The Design and Nature of Historical Mistakes Found in Stillingfleet, Argument 4
Argument 4.
'Our Diviſions give great advantage to the Papiſts; and the 'Diſſenters by their Separation have caus'd the Diviſion.
To this I Reply,
I. That 'tis moſt apparent that Diviſions among Proteſtants have given the greateſt advantages imaginable unto Popery; as to this, the Dr. and the Diſſenters I verily believe, are agreed. But,
II. The great Quaery is, who occaſions, or cauſeth theſe Diviſions? for 'tis the Divider onelyonly, that is ſubſervient to the Roman Intereſt, which being ſo, our enquiry muſt be, Whether the Dr. &c. or the Diſſenters are the Dividers?
The Dr. ſuggeſts as if the Epiſcopal Clergy were moſt entirely reſolv'd for Union, but 'tis the Diſſenter that is the divider, who is an Enemy to Union, but a Friend to Schiſm, and U…juſt Separations. We were (ſaith the Dr.) in ſome hopes, that Men ſo wiſe, as the Non-conforming Miniſters repreſent themſelves to the World, would in ſo Critical a time have made ſome ſteps or advances towards an Ʋnion with us. Inſtead of this, theſe we diſcourſed with, ſeemed farther off than before. For (ſaith the Dr.) God forbid that I ſhould either deſign, or do any thing which tended to obſtruct ſo bleſſed a work, as a Firm and Laſting Ʋnion among Proteſtants would be. But my buſineſs is to ſhew the Ʋnreaſonableneſs of thoſe Principles and Practiſes, which hinder men from ſuch an Ʋnion, and lay a Foundation for perpetual and endleſs Separations. For upon the Principles laid down by 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 the difference as high as ever. Which will render all attempts of Union Vain; and leave the ſame weapons ready to be taken up by others.
So far the Dr's Miſtakes, which in theſe few words, are many. For,
1. The Diſſenters are at this time as much for Union according to the Terms of the Goſpel as any can reaſonably deſire. 'Tis for Ʋnion they breath, and Pray, and moſt induſtriouſly and ſincerely endeavour, being engag'd hereunto by Intereſt; for as long as Diviſions continue, they are expos'd to the worſt of Miſeries.
2. The Principles of Diſſenters are moſt admirably ſuited for a firm and laſting Union with all ſuch as will adhere to the Terms propoſed in the Goſpel.
3. 'Tis the Dr. that falls in with Bellarmine giving the Papiſts the greateſt encouragment to an abiding by their perſecuting Principles, even when he diſſents from the Church of England.
4. 'Tis the Dr. that hath done his utmoſt to obſtruct a firm Ʋnion among Proteſtants.
That all this, to the Satisfaction of the Judicious, and impartial Reader, may be evinced, I will propoſe in ſhort the true ſtate of the Controverſie, ſo far as I apprehend it; and then detect the Dr's Miſtakes, as to thoſe but now mention'd particulars.
In giving the ſtate of this Controverſie, I muſt intimate wherein there is an agreement; and wherein the Difference doth lie.
1. We are agreed in Doctrinals, and in all the Subſtantials of true Religion.
2. The Difference then is about leſſer matters, and the Caſe is this;
The Diſſenters are fully convinced in their Conſciences from the ſtrongeſt and moſt powerful arguments, That the Word of God contain'd in Scripture, is the onelyonly rule of the whole, and of every part of true Religion. And that what is not according to this Rule is no part, of Proteſtant, or of the true Chriſtian Religion. This great Principle occaſions a twofold Controverſie, the one with the Papiſt onelyonly, the other with the Church of England alſo.
1. With the Papiſt; for by this Principle, we are engag'd to reject whatever Doctrines they impoſe, that are not agreeable to this Rule, and conſequently we reject their Doctrines about Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Indulgencies, &c. becauſe they cannot be found in Scripture. Although there is no Text expreſly forbidding theſe things, yet ſince they are not to be found there, either directly, or by conſequence, we muſt lay 'em aſide. The Papiſts, 'tis true, make a great busſle, ſaying, where is it aſſerted in Scripture, no Purgatory, &c. We reply, where is the affirmative to be found. They ſay, that our Religion, as diſtinct from Theirs, is compos'd of Negatives onelyonly, which have no foundation in Scripture; We rejoyn by denying their Aſſertion, concluding, That the Scripture is a ſufficient Rule for our Direction concerning all Religion; and what is not found there, is not to be embrac'd as a part of our Religion.
