which were not commanded or enjoined by any Law or Constitution either of God or Man. And our Author could [Page 42] not but see that it was impossible so far to extend St. Paul's own words, as to bring them in the least to countenance Disobedience to lawful Autho­rity; and therefore that he must either add to them, or else not be able to produce so much as one Text of Scripture to prove that which with so much assurance he had asserted. But if he has a power given him to make Scrip­ture where he has it not ready to serve his purpose, I must confess it will be hard to dispute with him. Nor can he here pretend that he sets down the last words of the above mentioned quotation, not as a part of St. Paul's Text, but only as his own Paraphrase upon it: For (besides that in the A­postles own words, there is no manner of foundation for the inserting of the word person) the whole Sentence, as I have above recited it, is all a-like printed in the Italick Character, and all of it equally referred to those foregoing words [thus the Apostle teacheth]: which I think most plainly shews that it was our Author's design, that the whole Sentence should pass upon his unwary Readers, as if it were every Syllable taken out of the place from whence he has quoted it.

But I ought not thus to bind up my self from opportunity of using my Christian Liberty for the Spiritual good of another! I Answer that, where a humane Law is made concerning any thing which otherwise were indifferent; Obedience ordinarily and generally ought to be given to that Law; Nor ought any man to swerve from it to gratifie the humour of such as only resolve to be per­verse and obstinate. But where a case arises to which the intention of the law-makers either did not or ought not to have extended, and where by acting otherwise than the Law prescribes, some great good may be done, or evil avoided or remedied; If all even seeming contempt of Authority be meekly and prudently avoided, and just occasion of scandal carefully prevented and obviated; I, for my part, should no way condemn that man, who upon such an emergency, in such a manner, and with such caution as this, should act otherwise than the letter of the humane Law should prescribe. In which opinion the generality of Learned Casuists that I have happened to look into, do unanimously concur with me. And therefore what presently follows, is spoken without any other ground but his own fancy, viz. that by such imposing and determining in matters indiffirent, more is attributed to the positive precepts of Men, than to the moral Laws of God. For I challenge our Author to produce me but one man of any repute of the Established Church, who ever maintained that obedience to our Ecclesiastical, or to any humane Laws, may not pro hic & nunc be suspended to give way to a greater good, as well as obedience to the positive moral Laws of God. And as for making that a sin which God has made lawful by not forbidding it, which is another of his ob­jections, I have already answered it: And it is enough to say, that God has not made it lawful to disobey lawful Authority in such things as are indifferent.

From what I have hitherto been discoursing upon this subject, I think it may clearly be gathered, that notwithstanding all that our Author has said to the contrary, the obligation of maintaining our Christian Liberty is no farther to be extended than as I had set the bounds and limits of it. But what follows in the next Paragraph, is designed to shew, that allowing my notion of Christian Liberty to be just and good, yet still our Ceremonies are destructive of it, because they are made essential parts of Religion, and necessary to Salvation; which if he can but prove as clearly as he has confidently affirmed it, then indeed, and not otherwise, he might have reason to say that my An­swer is not sufficient to the Objection, even as I my self had framed it.

Now here I must desire the Reader to take notice what a poor and dis­ingenuous piece of Sophistry our Author endeavours to put upon the world. To convince the Non-Conformists that our Ceremonies were no infringement of Christian Liberty, I gave them to understand, in my Address, that our Church did not impose them as essential parts of Religion, and necessary to Sal­vation: In opposition to which, he undertakes to prove that they are by us made essential parts of Religion, and necessary to Salvation; and therefore de­structive of Christian Liberty: But when he comes to produce his Argu­ments, he cunningly conceals the main and fundamental part of the con­clusion which he was to prove; and as for the other part of it, which was but an appendage to, or superstructure upon the former, he perverts and plainly alters the sense and meaning of it.

