thanks for The Doctor 's Substitute as hereafter I will from his own words prove doth sufficiently declare what his party would be at which is a point I 'm sure that will meet with opposition from such as are true Sons of the Church whereby the Controversie if closely followed must cease to be between Conformist and Noncormist it must be between Conformist and Conformist It looks as if there were among our Church-men some resolv'd to revive Laud's Design as 't is well known there are many others among them who highly value the Principles and Temper of that great Protestant Prelate Abbot Laud's Predecessor in the See of Canterbury between whom the Scussle must at last end That this may with the greater Conviction be evinc'd I will in this Reply to the Defence of the Dean c. confine my self to the Author 's own words as compared with what is more than suggested in the Writings of Bishop Bramhall and some other Sons of the Church of England the which with due clearness I shall not be able to compass if I follow our Author in his disorderly way of Writing For which reason I must keep to the Method I took in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry and bring what calls for my observation into its proper place The whole then he hath offered in Answer to the Enquiry may be reduced to these Heads 1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry 2. His Censure of the Author's Design 3. The Defence of the Dean I 'll begin with the First The Author reflects on the Title as if the Discourse notwithstanding the specious pretences of the Title had not been as Modest nor as Peaceable as suggested in doing which he spends one whole Chapter it may be not fâ—nding matter enough in the Discourse it self to enlarge so far as to write any thing that might deserve the name of an Answer or countenance the Title given his Great Book I could very easily therefore as one unconcern'd pass by this first Chapter if there had not been more in it than the representing me as a person who deserve not the Character of being either Modest or Peaceable But the Overt acts of Immodesty which are insisted on by this Author being such as cannot but be of an ill Tendency I must consider ' em The first instance of Immodesty is thus express'd He begins his Epistle to the Dean with observing how industrious the Papists have been ever since the Reformation to ruine England and the Churches of Christ in it which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gun-Powder Treason in King James's c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion and the universal Destruction of all the Professors thereof whether Episcopal or Dissenter But this modest man saies our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruined already by such Modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers We are aware Sir what a Popish Zeal would do and what a Factious Zeal has done and think our selves concern'd as much as we can to countermine the Designs of both But however I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this that while men are zealous against Popery they may fear no danger from any other quarter Rep. Whether the mentioning the Rebellions and Insurrections of the Papists in King Edw. the 6th days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gunpowder-Treason in King James's the Hellish Plot of late discovered be an extraordinary act of Immodesty or Unpeaceableness let any temperate man among the Church of England judge that please Is it an Act of Immodesty to relate such notorious Truths or of Unpeaceableness to mention the Dangers we are in on the account of Popish bloody Plots This it may be is not the Crime but what follows which is This modest man saith our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruin'd already by such modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charm'd and Lull'd asleep by such Modest Inquirers Rep. Hereby we know what the Authour would be at 't is as if he had said This Modest Enquirer is very immodest and quarrelsome for not imitating the Jesuitical Clubs who are contrary to the Act of Oblivion raking in old sores calling us to the remembrance of 41. to make us look back on the actings of Archb. Laud and his Faction the steps they made towards Rome the bones of contention they cast in between a Protestant Prince and a Church of England Parliament the Civil War begun by the Episcâ—pal who were Chief in each Army 'T was this the Enquirer indeed past over in silence wishing with his very Soul that the Episcopal Clergy had been either so wise or honest as to have done their utmost to have prevented those Ruins which their own Divisions brought on these Nations For 't is well known to many hundreds now alive who they were that had an Influence on those Unnatural Broils and Intestine Quarrels and whoever will consult Mr. Baxter against Hinekley or rather Mr. Rushworth and Dr. Heylin will see That the Sons of the Church of England more on both sides the active persons concern'd in the very beginning of those Troubles But those things the Inquirer was loath to mention it being as Unnecessary as Unsuitable to his Peaceable Design However seeing our Author will not be satisfied unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruin'd King and Kingdom c. I will out of Dr. Heylin's Life of Laud a good Record at least in the sense of the Dean's Defender shew who they were that did it In a perusal of which 't will appear That 't was the Papists who had a sole hand in the Plot no Protestant I verily believe ever design'd