THE Sincerity of the Diſſenters VINDICATED, &c.

IN the Argument againſt Occaſional Conformity, 'tis not improper to obſerve, There are two Sorts of People blame the Diſſenters.

• 1. Their Brethren Diſſenters, who cannot Satisfy themſelves in the ſame Latitude of Principles.
• 2. The Strict Conformiſt.

To me it ſeems as neceſſary to Examine the Dif⯑ferent Reaſons of theſe Opponents, as it is to Examine the Lawfulneſs of the Fact; and as it is a part of the Diſpute which has not yet been brought upon the Stage, it may be very uſeful to bring Parties to a right Underſtanding.

'Tis moſt certain, That theſe two Parties do not Cavil at the Occaſional Conformity of the Diſſenters from the ſame Principle, nor with the ſame End and De⯑ſign.

The Stricter Diſſenter Argues againſt it from a Conſcientious Diſlike of the Practice; the Militant Church-man, from a Diſlike of the Conſequence; the Diſſenter is againſt the Communicating, as a Religi⯑ous [2] Error; the Church-man, as a Politick One; the Diſſenter Explodes it as a Sin againſt the Reputation and Intereſt of the Diſſenter; the Church-man, as a Sin againſt the Intereſt of the Church; the Diſſenter, as it weakens the Diſſenters, and prepares their Mem⯑bers to fall off, and Poſterity to Conform totally, to what their Fathers Conform'd to Occaſionally; the Church-man diſlikes it, as it lets the Whigs into Places, and State Employments, and weakens the Party that are to carry on other Deſigns.

As the difference of Deſign is manifeſt, ſo the Ar⯑guments on both ſides exceedingly differ.

The Diſſenter Charges the Occaſional-Man with Breach of his relative Engagements to Church Socie⯑ties, deſerting his firſt Principles, Condemning his firſt Diſſent, and the like: But the Church-man, with Hypocriſy, Tricking and Undermining the Govern⯑ment, Defeating the Laws, and the like.

As to the laſt I cannot but blame the Heat of theſe Men, who cry out upon the Diſſenters, as Cheats and Hypocrites; tho', at the ſame time, I cannot approve the practice of Occaſional Conformity as ſuch.

As to the Trick put upon the State by the Diſſen⯑ters, it is either an unjuſt Charge, or it is but a Re⯑turn in kind, ſince 'tis plain that the Teſt was it ſelf a Trick, being pretended to be not againſt them, but the Papiſts, and is by a ſtrain of Words bent at the Diſſenters to ſerve a Turn: And allow it had been the Sence of the Law, 'tis plain, by the Conſequence, it was not made to bring the Diſſenters to Church, but to keep them out of the Government, which ſince the Diſſenters have prevented by complying, they are angry the Trick is diſcovered.

The Author of theſe Sheets freely owns himſelf an Oppoſer of Occaſional Conformity, but 'tis becauſe he [3] would have the Diſſenters preſerve what he has often advanc'd in their Favour, viz. That they are really Diſ⯑ſenters for Conſcience Sake, and this he conceives can⯑not be reconcil'd to an Occaſional complying with that from which they had before Diſſented, and on account whereof they could juſtify a Separation from the Eſta⯑bliſh'd Church.

This being premis'd, the Defenders of this Practice are manifeſtly in an Error in their manner of Juſtify⯑ing it, ſince they ſeem to bend the ſtrength of their Replies againſt the Friendly Oppoſer, and not againſt the furious Aſſaults made upon their Integrity, tho' the laſt will appear the much eaſier Enemy to be over⯑come.

This ſeems to be obſerv'd in the late Author of a Book; Entituled, Moderation a Virtue, and I cannot but let that Gentleman know, that from his Title the World expected an Anſwer to thoſe Hot Gentlemen who rally the Diſſenters with Hypocriſy, and State Tricks, in this Caſe, while the principal Part of his Argument lies only againſt the ſtricter Diſſenter, as ſuch, tho' pointed at the Church-man, leſſening the Dif⯑ference between them and the Church, in order to make Conformity ſeem a thing of leſs Moment than it is, for⯑getting that the leſs the Difference is, the leſs the Rea⯑ſons for a Schiſmatical Separation will appear, and the Grounds and Reaſons by which their Diſſenting is to be defended, appear the leſs juſtifiable.

Of ſeven Heads of his Arguments I am therefore rea⯑dy to leave the laſt four for ſome body elſe to anſwer, and only obſerve a little on the firſt Three what the Arguments amount to, which Vindicate the Occaſional Communion of a Diſſenter, as in its ſelf Lawful.

[4]And firſt, as to his Precedents, he is pleas'd to prove that this Occaſional Conformity is no new thing, but has the Warrants of unconteſtable Precedents.

Nor indeed, is his Argument new, any more than the Communion, but what has been before ſtarted, and lately very happily anſwer'd: But as this Author is far from being unworthy an Anſwer ſo as he writes both ſtrenuouſly, and yet modeſtly, he deſerves an Anſwer of Reſpect.

I have already noted a very honeſt Conceſſion gran⯑ted by this Author, that he does not juſtify ſuch as Con⯑form meerly for a Place, but owns it as a ſcandalous Practice.

