A continuation and vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation in answer to Mr. Baxter, Mr. Lob, &c. containing a further explication and defence of the doctrine of Catholick communication : a confutation of the groundless charge of Cassandrianism : the terms of Catholick communion, and the doctrine of fundamentals explained : together with a brief examination of Mr. Humphrey's materials for union / by the author of The defence.

CHAP. VI. An Examination of Mr. Lob's suggesti∣ons to prove the Dissenters, according to my own Principles, to be no Schis∣maticks, and a further inquiry who is the divider.

IT will not be amiss now after all this grave and serious Discourse, to di∣vert my Readers a little with a more pleasant and entertaining Scene. For Mr. Lob seems to me to be a great Droll, and to maintain a Dispute by the irre∣sistible power of Wit, and pleasant Con∣ceits, where Arguments fail. It is won∣derful to observe with what admirable art and dexterity he has retorted my Arguments upon my self, and given life to a dying and languishing Cause, with

the same Weapons, which gave it its mortal Wound. I thought, I had pro∣ved our Dissenters, who separate from the Church of England, to be Schisma∣ticks, as far as proving their Separation to be Schism, and answering their seve∣ral Pleas for Separation, proved them Schismaticks; but Mr. Lob has discover∣ed, that I have been kinder to them, than I was aware of, and by my own Principles have excused them from Schism, which, I assure you, if it prove so, will be the best Confutation of my Principles, and make me greatly suspect them my self. There are several insi∣nuations of this nature scattered here and there in his reply, which require no very serious answer; for if he design∣ed them for serious Arguments, he is a wit indeed. As to give some instances of this nature.

1. He says, I place Schism in a sepa∣rating from the Catholick Church, which notion taken singly will stand the Dissen∣ters, and all true Christians, who must be acknowledged to be Members of the Catholick Church, in great stead, freeing them from the odious sin of Schism. The Dissenters divide not themselves from the Communion of the Ʋniversal Church, ergo

not Schismaticks. Now I would desire all Dissenters to remember, what Mr. Lob grants; that there is such a sin as Schism, and that it is a very odious sin, which would stand them in more stead, if they seriously thought of it, than his Defence and Apology will do.

But Dissenters, he says, do not di∣vide themselves from the Communion of the Universal Church: What he means by this I cannot well tell, for I am sure, their Principles, upon which they divide from the Church of Eng∣land, do equally divide them from all the Churches in the World: And if up∣on meer humour they will divide from one Church, and not from another, where the reason of Separation is the same, they are nevertheless Schismaticks for that. Let Mr. Lob tell me, what Church for above twelve hundred years, they could have communicated with upon so good terms, as they may now with the Church of England? If Dio∣cesan Episcopacy, Forms of Prayer, De∣fects in Discipline, Corrupt Members in Church Communion, Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies, or unscriptural Impo∣sitions, as they call them, be a sufficient reason to justifie Separation, what

Church they ever could, or can to this day communicate with? The Foreign Protestant Churches, though they dif∣fer in some things from the Church of England, not in Judgment, but in Pra∣ctise, of which I have given some ac∣count above, yet they communicate with the Church of England, which according to the Laws of Catholick Communion, makes it as unlawful to communicate with them, as with the Church of England it self.

But he says, Dissenters, and all true Christians (though I hope, all true Chri∣stians are not Dissenters, whether Dissen∣ters be true Christians or not) must be acknowledged to be members of the Ca∣tholick Church: How far this must be acknowledged, I have examined above; Schismaticks in a loose general Notion belong to the Church, though they are not Members of the Catholick Church, which is but one Communion; and thus dissenting Separatists are Schisma∣ticks still.

But though it were possible, that our Dissenters might find some other Church, beside their own Conventicles, to com∣municate with, yet they actually di∣vide themselves from the Catholick

Church, by breaking Communion with any one sound part of it, especially with such a part of the Church, as they are more particularly bound to commu∣nicate with. The Catholick Church is but one Communion, and whoever causelesly breaks this Communion, as he does, who separates from any sound part of the Church, is a Schismatick, especially he that separates from the Church wherein he lives, which is the case of our Dissenters in separating from the Church of England. If you separate the Arm from the Shoulder, you separate it from the whole Body; the Union of every Member with the Body, is its Union to that part of the Body which is next; for the whole Body is nothing else, but all the parts united to each other in their proper place and order: And if the Church be one Body, and one Communion, he that separates from the Communion of the Church, where he lives, is a Schis∣matick, though he may pretend to an imaginary Communion with French or Dutch Churches, with the Churches of Greece or Russia.

But as much as Mr. Lob pretends, that notion will stand the Dissenters in stead, that Schism is a Separation from the Catholick Church, it is plain, he does not like it, and therefore re∣proaches it, as a Popish notion, gene∣rally asserted by Papists: I should be heartily glad to see any Papist assert this, for it would bid fair to put an end to Popery; but I doubt, Mr. Lob wrongs the Papists, and mistakes Ca∣tholick for Roman-Catholick Church: They own no Catholick, but the Ro∣man-Catholick Church, and know no Schism, but a Separation from the Church of Rome.

But Mr. Lob thinks this is no great matter; for I only change England for Rome, and set up an English-Catholick, instead of the Roman-Catholick Church, which whatever other fault it have, I hope, he will acknowledg to be a change a little for the better; but let us hear his own words. He says, I close with the same Popish Faction, in asserting, that separating from the Church of England, is a Separation from the Ca∣tholick Church, as if the Catholick Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England, as the Pa∣pists

say within the limits of Rome: What a blessed thing is Ignorance, which helps men to confute Books without fear or wit! What Papists are those, who confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome? Do not they own the Churches of Italy, Spain, France, Germany, to be Catholick Churches, and would own all the Churches in the World to be so, would they subject themselves to the Pope of Rome? They do not desire to confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome, but desire to extend it as far as England, and all the World over. But still Rome is the beginning of Unity and Catholi∣cism, and no Church must be owned for a Catholick Church, which does not live in Communion with the Church of Rome, and pay homage and subje∣ction to the Bishop of Rome: This is the Roman-Catholick Church, not which is confined within the limits of Rome, but which has the Bishop of Rome for its constitutive Regent Head.

And is not Mr. Lob a very pleasant man, who would perswade the World, that I am for setting up such a Catho∣lick Church in England, as the Papists

have done at Rome. The Papists make it Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Bishop of Rome, con∣sidered as the Head of the Church; I assert it to be Schism from the Catho∣lick Church, to separate from the Church of England, not meerly as the Church of England, but as a true and sound part of the Catholick Church, which we especially are bound to com∣municate with: And is there no diffe∣rence between these two?

But who-ever separates from the Church of England, cuts himself from the Catho∣lick Church, puts himself out of a state of Salvation. He is extra Ecclesiam, extra quam nulla salus, they are all the while Schismaticks in a state of Damnation: This no jesting matter, but a sad and seri∣ous Truth, which I would beg Mr. Lob, as he loves his own Soul, to consider better of at his leisure, and out of the heat of Dispute. Separation from the Church of England is a Schism, and Schism is as damning a sin, as Idolatry, Drunkenness, or Adultery.