2. With the Church of England; Though we have not this Controverſie as to Doctrinals, yet about Worſhip, and Church-Government we have The Diſſenters being fully perſwaded, that ſo far as any Doctrine about Worſhip, or Church-Government, is made a part of our Religion, it muſt be brought to the Rule of the Scripture; whence if not according to it, though not expreſly forbidden, yet 'tis to be exploded. As for Circumſtances of Worſhip, as Time and Place, pro hic & nunc, &c. they are no part of Worſhip, &c. but as touching ſuch Ceremonies, as are made a part of Divine Service, let it be Surplice, ſign of the Croſs, or Salt, and Spittle, or the Chriſme, we reject, as not ſound in Scripture. It being the Principle of Diſſenters to adhere to the Scriptures, and to comply with every Scriptural Term of Union, and with no more.
This being ſo, if any part of their Service, that reſpects no Divine Precept, be proposd as a part of our Religion, yea and as ſuch a neceſſary part, as to be the term of our Communion with them, we are fully convinc'd, That it is a ſin, and not to be complyed with, unleſs we give up the whole Cauſe to the Papiſts.
For either the Scriptures are the whole, and onelyonly Rule of the whole, and of every part of our Religion, or not. If not, then let us return to Popery, or where ſhall we go for a compleat Rule of Religion? But if it be a comple…t Rule, then whatever is introduced into our Religion, as a part thereof, and not agreeable to the Scriptures, muſt be conſidered, as what ought to be rejected; whence either the things impoſed on Diſſenters, and required as terms of our Communion with the Church, are a part of the Religion of the Church, or not; If not, if no part of their Religion, why do they impoſe 'em on us as terms of Communion, or what, may we be fully of their Religion, and aſſent and Conſent to every part thereof, and yet be uncapable of their Communion, if ſo, who are the Dividers? I leave it to the Judgement of the VViſe. But if it be a part of their Religion, 'tis either agreeable to the Scripture Rule, or not; if not, we cannot conſcientiouſly comply with it, for this is to make that a part of our Religion, which God hath not: but if according to the Scripture rule, why do they not produce the Scriptural Conſiderations, that are the Media, by which they would prove ſo much; or How comes it to paſs, that they are judg d but Indifferent things, that are neither commanded, nor forbidden; whereas, whatever is according to the Scripture muſt be according to the revealed VVill of God, for the Scriptures do but contain the Revealed Will of God, and therefore, whatever is according to the Scripture, muſt be according to ſome Command in Scripture, ſince a Command is but the Revealed VVill of our great Legiſlator, and if according to ſuch a Command, not Indifferent; but if Indifferent not according to the Scripture, and conſequently no part of true Religion, and therefore not to be propoſed as a term of Union; or if propoſed as ſuch, it cannot without ſin be complyed with.
The Church of England then impoſing what in their judgment is but indifferent, and conſequently what cannot be a part of their Religion, do impoſe as a term of our Communion with them, what is in our Conſciences ſinful.
What muſt be done then for Peace and Union, who muſt yield? The Diſſenters will part with every indifferent thing, rather than break the Peace of the Church; but the Clergy hath been hitherto unwilling to part with any One Indifferent thing: Yea even now, though the whole of Our Religion is in great danger, yet rather than what is no part of it ſhould be loſt, let Religion it ſelf Periſh. The Church without ſin can part with their Indifferent Ceremonies, but Diſſenters without ſin cannot comply with them. What then muſt be done for Union? muſt the Epiſcopal comply in things wherein they can without ſin, or muſt Diſſenters ſin, and looſe their peace with God for Ʋnion? The whole of the Controverſie is this, Whoſe Honour is moſtly to be valued, that of the Epiſcopal Clergy, or that of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt? for the Epiſcopal cannot make any Abatement of theſe indifferent things conſiſtent with their Honour; They have once impos'd theſe things, as terms of Union, and cannot now Honourably recede the leaſt Iota; The Diſſenters, they cannot ſtretch their Conſciences to any ſinful Impoſitions, but by diſhonouring the Lord Chriſt: What then muſt be done? muſt we to the diſhonour of the Lord Chriſt, ſtretch our Conſciences and ſin, rather than that the Honour of Epiſcopal Grandeur be fullied by a compaſſionate Condeſcention about Indifferent things, wherein they can without ſin Condeſcend, and which would be really more for their Juſt Honour?