This is granting all the real Ground of the Diſpute. For, as ſtrictly ſpeaking, it may be poſſible that a Man may really Conform Occaſionally to the Church, with⯑out offence to his Conſcience, yet to run it up to the Extreameſt Nicety, and avoid the real Offence taken at the Practice, is waving the Argument, and falling upon another never propoſed.

Before therefore we come to the Argument, I muſt obſerve that a Man may do a thing without Offence to his Conſcience, which may be really Sinful, and his Conſcience not being duly inform'd, does not make the thing Lawful in Practice, what ever it may be to him.

But as the firſt Occaſion of this Diſpute was chiefly bent at ſuch, who really Conform to qualify themſelves for State Employments, it remains to Examine, whe⯑ther theſe Gentlemen charg'd, have really done ſo, or no; and ſince naming of Names is very improper, and not abſolutely neceſſary in this Caſe, I ſhall only lay down one Caſe in which, I think, without Breach of Charity, a Man may be allow'd to gueſs, that a Confor⯑ming is meerly for the Qualification.

[5]When a Man, who is a profeſt Diſſenter, join'd in Communion with a ſeparate Congregation, and either never, or not for a long time, did Communicate with the Church, but upon ſome proſpect of Preferment, ſome Election, Place, Profit, or Perquiſit, ſhall Con⯑form to the Church of a ſudden, and ſo very remarka⯑bly, as to time, viz. the Eve of an Election, or the like, that all Men muſt gueſs at the reaſon of doing it, and after this the Perſon never to Conform again, but up⯑on like Occaſion.

Shall any Man be judg'd for believing ſuch a Man Conforms for the Place; ſhall this be call'd the Moderate Conſcientious Diſſenter, who this Character will diſtin⯑guiſh from others, let them find out among his Neigh⯑bours who know him, I ſhall go no farther.

To juſtify this Conformity much time has been ſpent, and labour loſt, for I muſt account it loſt, and this Au⯑thor has granted me the Clauſe, which is a Token of his Honeſty, for really it is not to be defended. But here ſeems to lye an opportunity now to cover this ſcandalous Practice with the pretence of Conſcience, and 'tis but being a lit⯑tle wary as to Circumſtances, and we may all, for the future, be Conſcientious Occaſional Conformiſts, and Conſcientious Diſſenters, both together.

And to make way for this, Endeavours are us'd firſt to prove the general Practice Lawful; I confeſs the particular practice above nam'd was always the princi⯑pal Deſign, but ſince it is come ſo far, as that one muſt be defended, or at leaſt conceal'd by the other, I ſhall endeavour to ſhow this covering will be too ſhort for the Bed, and the Shame and Nakedneſs will appear; and as the particular Conformity we are upon is fairly ſuppreſt, I ſhall Enquire, if the General will hold water by it ſelf. And firſt for Precedents, I cannot but wonder at [6] thoſe which our Author preſent us with, John the Bap⯑tiſt, and our Saviour.

John the Baptiſt, ſays he, was an Occaſional Conformiſt to the Jewiſh Church, he went to Jeruſalem thrice a Year to Worſhip, but held ſeperate Aſſemblies in the Wilder⯑neſs, and Taught and Baptiz'd.

'Tis plain John the Baptiſt was no Diſſenter at all, he was a Preacher of Righteouſneſs, and the Jews approv'd him, for all Men held him for a Prophet, but held all the Parts of the Eſtabliſh'd Worſhip entire; he Preach'd, in the Wilderneſs, but what did he ſay, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand: He neither Diſſented from the Jewiſh Worſhip, nor taught others to do ſo, but as a Fore-runner, who went to prepare the way, told them the Goſpel, the Meſſiah, and Saviour was at hand; the finiſhing of the old Worſhip was at the Door, and the Son of God coming to Erect his Kingdom in the World. What was all this to Diſſenting? He preach'd neither a-againſt their Doctrine nor Ceremonies, he Conform'd to them all himſelf, only ſuch as would receive his Bap⯑tiſm, which was only a Token of their Faith in the Bleſſed Ti⯑dings he brought them, receiv'd it; but they were not taught, in the leaſt, to Diſſent from the Eſtabliſh'd Worſhip.

With what reaſon can it be concluded from hence, that Chriſtianity had its Riſe in Occaſional, Conformity, the Concluſion of this Argument ſavours of more Levity than this Author any where elſe diſcovers, and ſeems a little too much a Sophiſm, for a Man, of his Judgment, to offer, in reaſoning upon a Subject ſo ſerious.

Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, ſays he, the Author of our Holy Re⯑ligion, was alſo an Occaſional Conformiſt, God forbid I ſhould dare to write ſo. Our Lord was a ſtrict com⯑pleat Conformiſt to the Ceremonial Inſtitution, in every part of it that was Divine, but abhor'd the Innovati⯑ons [7] of the Jews. And he continued Conforming even to the laſt Paſsover, which he Eat with his Diſciples, and not only was ſo himſelf, but he inſtructed his Diſci⯑ples in the like, They ſit in Moſes Seat, whatſoever there⯑fore they bid ye do, that do ye. Think not I am come to Deſtroy the Law, I am not come to Deſtroy the Law, but to fulfil. 'Tis true, our bleſſed Lord did preach againſt the Innovations which the Traditions of the Elders, and the ſeveral divided Sects had brought into their Religion: he reproach'd them with making his holy Houſe of Prayer a Den of Thieves; with teaching for Doctrine the Com⯑mandments of Men, and the like; but this was no more Diſſenting from the Legal Inſtitution, which was the Eſta⯑bliſh'd Worſhip, than the Prophet Elijah's over-turning the Altars of Baal, and ſlaying their Prieſts, was a Diſſen⯑ting, for if purging the Church from Idols be Diſſen⯑ting, ſuch it was; our Saviour taught, but all his Teachings were full of Expoſitions of the Law, and Comments upon the Prophets, and quoting them where they led unto himſelf. Nor did he omit the Worſhip of their Temple and Synagogues, tho' he took all o⯑ther Opportunities; indeed, to teach the People in all places, but he ſubmitted to Circumciſion, Eat the Paſs⯑over at the Appointed time, and his Mother perform'd her proper Offerings of Purification.

At the Death of our Lord, he pronounc'd the great Work of Redemption finiſh'd; the Law was thence re⯑ſolv'd into the Goſpel; the Veil of the Temple rent in twain, and the Levitical Inſtitution began to ceaſe; I do not ſay entirely ceaſed.

Our bleſſed Lord having Offer'd up himſelf a Sa⯑crifice Once for all, the Apoſtles never were found ſeeking to any Propitiation, but that of Faith in his Blood.

[8]But in the Interval between the Eſtabliſhing Chriſtiani⯑ty, and the entire Diſſolution of the Jewiſh Rites, as a Re⯑ligion the Apoſtles, as Jews born, are found in a promiſcuous Occaſional Exerciſe of both; but what is to be gather'd from it, only this, That it remains to Examine, whe⯑ther the Law expir'd at once, or by Gradations: If it Expir'd at once, when that Time was; if Gradually, when it arriv'd to a total Demiſe.

If the Levitical Inſtitution expir'd at once, and that point of Time was when our Lord ſaid, It is Finiſhed, then it is as Lawful to Conform to the Jewiſh Worſhip, on Occaſion, now, as it was then.

If not at this Time, but Gradually, then the firſt Inſtitution being all of Divine Original, and One only a ſhadow of the Other, the Goſpel being the thing Ty⯑pified, and the Law the Type; it was neither a Diſſent, nor a Conforming, for the Jews to Exerciſe religious Wor⯑ſhip in either, becauſe the Religion was but the ſame thing, and the Ceremonies of the New were not yet Settl'd. But I do not ſay ſo of the Chriſtians who were Gentiles.

But our Author, who has ſaid all this, comes off a⯑gain with this Caution, I am not concern'd to prove the Caſe of our Diſſenters to be Parallel with theſe; but it ap⯑pears that Occaſional Communion may, in ſome Caſes, be Lawful.

But, in my Opinion, if our Caſe is not Parallel, any one might be allow'd to Ask, What's this to us? If the Caſes are not alike, the Arguments are not alike.

I cannot think 'tis juſt to infer, That becauſe Occa⯑ſional Conformity may, in ſome Caſes, be Lawful, there⯑fore 'tis Lawful in our Caſe, unleſs our Caſe, and thoſe ſome Caſes, agree: For, if ſo, then 'tis as Lawful for us Occaſionally to Conform to the Romiſh Church, or to [9] the Jewiſh Church. For, by our Author's Argument, a Chriſtian has nothing to do but to Examine, whether he thinks it Lawful in his Caſe, or no.

But not one Man has yet attempted to Explain this Queſtion, How the Diſſenting can be Juſtified, when we can ſo eaſily Conform: The making a Breach in the Eſta⯑bliſh'd Church, a Schiſm in the General Union; The Breaking off from a General Communion; The Erect⯑ing private Churches, a ſeperate Diſcipline; and all this for Things which Occaſionally we can Comply with.

If any Occaſion can juſtify a Conformity, no Occaſion can be of greater moment than Peace, Union, Charity, Order, Obedience to Princes, Laws, and the like. If we have not thought theſe ſufficient Occaſions; Let us ſee which are Greater.

But after all, pray let us Examine this Great Article of Conformity in the Apoſtles, and I am of Opinion it ſhall come out fairly, that really the Apoſtles were not Occaſional Conformiſts at all.

And firſt in General, I Affirm none of the Apoſtles are ever found Conforming to any thing which they had declar'd their, diſſent from before; but let us Ex⯑amine, wherein they did actually Conform, and why.

If any Man will but give himſelf leave to Diſtinguiſh a little in the Caſe, he may arrive at the Truth of this Matter with a ſmall difficulty: He need only diſtin⯑guiſh between the Practice of the Apoſtles as Jews, born under the Obligation of the Levitical Law, and continuing ſtill under more Obligations than Chriſtian Proſelytes, and obſerve, that as Jews they found them⯑ſelves under ſome Legal Duties which the Gentile Chri⯑ſtians were abſolutely Free from: And therefore all that we call Occaſional Conformity, was only doing what they were bound in Conſcience to do, and had never Diſſented from.