The fundamental part of the conclusion which he undertakes to prove, is, that our Ceremonies are by us made essential parts of Religion. But in order to make this good, he does not so much as offer the least word or syllable. The other part is, that we make them necessary to Salvation: which indeed he attempts to prove; but in a clear different sense from that in which I denied it. My meaning was plainly this, that our Church did not pretend that her Ceremonies were immediately derived from the essence of Religion, or upon that account necessary to be observed; which I grant would be an encroachment upon Christian Liberty: But all that his, Arguments can pretend to prove, is, that our Ceremonies, being imposed by the Laws of the Church, the use of them is esteemed necessary to Salvation; not as being essential parts of Religion, or so reputed by us, but only as they are the matter wherein we ought to shew our conformity and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority. In Answer therefore to all his Arguments at once, I shall only tell him, that obedience to the lawful commands of lawful Authority, is one of those Duties which God has made necessary to Salvation: And as far as any Ceremony is the matter of such obedience, so far it is, by consequence, in its proper degree, also necessary, altho' it be no essential part of Religion: Nor is there any thing [Page 44] herein which is any way destructiue of Christian Liberty. But that which he should have proved, was, that we esteem our Ceremonies to be necessary to Salvation, even antecedently to the commands of the Church and the Law.

That therefore our Author's Arguments, which he here urges, are all of them wide from the point in Controversie, is as evident as may be: But because in some of them he has a sly design, not so much to prove what he had just before undertaken, as to render the Established Church as black and odious as may be in the eyes of his Party; It will be necessary before I proceed, to wipe off that dirt which here he rakes together to throw at her.

In the first place then, I must tell him, that what I have hitherto read of his Book, has not begot in me such an opinion of his veracity, as, upon his bare word, to make me give credit to what he supposes, viz. that the bare omission of Ceremonies, tho' out of tenderness of Conscience, is by us judged Schism, Sedition, and Rebellion; and made worthy of Fining, Imprisonment, and Excom­munication: Nor have I any reason to think his good nature towards us to be so abundant, as that he would have omitted to quote some passages of our Laws or Canons, if any such there had been, to make good this charge to the utmost, which he thus aggravates against us. That Consciences which are truly tender, ought ever to be used with the greatest gentleness, is the unanimous opinion of all sober and good men that ever I remember to have met with, either of our own or any other of the Reformed Churches: And altho' in the Letter of Humane Laws, an exception or dispensation for tender Consciences is no way proper to be expressly inserted; because every man being able to make this pretence, and none but God, who knows the hearts of men, being able to confute it, where it is falsely, but craftily made; this would be the way wholly to enervate the sanction and force of all such Laws, and so to leave it at every mans pleasure, whether he would observe them or not: yet in the execution of them (at least of all such as concern Religion and the Worship of God), I freely grant, that a due re­gard ought to be had to the invincible mistakes of all such as appear to be well-meaning men; because it ought ever to be presumed, that the inten­tion of the Law-makers was not, or ought not to have been, that such sort of men as they should be severely dealt with. And if any particular men have ever prest the Execution of our Ecclesiastical Laws beyond this; Let them answer for themselves; for I am sure I shall never appear in their defence. But where there are most strong presumptions that it is not real tenderness of Conscience, but some other principle, which prompts a man not only himself to refuse obedience to lawful Authority, but also to per­swade as many as he can to join with him therein; Where a man can with­out remorse or scuple break some of the most known Laws of God; can [Page 45] confidently vent such slanders and calumnies, as are not only contrary to charity, but also to truth it self; and can pervert and misquote, not only the Writings of a Man, but even the Word of God; and yet all this while shall refuse to obey such commands of Authority, as he cannot shew to be either expressly or by good consequence contrary to any Law or Command of God; (which I have plainly shewn to be our Authors case). If such a Man as this shall yet plead the tenderness of his Conscience, for refusing con­formity to the Laws of the Land, (which yet it seems is tough enough to dispense with the violation of the above mentioned Laws of God) I would gladly know whether such a plea, and in such a case, is to be admitted: And if the penalty of the Law be not put in execution against a man who plain­ly appears to be of this temper, I think he has more reason to thank the mildness of the Government, than to attribute it to any justice which he may pretend to be on his side, or favour that ought to be extended to him, on account of the tenderness of his Conscience. But let a mans Consciences be disposed as it will; the bare omission of Ceremonies is not by any of our Laws so severely censured as our Author pretends; but was so wife as not to produce his proofs; nor is any man thereby condemned of Schism, except he makes or keeps up a separation in the Church; nor of Sedition or Rebellion, except he helps to maintain a faction, or takes up arms against the Civil State; nor, lastly, made subject to Fining, Imprisonment or Excommunica­tion, except it be for publick Opposition to the Establ [...]shed Laws. And if our Author had not consulted more with passion or ill nature, than with sober reason or charity, he would never have so strained things beyond their due pitch, as he has most evidently done in the above mentioned suggestion, which he brings in charge against us.