And here he has a notable fetch. But surely if these men believed so much, me∣thinks they should not be at rest, until all their unscriptural Impositions were remo∣ved,

unless they have greater kindness for such trifles, than they have for such im∣mortal Souls for whom Christ dyed. And methinks, they should be as much con∣cerned to take care of their own Souls, as we are to take care of them, and not to divide the Church for the sake of such Trifles, as they call them. As for removing all unscriptural Impositi∣ons, as he calls them, by which he means the whole Constitution of the Church of England, this we cannot do without destroying all the external Solemnities of Worship, and dissolving the Bands of Church-Society; of which more pre∣sently: And if this could be done, they would be Schismaticks still, unless they could perswade all the Churches in the World to do so too: For they could not maintain Catholick Communion with any Church, which used any un∣scriptural Rites and Ceremonies, as most Churches in the World at this day do: Nay they would be Schismaticks from the Catholick Church for many hundred years before the Reformation; for their very Principles are Schismatical, and it is not the removing some few Ceremo∣nies, which would cure their Schism. But suppose the Church of England were

out of their way, would that cure their Schism? would Presbyterians, Indepen∣dents, and meer Anabaptists, cement in∣to one Communion? We know, how it has been formerly, and have reason to guess, how it would be again; when they cease to be Schismaticks from the Church of England, they will be Schis∣maticks to one another. And there∣fore we may without breach of Chari∣ty defend our Church, and they are bound in Charity to look to their own Souls.

And therefore I wonder, what our Author means, when he puts the whole Dispute upon this issue: Let their terms be as Catholick, as they pretend their Church is, and we'll comply; i. e. let them keep to a few, certain, and necessa∣ry things; let them not impose as terms of Ʋnion, any thing but what is accord∣ing to the Word of God in Scripture, we are satisfied, the Controversie is at an end.

This is a certain Argument, that our Author is no great Traveller, not so much as in Books; that he knows no∣thing of any Church, but his own dear Conventicles, unless he modestly dissem∣bles his knowledg to serve his Cause.

For the terms of our Communion are as Catholick, as our Church is; Dioce∣san Episcopacy, Liturgies, and Ceremo∣nies, have been received in all Churches for many hundred years, and are the setled Constitution of most Churches to this day; and this is the Constitution of the Church of England, and the terms of our Communion; and must be ac∣knowledged to be Catholick Terms, if by Catholick Terms, he means, what has actually been received by that Ca∣tholick Church, and not what he fan∣cies, ought to be made the Terms of Catholick Communion: Could Mr. Lob indeed have the new Modelling of the Catholick Church, and make what Ca∣tholick Terms of Communion he plea∣sed, he would be satisfied, and the Con∣troversie were at an end; but wiser men consider, that Catholick Terms of Com∣munion are not to be made now, no more than the Catholick Faith is; and therefore it is not our private Reason∣ings, but the Practise of the Catholick Church in all Ages, which will acquaint us, what the Catholick Terms of Com∣munion are; and he, who will not maintain Communion with the Church upon such Terms, must be a Schisma∣tick,

and there is an end of that Con∣troversie.

And if by according to the Word of God, he means, that nothing must be made a Term of Catholick Communi∣on, but what is agreeable to the gene∣ral Rules of Scripture, I readily grant it, and assert, that the Church of Eng∣land requires nothing, as a Term of Communion, but what is so: But if he means, that the Church must require nothing, but what is expresly com∣manded by the Word of God, I deny, that this ever was a Term of Catholick Communion, nay nor of any particular Church-Communion; Dr. Owen himself rejects it, and of late, it has been thought a very great Scandal upon the Dissen∣ters to charge them with; but it is hap∣py for a Faction to have some ignorant Writers, as well as Readers; for the first are bold, and the other credulous, and the Argument must be acknowledged, to be very useful to divide and disturb the best constituted Church, though wise and cunning men are ashamed to use it. And that Mr. L. means this by according to the Word of God, appears from an admirable Argument, he uses to prove it. That we our selves look

on them as indifferent, i. e. as what is not enjoyned us in the Word of God, q. d. as what is not according to the Word of God. Which also he explains by such things, as are not to be found in Scripture. Now we do indeed by indifferent things, mean such things, as are not commanded in Scripture, but are left to the prudence of Governors to injoyn or alter, as the Edification of the Church shall require; but yet we assert indifferent things to be according to Scripture, both as the use of indifferent things is allowed in Scrip∣ture, and as these particular usages, which are enjoyned by the Church, though they may be in their own natures indif∣ferent, yet are agreeable to the gene∣ral Rules of Scripture for decency and order.

But Mr. Lob requires us to shew the Scriptures, that declare the things impo∣sed, to be so necessary a part of true Re∣ligion, as to be a Form of our Communi∣on with the Catholick Church; that we must not only shew, that these things are agreeable to true Religion, but moreover that it is such a necessary part thereof, that whoever conforms not to them, when im∣posed, is, ipso facto, cut off from the Ca∣tholick Church.

Now this were something to the pur∣pose, did we assert, that the bare not doing these things, as for instance, the not wearing the Surplice, or not using the Cross in Baptism, or not kneeling at the Sacrament, did in their own na∣ture, ipso facto, cut men off from the Catholick Church; but we never said, we never thought this: But we say, that to separate causelesly from any true and sound part of the Christian Church, cuts such Separatists off from the Catho∣lick Church; and to separate, where no sinful terms of Communion are im∣posed, is a causeless Separation. So that it does not lie on us to prove, that every thing that is injoyned, is in its own nature necessary to Catholick Com∣munion; but if they would justifie their Separation, they must prove, that what is enjoyned, is sinful.

I will only ask Mr. Lob, whether it be a sufficient justification of Separation from any Church, that there are such things imposed, as are not indeed ex∣presly commanded, but yet are agree∣able to the Word of God, and to true Religion; if this be a just Cause of Se∣paration, it is impossible, that any Schis∣matick should ever want Reasons for

their Separation; for there is no Church in the World, but does something or other, which they have no Command to do: If this be no sufficient reason of Separation, then it is sufficient for us to prove, that the Church imposes nothing, but what is agreeable to true Religion, to prove them guilty of a causeless Schism.

Can any thing be sinful, which is agreeable to true Religion? Or can the Church sin in commanding things which are not sinful? If not, it is sufficient to prove, that the Church imposes nothing, but what is agreeable to true Religi∣on: For whatever justifies the Church, condemns the Schismaticks.