[10]The Circumciſing of Timothy, and the ſeveral Parts of the Law St. Paul Conform'd to, were nothing but what, as Jews, they were obliged to, and their Faith in the Sa⯑viour did not at all take off the Obligation from thoſe who were Hebrews born, and were then alive, they were ſtill Zealous of the Law, Acts 21.20. and the Obliga⯑tion to be ſo continued to them. For this Reaſon the Circumciſion of Timothy is juſtified, becauſe his Mo⯑ther and Grandmother were Hebrews, whereas it is ex⯑preſly ſaid St. Paul refus'd to Circumciſe Titus, becauſe his Father was a Greek.

By this it appears, that Circumciſion was Admini⯑ſtred in Timothy, not as an Occaſional Conformity, but as a Duty, and a Thing which Timothy, as a Son of Jewiſh Parents, ought to do; and it rather ſeems ſtrange it was not done before.

To Prove this, ſee what is, in the ſame Caſe, ſaid to the Chriſtians, who were Gentiles by Birth, even the ſame Apoſtle ſays, If they were Circumciſed, Chriſt ſhould profit them nothing.

The Matter therefore reſted upon ſuch a Conformity as was requir'd of them as Jews, and which the Death of Chriſt could not Diſſolve the Obligation of, to them who were then alive, becauſe the Force of them began in their being Born of the Stock of Abraham.

But if the Opponent, in this Matter, can ſhow me one Inſtance in the whole Scripture, of any Chriſtian, whether Apoſtle, or Elder, who being born a Gentile, did, by this Authority, Conform to the Jewiſh Cere⯑monies, even in the leaſt Article, then I'll throw up this Point; and if not, then I ſhould be glad to meet with the ſame Candor, either to have my Argument Anſwer'd or Granted.

[11]This Matter will further appear, if any Man will but take the pains to Examine the Scriptures in the Caſe: The Hiſtory of the Apoſtles coming to Jeru⯑ſalem, ſeems to me to make it plain, in the 21ſt. of the Acts v. 20. the Brethren come to St. Paul, and tell him, That the Multitude of Converted Hebrews had Entertain'd a Scandal at his Converſation, from Re⯑ports rais'd upon him, That he taught the Jews to for⯑ſake Moſes's Law.

Now it appears, that this was really a falſe Report, by the care taken to Convince the Jewiſh Believers of it, Verſe the 23.24. Do therefore this that we ſay unto thee. We have four Men which have a Vow on them, them take and Purify thy ſelf with them, and be at char⯑ges with them that they may ſhave their Heads.

It remains to Enquire what was all this for: It was not, as is pretended, a Conforming on Occaſion to pre⯑vent giving Offence, but it was a Practiſing that which was ſtill Lawful, that the ſcandalous Report might be Confuted, and the next Words make it out, viz. That all may know that thoſe Things whereof they are In⯑formed concerning thee are nothing, that is, that 'tis all falſe and ſcandalous, and that thoſe Jews, who Belie⯑ved, were ſtill to walk orderly, and to keep the Law.

That therefore the Chriſtians, who were Converted from the Jews, were thus obliged to keep the Law is plain, and 'tis clear the keeping the Law could be no Sin, be⯑cauſe of its Divine Original.

But let us look to the Gentiles, and let them ſhow me one Act of Occaſional Conformity among them, Verſe the 25th. as concerning the Gentiles, who believe [12] we have written, and concluded that they obſerve no ſuch thing; and at the ſame time that the Apoſtle Circumciſed Timo⯑thy, becauſe his Mother was a Hebrew, as is Noted before, he refus'd to Circumciſe Titus becauſe his Parents were Greeks, having ſaid of the Gentiles, That if they are Cir⯑cumciſed, Chriſt ſhall be to them of no effect.

Thus, I think, this mighty Difficulty is over, the Occaſional Conformity of the Apoſtles at an end, and the Uniformity of the Chriſtian Church in its firſt Inſti⯑tution, Vindicated.

Our Commentators, ſay, God indulg'd the Jews the liberty of Uſing, or not Uſing, the Ceremoniale of the Law, as a thing wholly Indifferent; and as what, upon the general Revolution which Religion came under at the Death of our Lord, was neceſſary to Reconcile the Jews to the Change.

Others are of Opinion, it was a Burthen on the Jewiſh Believers, which the Gentiles were freed from, but they oblig'd to.

And this ſeems plain from Acts 15.28. It ſeem'd good to the Holy Ghoſt, and to us, to lay upon you no greater Bur⯑then than this, that ye abſtain from meats offer'd to Idols, and from Blood. This was to the Gentiles, but the keep⯑ing of the Law was a Burthen yet leſt on the Jews, who were turn'd Chriſtians, and then in being.

But be which of theſe Opinions we will in the Right, both allow that it only reſpected the Jews, and them no further than thoſe then alive; and that the Gentile Converts were not allow'd the leaſt Shaddow of a Com⯑pliance, or Occaſional Conformity; No, not to the leaſt, and moſt Indifferent Ceremony. And tho' the Connexion between Circumciſion and Baptiſm was plain, and they were equally Seals of the Covenant, yet for a [13] Gentile Chriſtian to have accepted Circumciſion, had been to make the Death of Chriſt of no effect to him.

And, indeed, as the Death of Chriſt had a poſitive Effect upon the Law to Abrogate and Diſannul it, the Jews, then in being, might be under Vows and Orders, which their Embracing the Faith of Chriſt did not De⯑ſtroy; but if after the Death of Chriſt any Chriſtian, who was not a Jew born, might, on occaſion. Conform to the old Law of Moſes, it can never be Anſwer'd why it is leſs Lawful now.