what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist This hath been long ago discover'd by Dr. Du Moulm and since by Dr. Oates and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church in these words viz. A Confederacy was formed amongst them i. e. the Papists consisting of some of the most subtle heads in the whole fesuitical Party by whom it was concluded to foment the Broils began in Scotland and to heighten the Combustions there that the King being drawn into a War might give them the opportunity to effect their Enterprize for sending Him and the Archbishop to the other World Which being by one of the party on Compunction of Conscience made known to Andreas ab Habernsfield who had been Chaplain as some said to the Queen of Bohemia they both together gave intimation of it to Sir William Boswell his Majesties Resident at
known that they are Sons of the Church of England whose Loyalty to their Prince and Firmness to the Protestant Religion doth equalize the greatness of their Honour Methinks Sir 't is now high time to consider That as all Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Congregational c. are all in one bottom even so the One cannot be ruin'd with the preservation of the Other Ought we not then to entertain better thoughts of each other What shall we now quarrel with one another even when unless we joyn in putting our hand to the Pump the Ship sinks and we all must perish together But I must not enlarge on this subject lest I be thought too Immodest and Unpeaceable A Second Instance of Immodesty now succeeds 'T was modestly done saith the Author to charge the Dean with a Design of gratifying the Roman Faction c. And at the same time to laugh at the Jesuits and Coleman as great Fools for designing to bring in Popery by the Tolerating Fanaticks Rep. How is this that our Author treats the Dean so unmannerly as to joyn him thus with the Jesuits and Coleman Methinks a desending the Dean should be a distinct work from a vindicating the reputation of Jesuits and the Traitor Coleman And why Sir may I not laugh at the Counsels of some Jesuits without being immodest to the Doctor Have you such venerable thoughts of these men that a laughing at their Devices is a Crime that must not pass without Rebuke But the Dean is represented as a Reviler of Dissenters and that 's immodest Rep. What I suggested as to this was not without great reason as may appear from what I insisted on in the Enquiry but he goes on very pleasantly as if by Reviling Dissenters I meant Confuting Dissenters Really Sir if by Reviling Dissenters I meant a Confuting of them I fear I should have wronged the Doctor and the Truth also if I had but said there was any one Reviling passage in the whole Treatise but the fixing this sense on the words to the end you may give us an account of your admirable Faculty of Talking very little to the purpose is an excellency wherein you seem to delight for I 'm sure you are so modest as to fasten your own which is a foreign sense on my words and then run on triumphantly c. but after so easie a manner that it deserves not an Answer and therefore I 'll consider the great thing The Doctor is brought in you say as one designing to Gratifie the Roman Faction Rep. That I might prevent any just offence here I was express in distinguishing between the Deans own intent and tendency of his Treatise Take my words in the Enquiry I will propose the Design of the Dr's History i. e. of that account he had given of Dissenters c. being charitably dispos'd to distinguish between the Finis Operis and Operantis For though the End of the work it self cannot but in its tendency prove pernicious to the Protestant Religion yet I hope the Dr. design'd it not as such But though I thought my self oblig'd to be thus civil in my thoughts of the Reverend Dean I do not find any Reason to pass the same favourable Censure on you The Dr. I knew wrote against the Papists but whether you have not in some Treatises formerly done as much in some respects for 'em is best known to your self Whatever you have done either for or against the Papist formerly by what I find in your Defence of the Dean I do very much suspect you 'T is very evident you have in your Notions about the Nature of an Universal Church the Notion of Schism c. faln in with those that were not ashamed to own that they were for a going towards Rome in order to an accommodating the Differences between the Church of England and the Papist That this may appear to be so I will faithfully set down your notion of these things and then compare it with the Design of Archb. Laud and Archb. Bramhall and leave it to the judgment of the Candid and Impartial Reader whether you are not of those who ran the Cassandrian way You say § 1. That the Catholique Church consists of such Particular Churches as have all the Essentials of a Church as to Faith Government and Discipline It consists of all these as Similar parts which have the same Nature and make up one Body by a common Union This p. 139 140. § 2. That the Catholique Church though it consists of all Particular Churches contained in it yet 't is not a meer arbitrary combination and confederacy of particular Churches but is the Root and Fountain of Unity and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches So that all Particular Churches received their denomination of Catholique Church from the Catholique Church p. 144 c. Here you assert That the Universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to Particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches c. But your