It may be, it is a harder matter than Mr. Lob is aware of, to determine, what is in its own nature absolutely ne∣cessary to Catholick Communion; but I can tell him, de facto, what is, viz. a Complyance with the Order, Govern∣ment, Discipline and Worship, as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church; he who will not do this, must separate from the Catholick Church, and try it at the last day, who was in the right; I am content, that Mr. Lob, and his beloved Separatists, should talk on

of unscriptural Terms of Communion, so they will but grant, that the Church of Englan is no more guilty of impo∣sing unscriptural Terms, than the Ca∣tholick Church it self has always been; and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons, as equal∣ly condemn the Catholick Church; and when they have the confidence to deny this, I will prove it, and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England, than the Practise of the Ca∣tholick Church.

But Mr. Lob observes, that this is the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gives his young Scholar, If any object, where are these points, viz. of Invocation of Saints, the worshipping of Images, the abstaining from Flesh, and the like, found in Scripture, and because not found in Scripture, there∣fore to be rejected? To which, saith the Jesuit, answer thus: Ask, where it is forbidden in Scripture? If not forbidden in Scripture, it is no sin to observe them, for where there is no Law, there is no Transgression: But what of all this? The Rule is a very good Rule, though used in a bravado by the Jesuit. Does Mr. Lob think, that Popery is establish∣ed by this Rule, as well as indifferent

and uncommanded Ceremonies? Do we separate from the Church of Rome, only for the sake of some things, which are neither forbid, nor commanded in Scripture? Our Dissenters, I see, have better thoughts of Popery, than the Church of England has, and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome.

But there is one admirable Para∣graph, which I cannot let pass without some short remarks, and it is this; 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. Where∣in there are as many absurd Propositi∣ons included, as can well be in so few words.

1. He takes it for granted, that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture, is to make a part of Reli∣gion of it; and yet the Church may and does enjoyn such things, not as parts of Religion, but as Rules of Order and Discipline. Who then makes it a part of Religion? If it be made a part

of Religion, it must be made so by God, or the Church; he acknowledges, God does not make it a part of Reli∣gion, and the Church declares she does not, how then does it come to be a part of Religion? Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind, Intention, and Declaration?

In some cases indeed men may do, what they never intended to do, and contract a Guilt, which they utterly dis∣claim, and disown, but then it is in such cases, where a positive Law, or the nature of the thing, determines the na∣ture of the Action, whatever he, who does it, intends by it. Thus the Pa∣pists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints, and Angels, and Images, and the consecrated Host, but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that, because the Law of God, and the Nature of the Worship makes it so. But now how can that come to be a part of Worship, which is not so, nei∣ther by a positive Law, nor by the Nature of the thing, nor by the Institu∣tion of men? For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Re∣ligion, which is commanded by the Church? If there be, the Dispute is at

an end; we will then own these un∣scriptural Ceremonies as parts of Reli∣gion, and justifie our selves, by the Command of God, and the Authority of the Church. Or can the Nature of things make that a part of Religion, which is not so in its own Nature? That is, can the Nature of things make an Action to be that, which in its own Na∣ture it is not? Or can the Institution of the Church make that a part of Re∣ligion, which the Church never insti∣tuted as a part of Religion? I would desire Mr. Lob and his Friends to take a little time to answer these Questions, before they talk again of the Churches making parts of Religion and humane Sacraments, against her own express De∣clarations to the contrary.

2. Mr. Lob here supposes, that no∣thing must be a Term of Church Com∣munion, but what is a necessary part of true Religion; for that is the sub∣ject of the Dispute, and to make any thing a condition of Communion, he thinks, makes it a necessary part of true Religion: And now I begin to won∣der, what he means by Religion, or a part of Religion. Is Government and Discipline Religion, or a part of Reli∣gion?

If they be, I would gladly know, Mr. Lob's definition of Religion; if they be not, are they any Terms of Communion? Or may Catholick Com∣munion, and Church-Societies be pre∣served without any Government and Discipline? Mr. Lob is mightily out, to think that nothing is necessary to Catholick Communion, but the profes∣sion of the true Religion; Govern∣ment and Discipline is necessary to pre∣serve any Society, and therefore obedi∣ence to Ecclesiastical Governors is a necessary Duty, and a necessary Term of Church Communion; and let a man be never so sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship, if he be of a rest∣less, turbulent Spirit, and disobedient to his Governors, and their Orders and Constitutions, he deserves to be flung out of Church-Communion, if he does not separate himself, and will be damn∣ed for it too without Repentance. Though a very little thing may make a Schism, yet a Schism is a great and damning sin, and the less the Cause is, the greater is the Sin. For the guilt of Schism and Disobedience is not estima∣ted from the intrinsick value of the thing, in which they disobey, and for

which they separate, but according to the Nature of Schism and Disobedi∣ence.

3. But the sting of all is in the Tail. He says, That to take that for a part of our Religion, which God hath not made a part thereof, is sinful. How much more so is the making it a Term of Communi∣on. Which few words contain seve∣ral very absurd and contradictory Pro∣positions, and the Foundation of all is ridiculously false; the Absurdities are notorious.

1. That it is worse to make such un∣commanded things, Terms of Commu∣nion than parts of Worship; and yet the only reason Mr. Lob and his Friends do or can assign why they are unlawful Terms of Communion, is, because they imagine them to be made parts of Wor∣ship; for if they be not parts of Wor∣ship, what is the evil of them? Why should men separate for the Surplice, or Cross in Baptism, &c.? When there is no evil in these things? The only evil they charge them with, being on∣ly this, that we make new Sacraments, and new parts of Worship by humane Authority.

2. This supposes, that that may be a part of Worship, which is not a Term of Communion. Otherwise it can be neither better nor worse to make any thing a part of Worship, and a term of Communion. But this is a new Noti∣on, which I believe mankind was not instructed in before, to make that no term of Communion, which we make a part of Worship; which signifies to live in Christian Communion together, with∣out an obligation to communicate in all parts of Christian Worship.

3. What can be more ridiculously absurd and false, than the Foundation of all this, that the terms of Communi∣on are more sacred than the Worship of God. That it is a less Crime to make a new part of Worship, than a new term of Communion. That the purity of the divine Worship is not of that Moment and Consequence, as the con∣ditions of Union between Christians; and yet the only reason, why Christi∣ans are to unite into one Body, is to worship God together? Methinks this should make our new Projectors care∣ful what they do, and make Mr. H. seriously reflect, upon what he has done, who has proposed such new materials

for Union, as were never known in the Christian Church before.