The Inference therefore drawn by the Author p. 9. that by this it appears Occaſional Communion, in ſome Caſe, may be Lawful, where Conſtant Communion would be a Sin, cannot be true; that is, it cannot be true from thoſe Premiſes, becauſe the Fact of thoſe Premiſes does not appear to be true, either that John the Baptiſt, our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, or any of the Apoſtles, were Occaſional Conformiſts.

As to the Sacrifices and Supplications offered up at the Temple for foreign Princes, or Heathen Emperors and Powers; firſt, I am not Satisfied that it was not an Innovation, or Tradition, many of which crept into the Jewiſh Worſhip, till they became of equal Authority to the Law it ſelf.

But if it were true, it ſeems no more an Inſtance of Occaſional Conformity, than it would be in the Diſſenters of England on a formal Requeſt from the Em⯑peror of Germany, or the Pope, to keep a ſolemn Faſt to Pray for them, this might be Occaſional Conformity in the Emperor to us, but not in us to him. It was a publick Acknowledgment in the Romans, and a Teſti⯑mony to the Verity of the Jews Religion, but it was no Conforming to the Romans, in offering Sacrifices to [12] [...] [13] [...] [14] God for the Welfare of their Emperors; and I cannot but admire for what uſe, in this Argument, this Caſe is brought, being, in my humble Opinion, nothing at all to the Matter.

From hence I muſt lay down, That Occaſional Con⯑formity is not ſufficiently prov'd by Precedents and Au⯑thorities of Scripture.

Our Author's ſecond Head is, to prove, That the Prin⯑ciples of the conſcientious Occaſional Conformiſt are Chri⯑ſtian and Catholick, and will Juſtify him before God and Man.

This Argument, I think, lies a little unfair, for the Man is not rightly deſcrib'd, who is this conſcientious Occaſional Conformiſt.

The Queſtion before me ſeems to lye thus, Whether a Thing that would otherwiſe be Unlawful, is Juſtifiable becauſe the Perſon acting it is not Reprov'd in it by his Conſcience.

The Man is brought in with Extraordinary Quali⯑fications, ‘"Not of a Mercenary Spirit, or Siniſter In⯑tention to the Eſtabliſh'd Church: He believes it a True Church, Owns her Miniſtry, Acknowledges her Liturgy to be ſound for Subſtance."’

‘"But becauſe he conceives the Diſſenting Churches to be True Churches, and their Miniſters generally Men of real Piety, he thinks himſelf oblig'd to hold Communion with them."’ Now, where ſhall we find this Man? This is not the Diſſenter we are upon.

With Submiſſion, this Man never was a Diſ⯑ſenter, he who, in his Conſcience, believes all the aboveſaid of the Church of England, and has no more to ſay why he Diſſents, may very well ju⯑ſtify Conforming to the Church, but I am ſure he can [15] never juſtify Diſſenting from them. Shall we make a Schiſm in the Eſtabliſh'd Church, only becauſe we be⯑lieve the Diſſenting Churches to be True Churches, and their Miniſters good Men? This will never Ju⯑ſtify us.

But our Author goes one, p. 11. to Enumerate the Things for which the Diſſenter quits the Church Com⯑munion, as

• 1. A Defective Diſcipline.
• 2. A Promiſcuous Communion, contrary to the Rules of the Goſpel, and the Primitive Practice of the Church.
• 3. An Impos'd Liturgy, to an entire Loſs of the Gift of Prayer.
• 4. Human Mixtures in the Miniſtration, as the Croſs, Surplice, &c.
• 5. The Obligation on a Chriſtian, to ſeek the beſt Guides for his Soul.

This is a Satyr upon the Church of England, and the True and Real Grounds of a Diſſenter's Separation; and he that Diſſents on theſe Grounds, can never Con⯑form upon Occaſion; if he does, how he can, at the ſame time, Juſtify his Diſſenting, remains with me a Queſtion yet unanſwer'd.

All the Inſtances brought from Dr. Bates, Mr. Bax⯑ter, Mr. Corbett, Mr. Tallents, have ſome particular Exceptions, at firſt the great Diſpute in their Caſes is between Lay Conformity, and Conformity as Clergy-Men; as Lay-men they could Conform, as Clergy-men they could not, and preach'd in ſeperate Churches, on⯑ly [16] becauſe the Church having ſhut the Door againſt them, they thought themſelves oblig'd, as they were Lawful ordain'd Miniſters, not to deſiſt from the Work of their Office, though Man had impos'd ſome Things on them which they could not comply with, but that they were under an indiſpenſible Neceſſity to preach the Goſpel, and to Exerciſe their Duty, tho' they were ſi⯑lenc'd by the Law.

I think the third Head is ſomething of Kin to the ſe⯑cond; for this is to ſhow that the Difference between the Church of England, and the Diſſenter, is but little.

I ſolemnly Appeal to the Searcher of all Hearts, that I am none of thoſe who are for making the Difference greater than it really is.

And with the ſame Sincerity, I proteſt I wiſh it was not ſo great as it is, and heartily wiſh I could Conform wholly to the Church.