Nor, Secondly, do I any where find it to be the Judgment of our Church, that every one who comes under the sentence of Excommunication, must neces­sarily be supposed to be delivered to Satan; which is another of his good natured insinuations. That those Persons, who, by publick disobedience and opposition to the lawful commands of lawful Authority, do cause divisions and [...]ffences in the Church, should be avoided, and excluded from her visible Communion, is no more than what I think to be sufficiently warranted by the Apostle St. Paul, Rom. 16. 17. But because it is possible, and sometimes probable enough, that many men are thus missed, not so much by wilfulness or ob­stinacy, as by some great mistakes or strong prejudices which they have entertained, or, it may be, by a real zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, we are so far from concluding any of them to be absolutely given into the possession of the Devil, that, on the contrary, we charitably hope that the generality of them will obtain mercy at the hand of God; not do we at all doubt it, where the disobedience to Authority pr [...]c [...]eds not from perverse­ness, but ignorance of their Duty in this particular.

Thirdly, Whereas he would have the world believe that the omission of Ceremonies, makes a Minister more liable to deprivation than Whoredom, Drun­kenness, &c. If he means, that it is commonly more easie to convict such an one of Nonconformity, which must be open and notorious, than of im­morality, which may be kept so secret as, in many cases, scarcely to admit of legal proof; I desire to know how is this to be helpt, or the Church to be blamed for it? Or, if he means, that immorality in Ministers has not been so strictly prosecuted and punished as Nonconformity: Besides that he offers no manner of proof even of this; the utmost it could amount to, if true, would be to fasten a just blame, not upon the Laws of the Church, but upon those Persons who should have put them in execution; wherein I will join with him, with all my heart, if he can but furnish me with suffi­cient proof of the matter of fact. But if he means that, by our Ecclesiastical Laws, a Minister, who is convicted of such immorality as he mentions, is not as liable to deprivation as he that is found guilty of Nonconformity, (which I think is the only meaning of his words, that can be any way to the pur­pose). I challenge the abominable falsehood of this assertion, and demand the proof of it from him.

Fourthly, Whereas he suggests that the refusers of Conformity, are judged worse than Idolatrous Papists: This is an imputation so notoriously unjust and immodest, that none but a man of such a tender Conscience, as our Author would ever lay it to our charge. But 'tis no matter for that, his party will probably believe that he would never affirm a thing so extraordinary if it were not so; And if he does but calumniate stoutly, something perhaps may stick. But methinks this man, who so solemnly in his Preface, appeals to the Judge that standeth at the door, should remember the account, which one day he must give of his words as well as actions, unto that same Judge.

And lastly, Whereas he accuses us, that we esteem our Ceremonies to be more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church. I Answer, that if any man were once convinced that the abolition of any Ceremonies, which law­fully may be laid aside, would generally conduce to the Unity and Peace of the Church; and that without doing any other hurt, which might over­ballance this good; and if, in this case, he should refuse to have these Cere­monies abolished; it might indeed justly be said of him, that he preferred them before Peace and Unity. But where it no way appears that men are thus convinced: But on the contrary, that there is much reason to fear that the prohibition or disuse of such Ceremonies, would not only give a very plausible advantage to the Churches enemies, and scandalize a multi­tude of her own weak Members; but also encourage those that causelesly dissent from her to insult and triumph, and to demand other things, which are yet more unreasonable. Where men, I say, are under these or such [Page 47] like apprehensions (as many sober and prudent men of our Church are); altho' a man should be of opinion that they were mistaken, yet could he not, with truth or charity, affirm, that they preferred their Ceremonies, or thought them more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church. For in this case, bare Ceremonies are not put into the Scale against Peace and Unity, as our Author would insinuate: But all the evil consequences, which would attend the abolition of our Ceremonies, are ballanced against the uncertain satisfaction which might be given to some mistaken men, whose principles, if they are followed, must continually lead them into new scruples and ex­ception, against all humane establishments, in matters of Religion and the Worship of God.