11. His next Argument to vindicate themselves from Schism, is made up, as he says, of Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compared with his Substitutes notion, but the Application and Conclusion, which is the only thing considerable, is his own. Dr. Stillingfleet's Rule is, that Separation is lawful, in case men make things indifferent necessary to Sal∣vation, and divide the Church upon that account. But the Church of England ac∣cording to my notion, makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation. Ergo, we may, yea, we must separate, or 'tis our duty, and therefore not our sin to sepa∣rate, (i.e.) we are no Schismaticks. Wonderful subtil! The Dean's Rule I own, and will stand to, that if men make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account, we may lawfully separate from them; where the Dean makes two things necessary to justifie a Separati∣on. 1. That they make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, that is, that they assert the very doing of such a thing to be necessary to Salvation, as the false Apostles asserted Circumcision

was. But yet 2. This of it self is not sufficient to justifie a Separation, unless these men divide the Church upon this account. This Mr. Lob thought fit to leave out of his Argument, because it would have spoiled his Argument to have put it in. The bare asserting in∣different things to be necessary to Sal∣vation, if they do not divide the Church upon it, will not justifie a Separation. This many believing Jews did. They thought Circumcision and the Observa∣tion of the Law of Moses necessary to Salvation, and yet St. Paul commands Jews and Gentiles to receive each other, and to maintain one Communion; and St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with them to avoid any scandal. But when some false Apostles did not only assert the necessity of such things to Salvation, but would impose this upon all Christians, or break Communion with them; when they separated from the Church, it was very lawful to sepa∣rate from them. And therefore we must correct Mr. Lob's Major Proposi∣tion thus.

From such as make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account, we must se∣parate. This is Dr. Stillingfleets.

Let us now consider his Minor Pro∣position, which, he says, is mine.

But the Church of England makes in∣different things necessary to Salvation. This is the Dr's. Substitutes notion.

God forbid! My notion, I never had such a thought in my life. Well! But if Mr. Lob can prove this against me, I know no help for it, I'le make my Defence, as well as I can. But let us hear what he says.

He attempts two or three ways to prove this, but blunders in each; the first way is this. That which is necessa∣ry to our Communion with the Catholick Church, is according to his Doctrine, neces∣sary to Salvation. Now this I deny. Com∣munion with the Catholick Church is necessary to Salvation, but whatever may be necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church, is not there∣fore in its own nature necessary to Sal∣vation. It may be necessary in order to Catholick Communion, to comply with many inconvenient, though not sinful terms of Communion, and all

wise and good men have thought them∣selves bound to do so, when there is no other Remedy, does it hence follow then, that these good men account these inconvenient things necessary to Salva∣tion? But to proceed, But indifferent things (says Mr. Lob) are necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church, in that, according to him, they are made necessary to our Com∣munion with the Church of England, which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church, according to his constant judgment. Ergo, I confess, what he means by this, I cannot well under∣stand; I suppose, it may be this. That I make Communion with the Catholick Church, and consequently with the Church of England, as a sound and or∣thodox part of the Catholick Church to be necessary to Salvation. But the observation of some indifferent things is de facto, necessary to the Communi∣on of the Church of England, because the Church enjoyns the Observation of some indifferent things. Ergo, indiffe∣rent things are made necessary to Sal∣vation.

Now, 1. I would only ask Mr. Lob in his ear, whether his own Conscience don't tell him, that he has prevaricated here; whether he has not used that term, Necessary to Salvation, in different senses, on purpose to abuse the Dean and his Substitute together, and to im∣pose upon his ignorant Proselytes. By making indifferent things necessary to Sal∣vation, the Dean plainly meant, that they taught, that those things, which were indeed indifferent, though not acknowledged so by them, had such a natural and moral, or instituted vertue and efficacy to our Salvation, that with∣out observing of them, no man can be saved; that they are necessary to Sal∣vation, as any other necessary and es∣sential part or duty of Religion is, the neglect of which, meerly upon account of such a neglect will damn us. Now does the Dean, does his Substitute, does the Church of England, teach indifferent things to be necessary in this sence, to have an immediate and direct influence upon our Salvation? Can any man in his wits, who owns these things to be indifferent, in the same breath assert them to be necessary in this sense? And therefore Mr. Lob's Argument is a ridi∣culous

Sophism, or as Mr. H. speaks, has four terms in it. For necessary to Sal∣vation in the Major Proposition, sig∣nifies very differently from necessary to Salvation in the Minor Proposition; and thus the Dean and his Substitute are reconciled.

But, 2. How shall I bring my self off; for though I do not assert a direct necessity of indifferent things to Salvati∣on, yet I bring in a necessity at a back Door, and necessity is necessity, and if it be a damning necessity, it is no mat∣ter of what kind and nature the neces∣sity be. I make Communion with the Church of England necessary to Salvati∣on, and indifferent observances are ne∣cessary to the Communion of the Church of England, and therefore are them∣selves necessary to Salvation. But yet I doubt not to make it appear, that though the Church of England does re∣quire the observance of such indifferent things from all in her Communion, yet she makes these things in no sense ne∣cessary to Salvation. For,

1. In many cases she does not charge the bare not observing such indifferent Rites with any guilt, and therefore is far enough from making them necessary

to Salvation. Such indifferent things are not enjoyned for their own sake, but for the sake of publick Order and Decency; and therefore when they can be neglected without publick Scandal and Offence, without a contempt of the Government, without the guilt of Schism and Separation, it is no fault, nor ac∣counted such by the Church. And yet did she enjoyn these things as necessary to Salvation, they would equally ob∣lige in all times, and in all cases without exception.

2. Though Schism be a damning sin; yet the imposition of such indifferent things is no necessary cause of a Schis∣matical Separation. Men may commu∣nicate in all or in most parts of Christi∣an Worship with the Church of Eng∣land, without assenting to such unscrip∣tural Impositions, or yielding any active obedience to them, and I suppose, Mr. Lob will confess, that there is a very ma∣terial difference between an active and passive Obedience in doubtful cases. The terms of Lay-Communion are as easie, as ever they were in any setled and constituted Church; as for pub∣lick Forms of Prayer, I must except them out of the number of indifferent

things, for they have at least equal Au∣thority, and are infinitely more expe∣dient, not to say necessary for publick Worship, than their ex tempore Pray∣ers. And then what is there required of a private Christian to do, to qualifie him for Church-Communion; if he does not like the Surplice, he does not wear it himself, and let the Minister look to that. What hurt is it to Pa∣rents or their Children, to submit to the Authority of the Church, in using the sign of the Cross in Baptism? They only offer their Children to be baptized; if the Minister does something more, than what they think necessary and ex∣pedient, let the Church look to that, which enjoyns it: Private Christians, who have not Authority to alter publick Constitutions, are not concerned in that: So that there is but one Ceremo∣ny, wherein they are required to be active, and that is, receiving the Sacra∣ment of the Lord's Supper kneeling, which men thus peaceably disposed, may easily be satisfied in the lawfulness and fitness of, and till they can be sa∣tisfied, may more innocently abstain from the Lord's Table, and joyn in all other parts of Christian Worship, than

they can separate from the Church: So that these indifferent things can be no just cause for any private Christians to separate, and if notwithstanding they do separate, and are damned for it, they must not charge these innocent Cere∣monies with their Damnation. And as for those, who cannot conform as Mi∣nisters, they may, and most of them own they can, conform as Lay-men, and therefore these Ceremonies are no cause of their Separation.