And I wiſh the Church, to try the Sincerity of the Diſſenters, would come to a Temper; abate us what, without Prejudice to Doctrine, or Diſcipline, might be abated, and condeſcend ſo far to the Tender Con⯑ſciences of us their weaker Brethren, that all the Diſ⯑ſenters of a Catholick Spirit might come in, and join with them.

But as I would not make the Difference wider, ſo I cannot make it leſs; I cannot bring my Diſſenting Rea⯑ſons to ſuch Punctilio's, and reduce them all to Trifles, without reproaching my ſelf with a needleſs and unchri⯑ſtian Separation: For I cannot but ſay, God forbid I ſhould be found making, or keeping up a Breach in the Chriſtian Union and Charity of the Church for little Matters, and divide in Communion for Trifles.

[17]Our Author ſays, we Agree in all the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity, and differ only in Accidentals; and the great things, in which we agree, ſhould be more powerful to unite us, than the leſſer, in which we differ, ſhould be to divide.

I cannot think I do the Author Injuſtice if I ſay, if this be true, no Man can juſtify Diſſenting from the Church; and if it be any thing but a ſtrong Argument for a conſtant Conformity, then I am at a loſs to un⯑derſtand plain Engliſh.

We agree in all the great Things, and differ only in Small; the great Things, in which we agree, ought to be more powerful to make us Conform, than the ſmall Things ſhould be to make us Diſſent, that is, we ought to Conform.

If this be true, why do we not Conform? How can we juſtify our Diſſenting.

They agree, and none of them ſcruple a Moderate Epiſco⯑pacy, ſays our Author.

This I refer to the whole Church of Scotland, who are all Presbyterians, and have ſuffer'd as much for a Diſſenting from Prelacy, as ever the Church of Eng⯑land did for Diſſenting from Popery. If the Engliſh Diſ⯑ſenters do not ſcruple Epiſcopacy, then I confeſs I am at a Loſs to know why we diſſent.

But then we are led to this Argument by the word Moderate Diſſenter, and Moderate Epiſcopacy, either this Moderate Diſſenter is no Diſſenter, or this Moderate E⯑piſcopacy is no Epiſcopacy. Indeed the Church-men do look on Arch-biſhop Uſher's Model to be no Epiſco⯑pacy at all.

They agree in their Publick Worſhip; their Prayers and Praiſes are, for Subſtance, the ſame, ſays this Author.

[18]Witneſs, ſay I, their Cathedral Worſhip; their Choriſters, Muſick, Singing their Prayers; their Eccle⯑ſiaſtical Juriſdictions, Chapters, Dignities, Veſtments, Bowings to the Altar, and at the Name of Jeſus, their Reſponſes, Anthems, Exorciſms, and a num⯑berleſs variety of things the Diſſenter has no con⯑cern about in his Worſhip,

I wonder any Gentleman of ſo much Learning and Candor, can ſay our Praiſes and Prayers are the ſame for Subſtance.

Nay even this very Author employs very good Rea⯑ſons for our not complying with the Liturgy; nor thinking it Lawful to impoſe Forms upon the Miniſtry, and tye them up to them.

The Difference about Ordination of Miniſters which this Author is pleas'd to ſay is inconſiderable, is the next; and I cannot agree that this is a ſmall Difference, and all he ſays on this Head, ſeems to me to be a good Reaſon, why the Church ſhould agree to allow an Ordination by Presbyters, but no reaſon to ſatisfy the Diſſenter with Epiſcopal Ordination.

I believe there are five Reaſons to be given why the Church of England ſhould allow, and accept of an Or⯑dination by Presbyters, to one, why the Diſſenter ſhould ſubmit to Epiſcopal Ordination.

And if it be only this One, 'tis a great One, which even our Author has Quoted, viz. that Ordination by Presbyters, without the Dioceſan, is own'd by the Church of England, to be Orthodox in that great Act of Parliament, by which the Reformation was Eſtab⯑liſh'd in England in Queen Elizabeth's time 13. Eliz. Cap. 12.

[19]What has been ſince, has been Impos'd by the Craft, and for the private deſigns of States Men in the Church, whoſe deſigns have been not to have the Diſſenters Conform, but to keep them rather the farther from Conforming.

As to the reſt of this Book, I leave the Church-Men to Anſwer it if they can.

As about the multitude of Broils, Parties and Con⯑tentions, the Church has within her ſelf, how Inconſi⯑ſtent with her own Canon and preſcrib'd Rules ma⯑ny of her Members act, theſe are moſt True, and all the reſt of his Heads I readily Grant as his fourth Head, That employing Diſſenters is ſo far from weakening, that it ſtrengthens the Church.

This he may more eaſily perſuade me to believe, than he will the Church-men of the high Party, who rail at it.

Fifth, That Occaſional Conformity is an Advantage to the Church, and weakens the Diſſenters: The latter I believe, and therefore would not have the Diſſenter be concern'd in it, and wonder if the Author believes ſo, how he that is a Diſſenter can argue for the Practice, the Diſſenters ought to thank him for it.

I doubt not but this Occaſional Conforming of the Diſſenters in this Age, is a Prologue to a total Confor⯑mity in the next, and leads our Poſterity to quit that Diſſenting wholly, which they ſaw their Fathers could quit as they found Occaſion; and I deſire him, in his next, to tell us what Advantage it is any way to the Diſſenters.