In the conclusion of this point of Christian Liberty, I had said in my Ad­dress, that if our Liturgy were an insringement of Christian Liberry, not only all other Churches were guilty of the same; but even the Directory, which imposes some things which in themselves are indifferent, cannot be excused from it. To which, all the Answer that our Author gives, is, p. 109. to deny, and to demand proof from all who assert, that the Directory requireth any Ceremonies of mystical signifi­cation; or imposeth any indifferent thing, save such Circumstances as nature and reason direct. But is not this meer shuffling, thus to take no notice of the thing which I had asserted, and to require me to prove that which I had never affirm'd, or so much as insinuated? I had no occasion to speak of any such thing as mystical Ceremonies or improper Circumstances to be prescribed by the Directory: Nor therefore should he have amused the Reader with the mention of them. The whole force of my Argument lay plainly in this alone, that if it be a violation of Christian Liberty, for order and decency's sake, to settle and determine any thing, in the manner or circumstances of God's Worship, which God by his own immediate Law had not deter­mined. From hence it would follow not only that all other Churches, but even the Directory it self, which does determine some things which God had left indifferent, must be guilty of the violation of Christian Liberty: To which, he does not think sit to return any manner of An­swer.

However, that our Author may not complain that I accuse the Dire­ctory, as equally culpable with our Liturgy in the violation of Christian Liberty, without giving any instances to make good what I say; It will not be amiss here, to give an Example or two of such things as I hint at for the Readers better satisfaction.

A sixt stated and perp [...]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 [Page 48] 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 perso­n [...]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 ex [...]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 [...] 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 [...]erein acc [...]se them as guilty of [Page 50] any sin. But our Author tells us, that if St. Austin had lived in some places of the world, and complained of such a lu [...]then, there is a Canon called the tenth, by which he had been, Ipso fa [...], shut out of the Church. To which I Answer, that neither are the w [...] Ipso f [...]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 themselv [...]s the name of another Church, not Established by Law: which farther [...]hews how disingenuous a man this is in quotations. In the next place, he demands how do I know that St. Aus [...]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 sinne [...]: 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 the [...] le [...]ng burthensome and too numerous, it would be hard to excuse him from sin. To this I Ans [...]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, [...]o re [...]r [...]n [...]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 i [...] he had no other j [...]s [...] 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 b [...]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 m [...], by what Law of God he can on this account be taxed, or with any reason so much as suspe­cted of sin: [...] tho' it is not lawful to do evil, that [...] may come, Rom. 3. 8. Yet that [...] sh [...]uld b [...] any [...]ay unlawful, to do a thing which is not evil, but only troublesome and uneasy; when the [...] a man has in doing it is really [Page 51] 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 d [...]oiously suppose, is a plain Truth, and in effect con [...]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 m [...]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 comply [...]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. I [...]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? A [...]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 [Page 52] 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 agree [...]ble to the Law of God; but also whether there were any n [...]cessity for issuing such a Command 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 [Page 53] Apostles Doctrine, 1 Cor. 11. 1. But where the Church is careful to follow Christ in all manner of things that are n [...]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 desil [...]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 [...] (which, I hope, I have now abundantly proved against all that our Author [...]s Objected to the contrary) there cannot be any just reason why the Nonc [...] sormists should refuse to join with us in it. And altho' our Author nibbles a little, a [...] 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 [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] (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-Co [...]formists f [...]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 pro [...]it upon Earth: For the former I seem to grant them liberty to se [...]k; But the latter I would Monopoliz [...] 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 [Page 55] 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 Pro [...]it. Thes [...] 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 con [...]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 Predecess [...]rs, for the probable faults o [...] the Successors, not as yet comm [...]tted: In [...]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 pun [...]sh [Page 56] any Man [...]r a Crime not as yet committed; yet to prevent Men from committing a crime in­to which [...] is likely that they may run; and by such prudent caution, to save the Church and State fro a confu [...]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 Tol [...]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 th [...]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 i [...] still, the opinion of all sober men among us, that the Non-Conformists ought to have a free Tol [...]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 'tis, 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 bu [...]dle of Sophistry and Calumny, without any manner of sound or solid Proof.