3. Suppose men do take occasion from the Disputes and Quarrels about indifferent things, to separate from the Church, and be damned for it, yet they are not damned for not observing such indifferent Customs, though that may be the remote occasion of it; but for their pride and self-conceit, for their disobedience to their Superiors, for their dividing the unity of the Church, and disturbing the peace of it. Sup∣pose two men should be so well employ∣ed, as to play at push-pin, and should quarrel and fight, and one should be killed, and the other hanged, would you say this man was hanged for play∣ing at push-pin? Thus it is here, it is not the occasion which peevish 〈◊〉〈◊〉

take to divide the Church, which must be charged with their Damnation, but their Pride, their Faction, their Obsti∣nacy, their Disobedience and ungovern∣able temper of mind, which takes such small occasions to divide, and disturb the Church. If Mr. Lob does not think this enough in answer to his Argument, I think, he is a little unreasonable.

III. Our Author has another device still to prove from my own Concessions, that Dissenters are not Schismaticks. He says, that Dr. Gunning, and Dr. Pear∣son, (now two learned and reverend Prelates, whose bare Authority, I con∣fess, is more considerable to me, than all our Author's Arguments) in a Confe∣rence with the Papists, assert, That a Superiors unjust casting out of the Church, is Schismatical. And this I heartily as∣sent to. But according to my notion, the Church of England is guilty of such impositions, and does unjustly excommu∣nicate Dissenters. This I utterly deny. But let us hear, how Mr. Lob proves it.

1. He says, That the Impositions are sinful, is evident, in that indifferent things (as has been proved) are made necessary to Salvation. But I presume the Rea∣der

will see, that this has not been pro∣ved yet, and therefore it is not evident. I will only ask our Author, whether these reverend Bishops by unjust Excom∣munications, mean excommunicating those, who refuse to submit to the just Authority of their Superiors in indif∣ferent things. If they don't, as it is evident they don't, he only abuses them, and his Readers, by their Authority.

2. That the Church of England excom∣municates unjustly, he says, is very de∣monstrable, even in that the Church doth, as I would have it, by Excommunicati∣on, cast thousands out of the state of Sal∣vation, for not complying with little un∣commanded things: But now here are two great mistakes. For, 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation, but casts them out of her own Communion; that this excludes them from a state of Salvation, is not the Act of the Church, but God's Act. The Church does not desire, nor de∣sign the Damnation of any man, but excommunicates them for their corre∣ction and amendment, that God would give them repentance unto life: And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate, when God,

who knows every circumstance of things more particularly, than Church-Gover∣nors can, may continue those in the Communion of the invisible Church, who are cast out of visible Communion. Wilful Schism is in all cases a damning Schism, Excommunication is no sin at all, but a severe punishment, when it is deserved, and contracts the guilt of Schism, when it is despised. He who is unjustly cast out of the Church, ought not to despise such Censures, but to use all just and lawful means to be restored again to Communion. But the Excom∣munication of the Church, and the wil∣ful Separation of Schismaticks, are two as different things, as can well be ima∣gined. I never asserted, that Church-Censures and Excommunications always put men out of a state of Salvation, but I assert, that wilful Schism does.

2. Nor does the Church excommu∣nicate meerly for the sake of some little uncommanded things, but for Schism and Church-factions, and disobedience to Government, which are inconsistent with the order and preservation of any Society, and are not the less sins, be∣cause the Dispute and Quarrel is about some little things. To excommunicate

any man because he will not yield to sinful terms of Communion, i. e. be∣cause he will not break the express Laws of God, to comply with the Laws of the Church, is an unjust and Schisma∣tical Excommunication; but it is neces∣sary to the good Order and Govern∣ment of any Society to Excommunicate those, who will not own the just Au∣thority of the Church, be the thing ne∣ver so little for which they sepa∣rate.

For we must consider, that a Church must first be Schismatical her self, before she can excommunicate Schismatically. Any Church, which either forbids the doing what God has commanded, or commands, what God hath forbid, is so far a Schismatick from the Catholick Church, whose Communion must be re∣gulated by the divine Laws; and if she excommunicates any single Persons, or Churches, for not complying with these unlawful and Schismatical terms of Communion, her Excommunications are Schismatical, because her terms of Communion are so, which is the case of the Church of Rome. But it is im∣possible, that a Church, which is not Schismatical, can excommunicate Schis∣matically.

A man, who is unjustly excommuni∣cated, is cast out of the external Com∣munion of the Church, but does not schismatically separate himself. Nay, though he be upon other accounts un∣justly excommunicated, if there be no∣thing unlawful in the Communion of that Church, (which is the unjust Ex∣communication, which these learned Bishops assert to be schismatical) or he be not excommunicated upon any such account, he must patiently bear it, and use all means to be restored, but must not set up a distinct and opposite Com∣munion, which would be a causeless Schism. For meer Excommunication, though in some respects never so unjust, is not a sufficient reason to justifie a formed Schism and Separation from any Church, no more than any acts of inju∣stice, which private men suffer, will justifie a Rebellion against their Prince; God is the Judge and the Protector of oppressed Vertue and Innocence, whe∣ther it suffer from Church or State, and there only lies our last Appeal. So that meer Excommunication can never make any Church schismatical, or though it may occasion, yet it can never justifie a Schism.

But now when any Church by en∣joyning sinful terms of Communion, se∣parates so far from the Catholick Church, and excommunicates all Persons and Churches, who will not communicate with her in such unlawful things, it is lawful and justifiable, nay necessary for such Persons to preserve the purity of their own Communion, or to form themselves into a distinct Communion in the Unity of the Catholick Church, and to leave such a Church to stand by her self: Here now is a formed Schism between these Churches, and the Que∣stion is, who is the Schismatick, the excommunicating or the excommunica∣ted Churches. And the answer is ve∣ry plain, the excommunicating Church is the Schismatick, because she has de∣parted from Catholick Communion, by imposing unlawful terms of Communi∣on.

So that Excommunication can never be Schismatical, but when the terms of Communion are a Schism from the Ca∣tholick Church; and therefore the whole of the Dispute comes to this, whether the enjoyning the observance of some indifferent and uncommanded Ceremo∣nies be a Schism from the Catholick

Church; and when Mr. Lob can prove this, I will readily grant the Church of England to be schismatical, whether she excommunicate Dissenters or not. But this will be a hard matter for him to do, when the Catholick Church has al∣ways asserted the Authority of the Church in these matters, and has always practised a great many uncommanded Ceremonies in all Ages; but this I have discoursed sufficiently above.

Thus we see, how Mr. Lob fails in his new attempts, to prove the Church of England the Schismatick from my own Principles and Concessions. Let us now consider, how he justifies his old Argument to prove the Church the divi∣der; and certainly never any man was more hard put to it, to make some little insignificant appearance of an Answer, than he was, and yet he puts a very good face on it, and with a brave Con∣fidence, huffs it off, as if there were no∣thing said that deserved an Answer. And I confess, it abundantly satisfies me, what a vain attempt it is, to convince men, who are resolved, not to be con∣vinc'd.