Sixth, That the late Bill againſt Occaſional Con⯑formity would have been highly Prejudicial to the Church.

[20]I believe ſo, and to the Diſſenters too; and therefore the Lords diſmiſt it, as not proper by any means to paſs into a Law.

His laſt Argument, that Diſſenters, from National Eſtabliſh'd Churches, have always been Employ'd by moſt Nations and Governments, I grant, and he has effectually made it appear.

But all this leaves the matter where we found it.

That Conforming to the Church of England, as it has been lately Practis'd by the Diſſenters, for the qualifying themſelves for Places and Employments in the Government, is a Practice unwarrantable from the Scripture, Pernicious to the Diſſenters themſelves, and will be fatal both to their Reputation and In⯑tereſt.

And tho' really Occaſional Communion does not ſeem Clear to me on any ſcore whatever,

Yet, this is out of doubt, and the Author I have been naming, readily grants it me. That tho' Occa⯑ſional Conformity Abſtracted might be juſtify'd, yet, this is no juſtifiable Occaſion.

Since then, the Diſpute will end as to this Occa⯑ſion, thoſe who are willing to be concern'd in any further Debate of it, would do well to lay down what Occaſions are ſufficient to juſtifie Conforming to the Church, and what Circumſtances are requi⯑red to ſuch an Occaſion; that the honeſt Conſcien⯑tious Occaſional Conformiſt, if ſuch a Man can be, may be diſtinguiſh'd from the Hypocrite, and the whole Party may not bear the Reproach.

And, becauſe this Point has never been yielded before, I cannot diſmiſs it without ſome Remarks, [21] which I judge Natural from the Premiſes, and Neceſ⯑ſary to the Circumſtance.

As firſt, 'tis apparent many of the Diſſenters who have thus Conform'd, have never in the whole Courſe of their Lives Conform'd before; no, not when Perſecuted by the Church of England, have ſuffer'd Impriſonment, Confiſcation of Goods, and ſeveral other publick Op⯑preſſions, and never would Conform: But when In⯑vited to Places of Honour or Profit, have Complied, thinking the Obtaining a good Place, a ſufficient Oc⯑caſion to Invite them; when neither the Laws, nor the Perſecution it ſelf could be thought an Occaſion to Compel.

Now, if as is own'd, Moderation a Vertue, p. 7. This be a Reproach to Religion, and Offenſive to all good Chri⯑ſtians, then they ought to avoid the Practice, or to Regulate it, ſo as that it may not appear to be done meerly as a Qualification.

Another Remark I cannot but make, That if Oc⯑caſional Conformity be Lawful, then it cannot be True, as too many have ſaid, That this Diſpute will bring Perſecution upon the Diſſenters.

For 'tis no Breach of Charity, to ſay none of thoſe Gentlemen who can Voluntarily Conform, will ever ſuffer Perſecution for not Conforming; and this Con⯑firms the ill Actings of thoſe who did ſuffer before, and Conform'd afterwards: For 'tis plain, by their Suffer⯑ing, their Conſciences were againſt it before; and 'tis as plain, by their Complying, that the Advantage ſmother'd the Scruple.

[22]A Man can by no poſſible Arguing juſtifie ſuffering perſecution, for that which he can, with a ſatisfied Conſcience, comply with. If thereforo a hot Perſecu⯑tion ſhould come on the Diſſenters, which God forbid, Occaſional Communion ſecures all thoſe who can comply: For if to avoid Perſecution be not a juſtifiable oc⯑caſion, I know very few occaſions which can be juſtified.

And 'tis for this Reaſon I would entreat thoſe Gen⯑tlemen to let us know what are juſtifiable Occaſions, and what are not.

Now as our Author has furniſh'd us out of Hiſtory with a great many excellent Precedents for the employ⯑ing Diſſenters both in the Governments and Armies of thoſe Nations where they dwelt.

I wiſh with all my Heart he had pleas'd to Ex⯑amine Hiſtory for all thoſe glorious Inſtances of the Confeſſors and Martyrs of all Ages, who have ſacri⯑ficed their Lives even for the rejecting the moſt Minute Articles of Conformity upon the moſt preſſing and ex⯑traordinary Occaſions.

I ſhall rather recommend my Reader to the Hiſtories where ſuch Inſtances are to be found, than trouble him with a long Tranſcription of the Particulars.

Let them who are curious in this Search, Examine the Martyrologies of the Church from its firſt Inſtituti⯑on; and firſt let him but view: the young Maccabees, and their wonderful Mother, and when the Tortures they en⯑dur'd are conſider'd; let them alſo conſider what was the Occaſion, only refuſing to eat a Bit of Swines Fleſh; nay, they would have excus'd them, if they would but have ſuffer'd them to put it into their Mouths by [23] force, which they would not endure, but as ſoon as it was attempted, ſpit it out in the very Faces of their Tormentors; and died, rather than be guilty of Occaſional Conformity.

Let ſuch Men remember Origen, who having been guilty of Occaſional Conformity only in the moſt paſſive manner he poſſibly could, as but ſuffering the Heathen Prieſt to put a little Frankincenſe into his Hand, and dropping it into the Fire, not ſo much as owning it to be a Sacrifice, much leſs owning the Idol to be a God; and ſee his Repentance, how many Years was he left in the Agonies of Deſpair, and how does he bemoan himſelf on that account, calling himſelf Apoſtate from Chriſt, and unworthy of Martyrdom.