This is the ſtate of the Caſe; The Diſſenters would Unite, but cannot; The Epiſcopals can, but will not. The Cannot of Diſſenters, and the Epiſcopals Will-not doth make the Diviſion. But who is the Faulty Divider? If the true Reaſon of our Diviſion lay on the Diſſenters Will-not, when they Can, 'twould be eaſie to conclude them Obſtinate, and Perverſe; what not to do what they Can for Peace? But ſince they would, but cannot without ſin, how can they be the Dividers.
From what hath been ſaid, 'tis evident, that as 'tis the Intereſt and Deſire, even ſo 'tis the Principle of Diſſenters to Unite; Of their ſincerity concerning which, they have ever given Illuſtrious inſtances.
1. In Q. Elizabeths days. In a part of the Regiſter, 'tis thus expreſſed of the Diſſenters; Whoever of them in word or deed gave out any juſt ſuſpition of Unpeaceable dealing? Nay have not they ſtriven for peace, in their Miniſterys, in their writings, in their Examples more than any? — But Notwithſtanding this they have been arraigned among Felons, and Theeves; They have been impriſoned to the uttermoſt, and defaced, and yet they are ſilent. And Mr. Dudley Fenner in his Defence to Dr. Bridges; anno 1587. ſaith, All this they did patiently bear, and came daily to the Prayers, to the Baptiſms, and to the Sacraments, and by their Examples and Admonitions kept many from Abuſes, whereto raſhneſs of Zeal would have carried them, yet now for their labour to their great grief, they are openly ſlandered, &c. Yea, upon every irreligious mans complaint in ſuch things as many times are incredible, to be by the Purſuivants ſent for, to pay two pence for every Mile, &c. even when their Families were impoveriſh'd. But as hath been already hinted, the Providence of God gave them favour in her Majeſties Council, who were convinced of their peaceable diſpoſition, and the regard they had to a walking in all good Conſcience before the Lord.
2. That the Diſſenters at this time are fully ſenſible, that they are engaged both by Principle, and Intereſt againſt the leaſt compliances with the Church of Rome, and conſequently to embrace any juſt propoſals for Ʋnion, will appear from what is declared by divers of them in the account, they give of the Grounds, and Reaſons, on which they deſire their Liberty; where 'tis expreſs, That unto the Reſolution of a ſtedfaſt adherance unto the Proteſtant Religion in Oppoſition unto Popery, we have (ſay they) many peculiar engagements. For
1. Our Principles concerning Church Order, Rule, and Worſhip, wherein we differ from the Church of England, are not capable of a Compliance with, or Reconciliation unto thoſe of the Papacy, but are contradictory unto them, and utterly inconſiſtent with them. Where there is an Agreement in general Principles, and men differ onelyonly in their Application unto ſome Particulars, thoſe Differences are capable of a Reconciliation; But where the Principles themſelves are directly contradictory, as it is between us and the Papiſts in this matter, they are capable of no Reconciliation.
2. We have no Intereſt▪ that may be practiſed on, by the Arts, or Inſinuations of the Papiſts. For we are neither capable of any advantages by Eccleſiaſtical Domination, Power, Promotions, with Dignities and Revenues belonging thereunto; which are the principal allurements of the Papacy; nor are engaged in any ſuch Combination Political, or Eccleſiaſtical, as that the contrivance of a few, ſhould draw on the Compliance of the VVhole Party; Theſe things being ut…erly contrary unto, and inconſiſtent with our Principles, the Papiſts have no way of attempting us, but by meer Force and Violence.