If Mr. Lob, or any other for him will give a fair and particular Answer to those few Pages in the Defence, from p. 22. to p. 53. I promise them to be their Convert, and a zealous opposer of all indifferent Ceremonies in Religion. But because Mr. Lob would have the World believe, that he has done this already, I shall desire my Readers to look over those few Pages in the De∣fence, and compare them with his Re∣ply; and if this could be obtained, I would venture to leave it, just as it is without any further remarks. But least he should boast, that I decline the Di∣spute, I shall briefly consider, what despicable Arts he uses to impose upon his Readers.

Mr. Lob undertook to prove the Church, not the Dissenter, to be the divider by this Argument. The Church without sin can part with their indiffe∣rent Ceremonies, but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them; what then must be done for Ʋnion? Must the E∣piscopal comply in things, wherein they can without sin? Or must the Dissenters sin and loose their Peace with God for Ʋni∣on? And a little after, he adds; This is the state of the Case, the Dissenters would

unite, but cannot, the Episcopals can, but will not. The cannot of the Dissenters, and the Episcopals will not, doth make the division; but who is the faulty Di∣vider? If the true reason of our division lay on the Dissenters will not, when they can, 'twould be easie to conclude them ob∣stinate and perverse (that is, in plain En∣glish, Schismaticks) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not to do, what they can for Peace? But since they would, but cannot without sin, how can they be the Dividers?

This I shewed particularly, was all trick and fallacy. When he says, the Church without sin can part with their in∣different Ceremonies; if by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament, it is false. For all the Bi∣shops and Clergy in England cannot with∣out sin part with these indifferent Ceremo∣nies, till the Law enacting them be re∣pealed. And if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Diocesan Episcopacy and Li∣turgies, as it is plain he does, the Church of England does not account these indif∣ferent Ceremonies, nor think, she can part with them without sin. And when he says, that the Dissenters without sin can∣not comply with them; if by without sin he means without breaking some divine

Law, it is false; for there is no Law to forbid our obedience to Civil and Ecclesi∣astical Governors in indifferent things: If he means, that they must act contra∣ry to their Conscience, that is, their own Opinion and Judgment of things, they may be the Dividers and Schismaticks for all that; unless we will say, that no man, but a profligate Knave, who sins against his Conscience, can be a Schisma∣tick.

Thus as for his will not and cannot. If by the Episcopals will not, he means, that they will not do, what they may by divine and humane Laws, and with a just respect to the good Order and Govern∣ment and Edification of the Church, and regular Administration of holy Offices, they are faulty in it, but may be no Schis∣maticks notwithstanding, so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion: and if by the Dissenters cannot, he means their private Opinions and Perswasions, which hinder their Complyance, they may be the Dividers still, if their perswasions be er∣roneous.

All this and a great deal more our Author passes over very wisely without the least notice; but to convince him of the Sophistry of this Argument, I

proposed another like it, which as fair∣ly cast the Schism upon the Dissenter, as his did upon the Church; and it was this: If the Dissenters can without sin obey their Governors in indifferent, that is, in lawful things, but will not; and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Ʋnion, but cannot; who is the faulty Divider? What must be done for Ʋnion? Must the Dissenters comply in things, wherein they can without sin? Or must the Epis∣copal sin, and lose their Peace with God for Ʋnion? And I added, I would de∣sire our Inquirer to think better of it, and answer this Argument if he can, without shewing the Sophistry of his own.

Mr. Lob it seems, had enough of his own Argument, and durst not venture his Readers with it a second time; but he repeats my Argument by it self, without taking notice upon what occa∣sion it was urged, which must needs make it look oddly; only wonders, why I call this an Argument, and that I should say, that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be, where it is not. So that it is plain, that he durst not let his Readers know, that he had made any Argument like this, or

that this had any relation to his own way of reasoning, but turns it off with, without a shewing Sophistry, where it is not, instead of let him answer this Ar∣gument, if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own. It is apparent, Mr. Lob was here convinc'd, that he had reasoned foolishly, but had not the ho∣nesty and ingenuity to own it. For in∣deed the fallacy of both these Argu∣ments consists in the different accepta∣tion of cannot, and will not; in one sence, they may be turned against the Church, in another sence against the Dissenter, with equal force and truth; and there∣fore without a more particular expli∣cation of these ambiguous terms, it is a good Argument against neither; which must needs make it a very plea∣sant entertainment to any man, who understands the Laws of reasoning, to see Mr. Lob so gravely confute my Ar∣gument without taking any notice of his own; when all that I pretended was, that this was as good an Argu∣ment against Dissenters, as his was a∣gainst the Church, and were both to be answered the same way, by distinguish∣ing the different significations of those terms, as I have shewed above.

But that this Inquirer might not say, that I had used some Art to wave the Dispute, but had not answered his Ar∣gument, I granted him his own sence of the Words, and reduced the force of his Argument to these two Proposi∣tions. 1. That all things, which are in their own nature indifferent, may without sin be parted with: 2. That the Opinion of Dissenters, that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God, is a just reason for parting with them. The first I discoursed at large from this Topick, That there can be no publick and solemn Worship, no face or appearance of any Dis∣cipline or Government in the Church, with∣out the use of some such indifferent things. For all actions must be cloathed with some such external Circumstances, as though they are not essential to the moral nature of the Action, yet are necessary to the ex∣ternal performance of it: Which is pro∣ved at large in the Defence. All that Mr. Lob replies to this, is, that the force of his Argument does not lie in this, That all things which are in their own na∣ture indifferent, may without sin be par∣ted with. How then will he prove, that the Church without sin may part with her indifferent Ceremonies, if every thing,

that is indifferent may not be parted with without sin? I can think of no other way to prove this; if he can, I shall be glad to hear it. But where∣in then does the force of his Argument consist? Why he tells us it is this: That no one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion, as to be a term of Communion. Though I doubt, he would be troubled to apply this Pro∣position dexterously to the proof of his Argument, yet to make as few Disputes as may be, we will suppose the force of his Argument to lie here, and does not this come much to one? Must not the Church part with any indifferent Cere∣mony, which any Dissenter is pleased to dislike, if she must not make any one Ceremony a Term of Communion? And if all indifferent things must not, cannot be parted with without sin, then some indifferent things may be made the terms of Communion.

But here are two things Mr. Lob craf∣tily or ignorantly insinuates, which must not pass without remark. 1. He will not venture his Argument meerly upon indifferent things, he has had enough of that already, but on making indiffe∣rent things necessary parts of Religion,

whereas the Church of England makes them no part of Religion at all. They are not necessary to the moral nature of any religious Action, but to the ex∣ternal performance of it, as I shewed at large. 2. He insinuates a proof of this, that these indifferent things are made necessary parts of Religion, because they are made terms of Communion. Where∣as the terms of Communion are of two forts, either the essentials of Faith and Worship, and what is in this sence made a term of Communion, is indeed a ne∣cessary part of Religion; but the Church of England never made indifferent things terms of Communion in this no∣tion of it, but does expresly declare a∣gainst it. But, 2. The external Cir∣cumstances of Worship, and the Rules of Decency and Order are terms of Communion also, because some such ex∣ternal Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship, are necessary to the external solemnities and decency of Worship; and it is fit, that they should not be left at liberty, but determined by the publick Authority of the Church, and of the State in a Christian Kingdom, to which all private Christians are bound to sub∣mit, as I discoursed in the Defence. But

the great difficulty seems to lie here, that any man should be denied the be∣nefits of Christian Communion, and ex∣cluded from the ordinary means of Sal∣vation, for not complying with some indifferent things, which God has no where commanded, and which no Chri∣stian had been bound to observe, had they not been commanded by the Church, which seems to make these in∣different things as necessary, as the most substantial parts of Worship.