Allusion is not ad rem for you should have given us some instance of some one Universal that was in order of nature antecedent to its Particulars which is impossible it being in the sense of most evident That Universale is unum in multis that is in many particulars which Universal hath no real Existence but in Particulars for abstracted from all Particulars 't is only an Ens raticnis having its being in the Eutopian Commonwealth whence we distinguish between the consideration of an Universal as Formal and as Fundamental Fundamentally and 't is quid singulare but Formally and so 't is abstracted from all Singulars the Particulars being the foundation of the Universal the Root from which the Universal doth proceed Now if it be the Particulars that are the foundation of the Universal How can the Universal be the Root of the Particulars This is the more remarkable in our Author because he falls in with an old exploded part of Independency viz. That what person soever is not a Member of a Particular Church is not so of the Universal Church Which being so I would fain know Where this Universal Church should be when Antecedent to any Particular Church If he had said That by a Particular Church he meant only such as were Organiz'd and faln into some compleat order and that there were many who not having arriv'd to that degree of being compleat Church-members of any Particular Church who yet were Members of the Church Universal he would have had ground for his Assertion for there must be Particular Christians before Particular Churches but to adhere to his Hypothesis which seems to be but a step to the asserting Diocesan Churches to be in order of nature antecedent to particular Congregations is ridiculous especially seeing he asserts That the Universal Church is an Organiz'd or Political Body the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
days the very same with that of the first Reformation from Popery beginning in Henry the 8th's time and Sealed after with the Blood of our Martyrs THE Deans Substitute doth at last apply himself to the Defence of the Doctor in doing which he considers the Reasons I collected out of the Dean's Preface which the Dean urges to engage the Reader to believe that the Dissenters are a people carrying on the Popish Designs 1. The Dissenters have embraced the Jesuits Principles about Spiritual Prayer and a more pure way of Worship This is what I observ'd out of Dr. Still But our Author who hath read over the Doctors Preface very carefully can find no such thing urged against the Dissenters and adds All that Mr. Lobb founds this Accusation on is That the Dean says It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England And then goes on to a very decent Censure saying That this is mighty falsely and imperfectly represented Sir If I had insisted on no more than what you here mention as the foundation of my Charge I must acknowledg that 't would not only be imperfectly but impertinently related For what connexion is there between the Jesuits Practises and their Principles Is it not well known that the Principles they profess the Doctrines they embrace concerning many a point in Divinity are one thing even when their Practice is another May they not then in order to the carrying on a further Design set on Practices contrary to their Doctrines Yea surely they may and this is the whole Defence you make in behalf of the Dean with which after an unnecessary Harangue you dismiss the Subject But is this fair to misrepresent an Adversary and then confute what needs no Confutation Doth this redound to the Honour of a Presbyter of the Church of England Was this all on which Mr. Lobb founded his Accusation Did he not add somewhat more than what you relate You say all that Mr. Lobb founds this accusation on is that the Dean says It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England which is mighty falsely and imperfectly repesented p. 6. Yet whoever will consult the Enguiry will find that I do out of the Dean add That there is no improbality of the thing if we consider the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits The Dean suggests that Spiritual and Free Prayer even that Spiritual and Free Prayer about which there is such a Pother is suited to the Doctrines of the Jesuits to the Doctrine that is to their Principles What difference is there between the Doctrine and the Principles of the Church of England In like manner I Query What difference is there between the Doctrines and Principles of the Jesuits Doth the Dean then assert such an Agreement to be between the Pretences of the Dissenter about Spiritual Prayer and the Doctrines or Principles of the Jesuits not only the Practices but Doctrines of the Jesuits Who then is the impersect or mistaken Reporter The Dean's Charge against Dissenters is That the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer are suited with the Doctrines of the Jesuits And 't is our concern to enquire after the truth of this Charge I say of this charge to wit about the Agreeableness that is between our Pretences and their Doctrines For it is no way momentous to enquire after the practice of a company of Villains who can transform themselves into a thousand shapes whenever their Interest obliges them to do so Was it never known that a Papist crept into some great Preferment in the Church of England at which time they did both Assent and Consent to the doctrines of the Church of England What think you of a quondam Bishop of Glocester to mention no more did he not speak well of the Church of England yea