3. Our fixed Judgment being the ſame with that of all the firſt Reformers; namely, that in the Idolatrous Apoſtacy of the Papal Church, with bloody Perſecutions, the Antichriſtian State foretold in the Scripture doth conſiſt, VVe are for ever excluded from all thoughts of Compliance with them, or Reconciliation unto them.
4. VVhereas our Principles concerning Church Order, Rule and VVorſhip, are directly ſuited unto the Diſſolution and Ruine of the Papal Church-State, whence the Papiſts take their VVarranty for all the evil contrivances, which ſome of them are guilty of in this Kingdom, and will ſo far as they are taken out of the Scripture, at length effect it; VVe can have no other expectation from the Prevalency of their Intereſt in this Nation, but utter Extirpation, and Deſtruction. VVe are therefore fully ſatisfied, that our Intereſt and Duty in Self-Preſervation conſiſts in a firm Adherence unto the Proteſtant Religion as eſtabliſhed in this Nation, and the Defence thereof, againſt all the attempts of the Papacy.
So undoubtedly true it is, That the Diſſenters are engaged both by Principle and Intereſt to oppoſe Popery; and in order thereunto, muſt (being directed by the Light of Nature) uſe all Proper means for the ſtrengthening themſelves againſt this Irreconcileable Enemy, the Papiſts; The Union of Proteſtants being the moſt proper Mean, they are Ruin'd if they do not vnite when they may. Propoſe any Terms, how difficult ſoever unto Fleſh and Blood, but not Sinful, and they'l cloſe with them.
Thus I have ſhew'n,
1. That the Diſſenters are mov'd by Interest to deſire Union.
2. That their Principles alſo engage them to do ſo, and conſequently the Dr. is miſtaken as to theſe Particulars.
I will now proceed to ſhew,
3. That 'tis the Dr. who falls in with Bellarmine, entertaining the ſame Principles, and arguing from the ſame Topicks with him.
1. As(a)Bellarm. de notis Eccl. lib. 4. c. 10.— Certum eſt, concordiam eſſe ſignum Regni dei, quod ſtare debet in aternum; Diſcordiam autem, Regni Diaboli, quod tandem ruere debet. Bellarmine doth in the general highly extol Union, Peace and Concord in the Church, making it a note of the true Church, even ſo the Dr. (though he doth not make peace and concord a note of the Church, yet he) doth ſpeak enough of its excellency, and deſireableneſs; For Ʋnion is a lovely Name, which is in great eſteem even among ſuch, as will not part with a Toy, a Triſte for the obtaining the Thing. But
2. Notwithſtanding the great commendations given this Union, 'tis not eaſily obtain'd, for moſt frequently the anteceding Diſſentions are between thoſe different Parties, that are unequally intereſted in the Favour of the State in which they are; whence things uſually come to this iſſue, Thoſe that are uppermoſt, impoſe many Ʋncertain, and Ʋnneceſſary things, as terms of Ʋnion on their Inferiours, with which the more weak and inferiour Party cannot conſcientiouſly comply. The Impoſer is deeply affected with the tremendous conſequences of the leaſt condeſcention; The Non-complier is moſtly employed in minding the Unhappy tendencies of ſevere Impoſitions. The One declaims againſt the Ʋnreaſonableneſs of Separation, the Other againſt the Miſchief of Impoſitions. And Bellarmine, and Dr. Stilling fleet have had the advantage of the Pleaſure of Impoſing; they Agree in theſe particulars.