Now as great as this difficulty may seem to be, it is but turning the Ta∣bles, and there are as great difficulties on the other side.

For, 1. It is as unaccountable to me, that any Christian should exclude him∣self from the Communion of the Chri∣stian Church, and the ordinary means of Salvation, for such things, as have neither any moral evil in them, nor are forbid by any positive Law of God, which makes the not doing such things to be more necessary than the Commu∣nion of the Church, or the Worship of God it self. Now, 1. Is not every man as accountable to God for his own Soul, as the Church is? 2. Has any man any more warrant for excluding him∣self

from Christian Communion, for not doing what God has not forbid, than the Church has for casting them out of Communion, for not observing some innocent Rites and Usages, though not commanded by God? For, 3. Is it not a greater encroachment on the di∣vine Power and Prerogative to make that unlawful, which God has not for∣bid, than it is to enjoyn the observance of that, which God has not comman∣ded? The first alters the nature of things, makes that sinful, which God has not made sinful. The second only determins the circumstances of Action, which God had not determined, but left to the Determination of humane Prudence, or Ecclesiastical Authority. And, 4. Which is likely to be the best justification, the Opinion of a private man in opposition to the Authority, and to the disturbance of the Peace and Communion of the Church, or the pub∣lick Judgment and Authority of the Church in preserving her own Disci∣pline and Government, and censuring obstinate and disorderly Members. Let Mr. Lob consider, how to justifie them∣selves in making that unlawful, which God has not forbid, and separating from

the Communion of the Church for that reason, and I will more easily justifie the Church in denying Communion to those, who refuse to comply with in∣nocent, but uncommanded Rites.

But, 2. This Difficulty is the same in all Communions, as well as in the Com∣munion of the Church of England. Neither Presbyterians, nor Independents, will allow disorderly Members in their Communion, who will not submit to the Constitutions of their several Churches; and thereby they make the Peculiarities of their Churches necessa∣ry terms of their Communion. They will no more suffer a man to receive the Sacrament kneeling, nor to pray in a Surplice, nor to baptize with the sign of the Cross in their Churches, than the Church of England will suffer her Mem∣bers to neglect these Ceremonies; and therefore they make the not doing such indifferent things as necessary terms of Communion, as the Church of England does the doing of them, and do as strictly enjoyn Conformity to their own way and modes of Worship, as the Church of England does to hers, and therefore the Church may as easily defend her self from this difficulty, as the Conven∣ticles can.

But the bare retorting of a difficulty does not answer it, though such men ought in modesty to be silent, till they can answer for themselves, and then they will be ashamed to urge this Argu∣ment against the Church: And it is a sign, such men think but of one side, who use such Arguments against their Adversaries, as recoil upon themselves. But indeed the Difficulty it self, when it is fairly stated is no difficulty, as will appear in these following Propositions, some of which are already proved in the Defence; and therefore to save my self the trouble of transcribing, I shall only direct my Reader, where to find them proved.

The Difficulty is, why those things, which are acknowledged to be indif∣ferent, should be so strictly enjoyned, as to exclude those from Christian Com∣munion, who will not, or cannot com∣ply with them. Now to this I answer by these steps.

1. That some things, which are in∣different in their own nature, are yet necessary solemnities of Worship, with∣out which the publick Worship of God cannot be performed at all, or can have no face or appearance of Wor∣ship,

as I have proved in the De∣fence.

2. The Peace, and Order, and Uni∣ty of the Church, and the due care of the divine Worship, requires, that the external Circumstances of publick Wor∣ship should be determined, and not left to the choice of every private Chri∣stian.

3. Since some external Circumstances and Solemnities of Worship must be de∣termined, and yet are not determined by any positive Law of God, it is plain, that they are left to the determination of the publick Authority of the Church, which must determine all private Chri∣stians. For every thing of a publick nature, wherein a whole Society is con∣cerned, must be determined and over∣ruled by publick Authority, or no So∣ciety can subsist. Every private Chri∣stian. in his private Capacity may choose for himself; every Master of a Family may and ought to choose for his Fami∣ly, as far as concerns the Government of it; and the supreme Authority of e∣very Society must choose for the Soci∣ety. For how is it possible, there should be any decency or uniformity of Wor∣ship, any Order or Government main∣tained

in the Church, if it is in the Pow∣er of every private Christian to make the most wholsom Constitutions of a Church, unlawful and sinful Impositions by his private dissent, and obstinate re∣fusal of Obedience.

4. If it be lawful for the publick Au∣thority of the Church, to determine the indifferent Circumstances, and ex∣ternal Solemnities of Worship, it is ne∣cessary to make them the terms of Com∣munion; that is, it can't be avoided, but it must be so. For when the Church determines the indifferent and undeter∣mined Circumstances of Worship, all that is meant by it, is, that she requires all in her Communion to worship God in such a manner, which is the only sence, wherein indifferent things are, or can be made the terms of Communion. So that the Controversie must return, where it first began, about the lawful∣ness of indifferent Circumstances, and Ceremonies of Worship, and the Pow∣er of the Church to determine them; for making them terms of Communion is no new difficulty, for it signifies no more than prescribing such a way of worshipping God; and if it be lawful for the Church to prescribe the Modes

and Circumstances of Worship, she can∣not mistake in making them terms of Communion.

For, 5. If the Church have Authori∣ty to prescribe the Order and Circum∣stances of publick Worship, it is unrea∣sonable to think, that she may not just∣ly deny those her Communion, who will not submit to her Authority, and comply with her Orders and Constitu∣tions; Which is to say, that she has Au∣thority, and that she has none. For it is sufficiently known, that the Church, as such, has no other Authority, but to receive in, or to shut out of her Communion; and if she cannot assist her commanding Authority, with her Authority of Censures, it is little worth.

Nay, 6. In the nature of the thing it cannot be otherwise. Those, who will not conform to the Constitutions of the Church, must forsake her Assem∣blies, for there is no other way of Wor∣ship to be had there. And therefore we need enquire no further, than whe∣ther it be lawful for the Church to pre∣scribe a form of Worship to her self; if it be, she needs exercise no other Au∣thority; for those, who will not conform

to it, will separate themselves without her Authority. And as for the sin and danger of Schism, let the Church look to her self, that she give no just occasi∣on for it, and let scrupulous and tender Consciences look to themselves, that they take no unjust Offence; and this is the only remedy I know of in this case, without prostituting Church-Au∣thority, and the Worship of God, to a blind and factious Zeal. And yet I sup∣pose, no Church is bound to own those of her Communion, who separate from her Worship, and despise her Autho∣rity.