even of the Protestant Religion Is it therefore Popery For this Reafon it concerns me not to enquire after those Stories insisted on by the Doctor or to be found in that Pamphlet called Foxes and Firebrands The great Enquiry must be after the Doctrines of the Jesuit whether there is any suitableness between the Dissenters pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines For which Reason the Jesuits Writings were consulted and the Doctor 's Charge found untrue the Dr. being mistaken as to matter of fact He represented the Jesuits Doctrines to be other than indeed they are which to speak softly was a Mistake If the Deans Defender would have spoke to the purpose He should have searched those places I insisted on in Azorius Filiucius and Bellarmine and have shewed wherein I had either made a false report of their sayings or misinterpreted ' em But this was impossible There being nothing else of moment in the Reply to what I offered against the Dean about Spiritual Prayer I might fairly without saying any thing more proceed to the next particular But seeing some have spoken contemptibly of the Spirit of prayer which is said to assist such as use free or extempore prayer as if those who spake of receiv'd help from the Spirit in prayer were Enthusiastical c. and because our Author talks as if the Jesuits had the first hand in the Separation of the old Nonconformists from the Church of England crying down the Common-prayers as a dull formal superstitious Worship and the setting up free prayer in the room of it I will shew 1. The sense of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit And 2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation § 1. Concerning the Aid of the Holy Spirit by which many are enabled to pray freely or spiritually it hath been by some of the conforming Ministers asserted That such as pretend to receive the aid of the Spirit may as well pretend to inspiration c. That then they 'l believe that persons can pray by the Spirit when they hear the unlearned can pray in Latin Greek or in some other unknown language as if the aids the Spirit affords unto such as pray freely had been extraordinary c. This I cannot but consider as what doth very much reflect on the Dispensation of the Spirit to the great dishonour of true Christian Religion For such is the present state of true Religion that whoever speaks contemptibly of the Spirits Aid must be esteemed not only a Despiser of the first Reformers but of that part of the present Constitution to which our Clergy on their entrance into their Function are principally concern'd 1. T is well known that what the first Reformers did in the Reforming the Liturgy was by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament recorded to have been done by the Aid of the Holy Ghost The Parliament in K. Edward's days passing an Act for the confirmation of the Publick Liturgy in the preamble thereof declare That those who drew up that Order
Informer in constant danger of Fines c. and of more miseries than I can with delight reherse However though there are considerations enough from the world to byas our minds in a seeking for the Truth to lean towards Conformity yet desiring to approve our selves sincere towards God we find That we cannot without sin conform we cannot without sinning deliberately and knowingly comply with the Episcopal Impositions and if we should notwithstanding conform to live and die Conformists we should knowingly and deliberately sin yea and die under the guilt thereof which is a thing so hazardous to the soul that we durst not touch with Conformity lest we die lest we die eternally We censure not such as do conform because they not lying under the same convictions of Conscience as we do may not by their Conformity run that hazard which we unavoidably must should we against the light of our Consciences comply There is a great difference between those that act according to the directions of their Consciences and such as act contrary thereunto For which reason I wonder that our great Church-men should say that Mr. Baxter represented all Conformists as a company of Perjured Villains meerly because he shew'd that if the Nonconformists should contrary to the Dictates of their Conscience conform they should be guilty of Perjury and several other great sins But though this be the truth yet there are some who will not believe it who say we do we what we can for their satisfaction will count us a pack of Hypocrites For which reason that I might anticipate the censure I laid down the Principle unto which Dissenters do most firmly adhere the discussing which is what they do most sincerely desire The Principle is this That the word of God contained in Scripture is the only Rule of the Whole and of every part of true Religion As for external circumstances as time and place c. being no part of though necessary appendages unto our Religion From this Principle I proceed to this Conclusion That whatever part of the Service of the Church of England is impos'd on us as so necessary a part of our Religion as to be a term of Communion if not agreeable to the word of God in Scripture that Imposition is sinful Our Adversary considers that such as live in England and yet are not of the Church of England do not belong unto the Catholick Church that is they are all in a state of damnation Hence 't is we must according unto him be a member of the Church of England or be damned We are willing with all our hearts to be members of the same Church with them i. e. to be members of the Catholick Church is what we