1. Dr. Stil. ſuggeſts the Impoſſibility of a limited Toleration, and therefore in his diſcourſes about it, his oppoſition is made againſt a General, or an Univerſal, and Unlimited Toleration, even ſo(b)Bel. De Laicis. lib. 3. c. 18. Sunt qui docent Reges de Religione non debere curare, ſed permittere ſingulis, ut ſentiant prout voluerint, modo non perturbent pacem publicam.—At hic eror Pernicioſſimus eſt, & ſine dubio tenentur Principes Chriſtiani— dare operam, ut ea ſides ſervetur quam Epiſcopi Catholoci —docent eſſe tenendam. Bellarmine. (There are ſaith he,) ſome, who aſſert, that the Magiſtrate may permit all to think what they liſt concerning Religion, and live as they pleaſe, ſuppoſing they break not the Publick peace of the State; but this is a moſt pernicious Errour. Without all doubt, Chriſtian Princes are oblig'd to endeavour to keep their Subjects to the ſame Faith, the Catholick Biſhops teach them [yea as to every Punctilio.]
2. As to what the Dr. aſſerts about the Danger of receeding from the ſetled Conſtitution, as if Toleration would break all in pieces, and not anſwer the end, namely Peace, even ſo(c)Bell. ubi ſup. Libertas credendi pernicioſa eſt, etiam temporali bono regnornm, et publicae paci, ut patet primum Gregorio lib. 4. Epiſt. 32. Et cap. 19. Sancti patres docuerunt, ut non ſolum fidei ſymbolum ſed etiam ominia al…a Dogmata fidei, licet Minuta videantur, inviolata ſervemus, nee propter haereticos ullo modo immutari patiamur.—Catholici noluerunt, & Imperatori ſcripſerunt, nefarium eſſe de rebus jam definitis, aliquid immutari: Et ſi quid juſtarum ſanctionum fuerint immutatum, non propterea pacem futuram.—Eſſe p…ſſe. This and much more againſt the leaſt Relaxation. Bellarmine, who ſaith, 'That the Holy Fathers obliege us to keep inviolable, not only the Apoſtles Creed, but alſo every other Opinion of Faith, though it may ſeem very minute, and inconſiderable; neither muſt we for the ſake of Hereticks [or Schiſmaticks] in any manner ſuffer an Alteration. — The Catholicks would not, but wrote to the Emperour, that 'twas very wicked to alter any thing concerning what was formerly determined, for if there ſhould be an alteration of Paenal Laws, Peace would not enſue, even as the Dr. Tis impoſſible to ſatisfie all Diſſenters, and uncertain whether any conſiderable number may be gained by a Relaxation.
3. Twill be difficult ſaith the Doctor, on a Toleration, to keep Factions out of the Church, for upon the Principles laid down by ſome of our Deſſuting Brethren, let the Conſtitution be made never ſo eaſie to themſelves, yet others may make uſe of their ground, and carry on the differences as high as ever; Even ſo(d)Bellar. ubi ſupra—Non poteſt liberum eſſe in uno quolibet dogmate, quin eadem ratione liberum eſſe debeat in omnibus, etiam in iis, quae in Symbolo Apoſtolico continentur.—Si ergo credo Eccleſiae tradenti mihi Symbolum Apoſtolorum, quod non ſcio aliunde eſſe Apoſtolorum, niſi quia Eccleſia dicit. Eadem ratione, credere debeo Sanctos invocandos, quia eadem Eccleſia hoc dicit, vel ſi hoc poſſim non credere, eadem ratione poſſim non credere ſymbolum illud eſſe Apoſtolorum. Thus the Dr. and Bellarmine are agreed, only Bellarmine hath the advantage of a Popiſh Principle to countenance his opinion, which will afford the Dr. very little relief, unleſs he will own it, and oblige 0103 0 us all to believe, as the Church believes, from which if we receede in one thing, we may for the ſame reaſon receede in every thing, becauſe the Church enjoynes a Ceremony with the ſame ſtrictneſs it doth the Apoſtles Creed. Bellarmine, who ſaith, 'That Liberty concerning one Opinion cannot be allowed, but for the ſame Reaſon it muſt be ſo in every thing, yea, even as to thoſe Doctrines which are contained in the Apoſtles Creed.