7. And whereas Mr. Lob founds his Objection upon making indifferent things terms of Communion, every one, who understands the nature of Go∣vernment, knows, that it is an unsuffer∣able mischief, to disturb and dissolve humane Societies, though for very little things. Schism is a very great evil; and nevertheless because the Dispute is about indifferent things, the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church, the decency and solemnities of Worship, and the sacredness of Authority, is necessary to Christian Communion, without which the Church must dissolve and

disband into private Conventicles, as we see at this day; and therefore who∣ever disturbs Christian Communion for indifferent things, does as well deserve to be cast out of the Church, as the most profligate sinners. But to return to Mr. Lob.

The only Objection he has against all that I urged in the Defence, is, that I run from Circumstances to Ceremonies, and yet his Conscience tells him, if ever he read the Defence, that he knows the contrary; for I particularly answered that Objection in the Defence, and it seems, I have so answered it, that Mr. Lob thought it the wiser course to dis∣semble his knowledg of any such An∣swer, than to attempt any Reply to it.

And now let any man judge, what an unreasonable task Mr. Lob has put on me. It lies on him (says he) either to prove to our Conviction, that we may without sin comply with their Imposition, (i. e.) he must so far effectually enlighten our Consciences, as to help us to see, that the Impositions are not sinful, and that we may lawfully conform. But how is this possible for me, or any other man to do, when he will not so much as see, what

we shew him? When he is so far from an impartial Examination of the Reason of what is proposed, that he will not so much as own, that it was ever propo∣sed. It is not in our Power to give him eyes, or to make him open his eyes, when he wilfully shuts them. Much less do we desire, as he proceeds, That they should conform against their Consci∣ences, and yield a blind obedience to such Commands; we have had too much expe∣rience of such consciencious men in the Church already, who have conform∣ed against their Consciences, that they might raise a Church of England-Re∣bellion, as this Author impudently sug∣gests, and takes the first opportunity to pull down the Church, and to expiate their sins of Conformity by a thorough Reformation. There is something lies on them to do, as well as on us; and that is freely and impartially to consider, what is offered for their Conviction; to ac∣knowledg themselves convinc'd, when they are convinc'd; to prefer the Sal∣vation of their own Souls, and the Peace of the Church, before private Fame, or serving a Party; that is, in a word, to be honest, and then there will be no need for the Church to part with her Imposi∣tions.

II. The second thing wherein I ob∣served the force of his Argument lay, was this: That the Opinion of the Dis∣senters, that indifferent things are unlaw∣ful in the Worship of God, is a just and necessary Reason for parting with them. Now he does not take notice of any one word of Answer I return to this, nay, does not so much, as represent the Rea∣son, why I place the force of his Argu∣ment in this, which is, that if the Opi∣nion 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, or a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot. Instead of which, he says, I give this Reason for it; if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent, those who retain the use of (some, which he leaves out) indifferent things, cannot meerly upon that account, be called Dividers or Schisma∣ticks, which does not refer to the second, but to the first thing, wherein I placed the force of his Argument. That all things, which are in their own nature in∣different, may without sin be parted, with. Certainly never any man was in a grea∣ter turmoil and confusion of thoughts,

than Mr. Lob appears to have been in all this time, when he was resolved to answer, but knew not what to say. No man, I fear, need convince Mr. Lob, that he may conform against his Con∣science. Make it but his Interest to con∣form, and his Conscience seems ready prepar'd.

Well, but however, that he might seem to return some Answer to my Con∣futation of that Principle, that the O∣pinion of Dissenters, that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God, is a just and necessary Reason for the Church to part with them; he just names it, and then picks some Quarrels with what I had said upon the first thing, that all indifferent things cannot be parted with, without sin, and this must pass for an Answer to the second. And how is it possible to enlighten such a man as this?

But let us hear, what he says. You should remember, that I distinguished be∣tween Ceremonies and Circumstances, be∣tween what is a part of Religion, and intrinsecal thereunto, and what is extrin∣secal only. But you run to external Cir∣cumstances that are necessary in these; which is off from the point in hand. Had

I done so, I believe Mr. Lob would not have been so sparing of Paper, as not to have shewn his Readers, how I did it. But I have already answered that Sug∣gestion, and directed my Readers where they may find the contrary, if they dare believe their own eyes.

But he says, I run from what is in∣different, to what is necessary, as if we call'd you to part with any necessary thing. This is another trick. The case is this: He charges the Church of England with being the Divider, because she does not part with indifferent things, which she may part with without sin. I prove, that though no particular indifferent Ceremony can be said to be necessary, for then it were no longer indifferent, yet some indifferent things are necessary to publick Worship, not to the moral Nature, but the external performance of Religious Actions, and therefore all in∣different things cannot be parted with without destroying publick Worship; and yet if we must part with indiffe∣rent things, meerly considered as indif∣ferent, by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all. This he calls running from what is indifferent, to what is necessary; whereas it only

proves, that some things, which are in∣different in their own Natures, are ne∣cessary to publick Worship, which was very much to my purpose, though not to his.

I gave an Instance of this in some Acti∣ons, which cannot possibly be stript from all external Circumstances. As a man, who is to travel from London to York, is not bound either to go thither on Foot, or to ride on Horse-back, or in a Coach, each of these ways are in themselves indifferent; but yet if he will travel to York, he must use one or other of these ways of Motion, not any one in particular is necessary, but yet some or other is. But says Mr. Lob, One has not strength to walk, another cannot bear riding in a Coach, yet to York they must go. If you will keep to your point, you must say to him, that can't walk, some way of Mo∣tion is necessary to your going to York, if you'l go thither, therefore you shall walk, or not go thither. The force of which Answer amounts to this, that every man must be left at liberty to choose the ex∣ternal Circumstances of Worship for himself, as he is to choose his own way of Travelling, whether on Foot, or by Horse, or Coach. But this also, I had

particularly considered, and answered in the Defence, though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it, and I suppose, should I repeat what I have said, he will take as little notice of it the second time, as he has done the first. The Inquisitive Reader may find dire∣ctions in the Margin, where to seek for an Answer to it. And if Mr. Lob can∣not think of some better Defence, he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismaticks still.

Notes

• Reply, p. 13.
• Ibid.
• Reply, p. 7••.
• Reply, p. 79.
• Ibid. 78.
• Ibid.
• Ib. p. 79.
• Reply, p. 80.
• Ibid.
• Reply, p. 82.
• Defence, p. 27. &c.
• Reply, p. 87.
• Defence, p. 30. &c.
• Reply, p. 85.
• Defence, p. 30. &c.
• Ib. p. 44, 45
• Defence, p. 38.
• Reply, p. 84.
• Ib. p. 85.
• Ib. p. 86.
• Defence, p. 44.