desire But this say they we cannot be but by complying with their imposed terms To which we reply Let their terms be as Catholick as they pretend their Church is and we 'l comply i. e. Let them keep to a few certain and necessary things let them not impose as terms of Union any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture we are satisfied the Controversie is at an end But if they will take on 'em to make that a part of true Religion yea so necessary a part as to make it a term of our communion with the Catholick Church 't is a sinful encroachment on the Prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ with which we dare not complâ— If they expeâ—t our compliance why do they not shew the Scriptures that declare the things they impose to be so necessary a part of true Religion as to be a form of our communion with the Catholick Church They must not only shew that those things are aâ—reeable to true Religion but moreover that they are so necessary a part thereof that whoever conforms not to them when impos'd is â—pso â—â—sact cut off from the Catholick Church This they can never do and therefore can never clear themselves from being the Faulty dividers When we provoke 'em to shew us what Scriptures direct them to their Impositions we are turn'd off with Where is it forbidden as if they had acted exactly to the Rule * Si objiciant in sacris literis non haberi Invocandos esse Sanctos venerandas Imagines abstinendum à Carnibus in t aliquid ejâ—sâ—nodi non ergo ista esse facienda nos contra objiciamus quidem Efficacius Hâ—c Sacris Literis non Prohiberi atque sine piccato fieri posse quia â—â—hi non est Lex ibi nec prâ—evaricatio Cosâ— Irstit Chriâ—t l. 2. c. 1. Costerus the Jesuit gave his young Scholars If any object Where are those points viz. The Invocation of Saints The worshipping of Images The abstaining from flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where 't is forbidden in Scripture if not forbidden in Scripture 't is no sin to observe 'em for where there is no Law there is no transgression So far Costerus To whom we rejoyn That the holy Scriptures being the only Rule of the Whole and of Every part of true Religion if these things be not according to the Scripture 't is because there is no truth in ' em There must be an exact correspondency and agreeableness between the Rule and its Regulate The Regulate must be brought to the Rule and if it doth not agree with it 't is because the Regulate is not Right The word of God in Scripture is the Rule what Religion soever varies from the Rule 't is a false Religion Rectum est Index sui obliqui There are some Religions are larger than the Rule There are other Religions that fall short of the Rule They who embrace any Notion as a part of their Religion which is not to be found in Scripture is too large for the Scripture and such as reject what the Scripture injoins have a Religion too short The one puts the Scripture on the Rack to stretch it to their Religion but the other pares off a considerable part of Scripture that the Rule may not exceed their Religion But such as keep exactly to the word of God in Scripture who neither go beyond nor fall short of it are in the right To make that a part of our Religion which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a term of communion That the things in controversie between the Church and the Dissenter are not to be found in Scripture and consequently are no part of true Religion is evident not only because we can't understand where 't is to be found nor because the Church-men cannot direct us where to find it but because they themselves look on 'em as indifferent i. e. as what is not injoin'd us in the word of God
and renders sincere Obedience to the known Will of God he shall be saved All which may be even with those who being verily perswaded that their compliances with the present Impositions are sinful durst not Conform that is The Promise of Salvation is made by Christ to many who do not conform to the Impâ—sitions of the Church of England But Salvation by our Author is denied unto such their Non-compliance is enough to make 'em Schismatical to cut them off from Christ and the hopes of Salvation which being no ways justifiable in the Conscience of any sober man the Dissenters are unjustly Excommunicated and he that so Excommunicates is Schismatical 'T is most certain That many good Christians cannot conform to the imposed terms of Communion with the Church and that for this single Reason they are Excommunicable if not actually Excommunicated from the Church that is put out of a state of Salvation The which being so 't will unavoidably follow That either the Excommunication is unjust or That the Church hath greater Power than he that is the Lord of it to open and shut the gates of Heaven If the latter then the Church sets itself up above all that is called God in this world and Christ in the other For whereas Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for our Salvation these add somwhat more to wit an Obedience to new Impositions threatning the neglect with Damnation But if the former if the Excommunication is unjust then according to Dr. Gunning with the addition of our Author Our Ecclesiastical Governours are the Schismaticks The Argument here in short is this He that doth unjustly Excommunicate any out of the Catholick Church is a Schismatick This is Dr. Gunning's But the Church of England shutting those out of Salvation to whom Christ hath promised it Excommunicates unjustly This is our Authors Therefore the Church of England according