But as in this, the Dr. and Bellarmine agree, even ſo the Dr. and the Church of England differ, as appears by what is moſt expreſs in Mr. Chillingworth, who ſaith, I have learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church, that nothing is more againſt Religion than to force Religion, and of St Paul, the Weapons of the Chriſtian warfare are not carnal. And great Reaſon; For humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is therefore fit for nothing but to breed form without, and Atheiſm within. Beſides if this means of bringing men to embrace any Religion, were generally uſed (as if it may be juſtly uſed in any place by thoſe that have Power, and think they have Truth, certainly they cannot with Reaſon deny, but that it may be uſed in every place, by thoſe that have power as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they) what could follow, but the maintenance of truth, but perhaps only of the profeſſion of it in one place, and the oppreſſion of it in a hundred? What will follow from it but the preſervation peradventure of Ʋnity, but peradventure only of Ʋniformity in particular States and Churches; but the immortalizing the greater, and more lamentable diviſions of Chriſtendom and the World? And therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgment of carnal policy, the temporal benefit, and tranquility of temporal States and Kingdoms, but the infinite prejudice if not the deſolation of the Kingdom of Chriſt? And therefore it well becomes them who have their portions in this Life, who ſerve no higher State, than that of England, or Spain, or France, nor this neither any further then that they may ſerve themſelves by it, who think of no other happineſs, but the preſervation of their own fortunes, and tranquility in the World; who think of no other means to preſerve States, but humane power, ond Machivillian policie, and believe no other Creed but this, Regi aut civitati Imperium habenti nihil injuſtum, quod utile! Such men as theſe it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State Inſtrument, Religion For if all be vain and falſe, (as in their judgment it is) the preſent whatſoever, is better then any, becauſe it is already ſetled; And alteration of it may draw with it change of States, and the change of State, the Subverſion of their fortune. But they that are indeed Servants and Lovers of Chriſt, of Truth, of the Church, and of Mankind, ought with all courage to oppoſe themſelves againſt it, as a common Enemy of all theſe. They that know there is a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whoſe Will and Pleaſure Kings and Kingdoms ſtand and fall, they know, that to no King, or State, any thing can be profitable, which is unjuſt; and that nothing can be more evidently unjuſt, than to force weak men by the profeſſion of a Religion, which they believe not, to looſe their own eternal happineſs, out of a vain and needleſs fear, leaſt they may poſſibly diſturb their temporal quietneſs. There being no danger to any State from any mans Opinion, unleſs it be ſuch an Opinion by which diſobedience to authority, or impiety is taught or licenced, which ſort I confeſs may juſtly be puniſhed, as well as other faults; or unleſs this ſanguinary Doctrine be joyn'd with it, that it is lawful for him by humane violence to enforce others to it. Therefore if Proteſtants did offer violence to other mens Conſciences, and compel them to embrace their Reformation, I excuſe them not.
4. Although the Dr. ſpeaks ſo much in favour of Ʋnion, aiming at it, (as it is ſaid) both in his Sermon, and his late great book, expoſing Diviſions as what chiefly gratifies the Papiſt, for which reaſon reaſon none can hinder Union, or contribute any thing towards the Continuation of our Diviſions, unleſs they will ſtrengthen the Papal Intereſt, yet the Dr. doth his utmoſt to prevent a Proteſtant Union, and conſequently to maintain Diviſions to the a vancing the Papacy among us.
That I abuſe not the Dr. will ſoone appear with much Conviction to any that ſhall but conſider.
1. That the Dr. is fully apprehenſive from Twenty years experience, That the term of our Union muſt be made more eaſie, or 'tis impoſſible that the Diſſenters ſhould conform, which terms cannot be made more eaſie, unleſs there be an alterat on of ſome Paenal Laws, againſt which the Doctor doth expreſs himſelf with very much warmth.(a)Preface p. 85. That a general unlimited Toleration to diſſenting Proteſtants will ſoon bring Confuſion among us, and in the end …opery.— And a Suſpenſion of all Paenal Laws that relate to Diſſenters, is the ſame thing with a boundleſs T…le…ation.