to the Position of our Author is the Schismatick Hereby we may easily perceive what an admirable Defender the Church of England hath in the Defender of the Dean and how little the true Protestant Clergy of the Church are beholding to this man who insists on such Notions as do necessarily lead judicious men to conclude the Church of England Schismatical But to return to our Author who leaping over all the difficulties though but hinted in the Enquiry runs unto another Question viz. From Ceremonies to Circumstances form the Parts of their Religion to the external Appendages thereunto confounding the one with the other and then runs triumphantly assuring his Reader That 't is impossible to worship God or exercise any act of Religion but it must be in some time or in some place it must be done in some circumstances therefore we may make some things a part of our Religion which God has not At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter Insisting on nothing but what had its answer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute Therefore if I should say no more than what I have in giving the true state of the Controversie it would be sufficient For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction that We may without sin comply with their Impositions i. e. He must so far effectually enlighten our Conscience as to help us to see that the Impositions are not sinful and that we may lawfully Conform or shew That we must Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Consciences and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands Believing as the Church believes or they ought to remove the Impositions or acknowledge that our Compliances are not sinful One of these must be done Let him do either and the Controversie will be ended and the Dissenters freed from Schisme But if he cannot enlighten us to see the Lawfulness of their Impositions nor perswade us to render a blind Obedience nor remove the Impositions but plead for their continuance 't will appear That they by imposing what in their Judgments is but Indifferent as things necessary to our Salvation are the Schismaticks This might suffice as a full Answer But that nothing may escape consideration that our Author may think deserves it I le reflect a little on his main strength If there be any force in this Argument says he it consists in these two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with And secondly That the Opinion of Dissenters That indifferent things are unlawful in the worship of God is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of some indifferent things cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks and if the opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful be not a sufficient reason for parting with them then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot p. 9. First saith he If there be any force in this Argument it consists in two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with This is his mistake he should have said That if there be any strength in the Enquiry it lyes in this viz. No one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion 'T is this he should have considered For you sin by insisting on any one or more indifferent things so zealously as to make 'em terms of Communion with your Church and consequently with the Church Catholick so as to deny us a right to Christ and Salvation for a mere non-compliance You can part with your indifferent Ceremonies without sin and open the door of Salvation to the wretched Dissenter if you will even when they cannot without sin comply with your intolerable Impositions The indifferent things you impose you impose as terms of our Communion with you which you make to be the same with Catholick Communion that is of Salvation 2. You add the second thing viz. That the Opinion of Dissenters That Indifferent things are unlawful is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not say you lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of Indifferent things cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks c. You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and Intrinsecal thereunto and what is Extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in Thesi which is off from the point in hand You run from what is Indifferent to what is Necessary as if we called you to part with any necessary thing whereas there is never any indifferent Ceremony that is grievous to our Consciences but you may part with or cease to impose 'em and yet
as a proof of what he affirmed produces some few passages from a Book written tho' not printed by Mr. H. in the year 1675. and reprinted with some alterations 1680. Mr. Humfrey gives the reasons of those alterations but withal affirms that he altered not his opinion At which our Author makes some exceptions pag. 26. of his Preface and seems to suspect the truth of what Mr. H. had said concerning the alteration of some lines in his Book without altering his judgment in that case These are his words He will not own that he hath altered his judgment in the second Impression of his book from what it was in the first but people know not mens judgments but by their words and the words of his first and second Edition contain a very different and contrary sense which should suppose some alteration What a spiteful malignant insinuation were this if Mr. H. were not known to be one that does not lye He persists upon the words like toleration which after Mr. H. hath explained is nothing but cavil and I need no more than to repeat Mr. H's own words for the reproof of this Gentleman who would not have omitted these when he cites others if he had dealt honestly by him The Dr. thinks or speaks as if the Author in reprinting the Book had changed his opinion wherein I account he is most of all out and most to blame He who drew up the Book is not one of that humour as to turn with the times but rather against them The opinion he offered in the year 75. is the same that he holds now in the year 80. Here is an alteration indeed as to more words or some other words but the same opinion or solution with the difference only of a further explication of it and nothing therein besides avoiding offence intended The Author had been wary in declaring the Toleration he proposed to be a limited one and provided against the Jesuit upon reason of State and shewed his dread of Popery in dominion but had omitted the distinction of a toleration in regard to publick Assemblies and the private exercise of a mans Religion He explains himself therefore by way of supply signifying that what he said at first should be taken in regard to the tolerating the Papist only privately as his meaning really was then and is now but fuller expressed This is the opinion he recedes not from whether peculiar to himself or not that no man should be persecuted meerly for his conscience if there be no other reason Whether he be a Dissenter of one kind or other the common rule of Christianity must be remembred he says still that we do by all men as we would be done by and that with what measure we mete to others it shall be measured to us again These words are in all the Impressions And to this purpose I cannot but note what I find in Mr. B's 2 l Def. p. 16 who after he hath spoken of Mr. H. upon this account as a man of known Latitude and Universal Charity and discountenancing Cruelty adds concerning himself And I so little fear the noise of the Censorious that even now while tht Plot doth render them most odious I freely say 1. That I would have Papists used like men and no worse than our own Defence requireth 2. That I would have no man put to death for being a Priest 3. I would not have them by any Law compelled to our Communion and Sacraments Nor can a man think but the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls himself had also some Compassion Pity and Kindness for them when he condemns such Heats as transport men beyond the just bounds of Prudence Decency and Humanity towards their greatest Enemies Pref. pag. 34. And whereas this Gentleman objects That the alteration was not made in Mr. H's Book till five years after I hope there is a good reason for it because it was so many years before the second Impression and I know not by what means it could be altered till the Book was Printed a second time I return now to the Countrey Conformist The Doctor had said in his Pref. pag. 78. upon the Principles of some of our Dissenting Brethren Let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves yet others may make use of their grounds and carry on their differences as high as ever To which the Conformist had said There was no doubt but insufferable Hereticks might pretend Conscience and many other things for Indulgence as well as modest and tolerable Dissenters but that he thought there was no reason that they should have the same Concessions and that he hoped our Governours would be able to distinguish between those that erre in small things and those that subvert the Christian Religion This Answer doth not satisfie our Author who enquires pag. 8. But in the mean time how doth he answer the Deans Argument that it is not the way to Peace and Union and to silence Differences If I should reply to this Gentleman in other words and give him another Answer peradventure he may be unsatisfied and ask the same Question again However I 'll venture this once Many of the Dissenters from the Church of England are sound in their Judgments and agree with us in all the great Essentials of the Christian Religion and in most of the Integrals also these would gladly incorporate with us but that there are some Impositions that they cannot submit unto now certainly if these things which are the reason and cause of the Difference between them and their Brethren were removed the difference were at an end Others there are that are men of sound Judgments in the main Articles of the Christian Religion but cannot incorporate with us in the National Church if these were Legally indulged they would be free from fear their minds would be at rest amidst variety of Judgments and Practices we might live together in Love and Peace And thus I think I have told this Gentleman how many of our differences may be ended and how those that cannot be ended may yet be laid to sleep and persons made amicable and friendly As for intolerable Hereticks I shall not be their Patron only I would have them used like men and that nothing be done to them that is unworthy of the Christian Religion which is made up in great part of Love Kindness and Compassion And if thus much Union and Peace will not satisfie this Author I suppose he may look for it in Heaven but I doubt that he will hardly find it in this world I am of opinion that a cessation of Differences among Christians and Churches and a total cessation of sin will appear at the same instant I do somtimes admire that those that never expect to see the one upon Earth but are very calm and patient without it should so passionately desire the other that they can be content to move Heaven and Earth for the obtaining of it What Seneca