I am heartily ſorry to find the Dr. under this tranſport, and wiſh he would give himſelf the Liberty of thinking, though but for a few honrs, for then ſurely he could not but find himſelf oblig'd, when more cool, to correct what was the product of an indecent heat, and conſequently diſtinguiſh between a boundleſs Toleration, and the ſuſpending each Panal Laws as relate to Diſſenters only. Doth not the Dr. know, that the Paenal Laws againſt Diſſenters are only ſuch as engage us to a ſtrict conformity to Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies, forbidding the Worſhipping of God in Seperate Meetings: The Paenal Laws that relate to Sabbath breaking, Drunkenneſs, Swearing, Felony, Murder, Adultery, &c. affect the Diſſenters no otherwiſe than the Conforming Clergy, for which reaſon, ſeeing a Boundleſs Toleration is an indulging Drunkenneſs, Swearing, Lying, &c. the Dr. muſt mean, That the not conforming to Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies, and the Worſhipping God in Seperate Meetings is the ſame with Drunkenneſs, Uncleanneſs, Perjury, Adultery and Murder, which if true, the off-ſpring of a Toleration would be as the Dr. ſaith, Confuſion. And is this the Dr's meaning; hath he ſuch high Thoughts of the Divinity of an Humane Ceremony, that what man ſoever neglects it, is as a Murderer, or ſuch low thoughts of worſhipping God in a ſeparate Meeting, that 'tis as Felony? Is not this the equalizing Humane Inventions with Chriſts Inſtitutions? Or rather is it not to repreſent the Diſſenters as Perſons that are as vile as the worſt of men, and that it as much concerns the Magiſtrate to puniſh a Diſſenter as a Drunkard and a Felon. This ſhews the Reaſon why Diſſenters are puniſhed as much as Swearers, and therefore unleſs the Parliament incline to favour Debauchery, let them not entertain the Thoughts of giving the Diſſenters any Liberty. But what is this but to cloſe with Bellarmine, who ſaith, for the ſame reaſon, Liberty is given in the ſame point, it may as well be ſo, in the greateſt Article of the Creed, i. e. But the Dr. muſt pardon us, if we are ſo charitable as to believe that whatever ſentiments ſome of the Inferiour Clergy may entertain concerning Diſſenters, or the Dr. himſelf in the midſt of his diſturb'd thoughts, yet theſe are not the apprehenſions of the grave and Judicious Clergy of England, nor of the Dr. when free from theſe intemperate heats. They all ſee a difference between a Conſcientions Diſſenter, and a profane Debauchee, and that the former may be tolerated, when the latter is for his wickedneſs ſeverely puniſhed. However this is enough to prove that the Dr. is againſt the ſhewing any compaſſion to a tender Conſcience, though for the ſake of Union.
2. The Dr. doth ſet a greater value on the Honour, and Reputation of men, than on Union, or the relieving tender Conſciences in order unto Union. If (ſaith the Doctor, page 89.) any exped…ent can be found out for the eaſe of other mens Conſciences, without Reflecting on our own, if they can be taken in without Reproach, or Diſhonour to the Reformation of the Church; I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppoſe it. Theſe are the Dr's. Terms; for the underſtanding which, it muſt be obſerv'd that the Diſſenters Not-conforming to Epiſcopacy and the Ceremonies is a judging them Ʋnlawful, which is a caſting a Reproach and a diſhonour on the Reformation of the Church, for this ſuppoſeth, that the Reformation of the Church of England, is not ſo agreeable to the Scripture as it ought to be. VVhence unleſs Diſſenters can obtain their Liberty in a way conſiſtent with the Honour of their Clergy, it is not to be allowed them, that is, Unleſs they can wound their Conſciences, and fully conform, no Union. All which doth plainly intimate, that an higher eſteem is to be had for the external worldly Honour of men, than for tender Conſciences. But is this the way to heal our Breaches?
There are ſeveral other inſtances that may be inſiſted on to ſhew the Dr's diſlike of Ʋnion, as well as of the relieving tender Conſciences, which are cloath'd with ſo many an uncomely reflection, that 'twill be difficult to diſcover juſt reſentments of them, without falling under the Dr's Cenſure of being Intemperate, &c. and therefore I will wave them, knowing that there are ſome others more Able, and more Concern'd to conſider them. So much as to the Dr's many Miſtakes about this Fourth Argument.