The Primitive Hiſtory of the Church gives us in⯑numerable Inſtances of the Conſtancy and Exactneſs of the Chriſtians in this Point.

And I only forbear to enumerate them, becauſe they are to be found in the firſt Vol. of Fox's Acts and Monu⯑ments of the Church, in Euſebius, and in all the Hiſto⯑rians of thoſe Times.

But it may be anſwer'd, That this was a Conformi⯑ty to what was abſolutely unlawful, Idolatrous, and abominable, which is not to be alledged here.

To this I rejoin, he that Diſſents from the Church of England does it, becauſe he cannot in Conſcience Com⯑ply, or elſe he can have no juſtifiable Reaſon for Diſſent⯑ing. Now all things are unlawful to him, which his Conſcience is not ſatisfied about, and tho' not equal⯑ly abominable, are ſo much ſo, as that no Man can comply with them ſafely. But to obviate the Ob⯑jection [24] wholly, we will come nearer to the preſent Caſe.

The Church of England to her Glory be it ſpoken, is founded in the numerous throng of bleſſed Mar⯑tyrs and Confeſſors, who have left their Memory and Example as a laſting Teſtimony againſt Occaſional Conformity, even in the ſmall, and ſome of them indif⯑ferent things.

Bleſſed Biſhop Hooper when he came to the Stake to ſeal with his Blood, the Teſtimony of his Faith, and when in the laſt Agonies of his Life, the Queens Par⯑don was offer'd upon Terms, very much ſhort of a total Conformity, only to ſet his Hand to an acknow⯑ledgement; cried out before it was read; If you Love my Soul away with it.

Let us now look abroad in Times more Modern, and within our Memory, and what are all the new Converts as they are call'd in France, but Occaſional Conformiſt.

The Fire of Perſecution having burnt up the Prote⯑ſtant Church, all thoſe who could not ſtand the brunt, not make their eſcape, or ſuch whoſe Religion had not force enough with them, to make them ſuffer the loſs of all, what did they do, they fly to this very refuge Occaſional Conformity, and if the Arguments are Examin'd, they are much the ſame with Ours.

The Proteſtants do not deny but 'tis poſſible to be ſav'd in the Roman Church, and they may, upon occa⯑ſion therefore Conform in ſome things, while, at the ſame time, they reſerve their Minds and Hearts entire⯑ly to the true Worſhip; and Naaman, the Syrian, ſay they, was ſuch an Occaſional Conformiſt, to whom the Prophet gave a tacit Licence, when, upon the propoſal, he reply'd, Go in Peace.

[25]Here is the only Inſtance of Occaſional Conformity, which exactly reaches our Caſe that I remember; and I ſee nothing can be ſaid to juſtifie Ours, which may not juſtify Theirs, only, that indeed the diffe⯑rence is not ſo great between Proteſtant and Prote⯑ſtant, as between Proteſtant and Roman Catho⯑lick.

But if the difference here be great enough to juſti⯑fie a Diſſenting for Conſcience ſake, the Argument is the ſame.

The Caſe of kneeling in the Street when the Roman Proceſſions come by, is as parallel to our Impos'd Ceremonies, as any thing in two different Religions can be, and yet, thus they Occaſionally Conform, and pleaſe themſelves with fancying that they do not do it as an Act of Worſhip. But our Martyrs in Queen Mary's time, frequently Sacrific'd their Blood on more minute Circumſtances than that, as not ſuffering a Child to be Baptiz'd, tho' by Force, in the Caſe of Mr. Glover, Mrs. Lane, John Field, throwing down the Rood of Dover Court, and the like.

Now let any Man Examine the Occaſional Confor⯑mity of the Hugonots in France, and tell me, if the Conſequence is not very probable to be this, that one Age may make all their poſterity Roman Catholicks, Vice Verſa.

And what is the Opinion their Brethren, who are in Baniſhment, have of them. Come les Perſons, qu on Avez Vendue leur Religion, as Perſons that have ſold their Religion, People who have Tainted their Principles and teſtify'd that they cannot part with their Eſtates to pre⯑ſerve their Conſciences.

[26]They are ſtill Proteſtants on their Inclination, and they pleaſe themſelves, that this Conformity is juſtify'd by the occaſion of it, and let them that like it follow their Example.

I am not concern'd here to prove that the Church of Rome is no true Church, that Popery is Idolatry, and that the Caſes therefore do not agree. The Diſ⯑ſenting in both Caſes is for Conſcience ſake, and there⯑in the Caſes are Parallel: We were once all of the Roman Church, and had never remov'd from thence, but from Scruples of Conſcience, and we are now Diſſenters from the Church of England from ſcruple of Conſcience: We own the Church of England to be a true Church, and we do not deny Salvation to the Members of the Roman; there are things in the Church of England we cannot comply with, and there are ſome things in the Church of Rome which we could comply with, but there are things in both we Diſſent from, and Occaſional Conformity to thoſe very things, can be juſtified from very few reaſons on one ſide, which will not hold good on the other.

This in ſhort then is the plain Concluſion of this Matter. Occaſional Conformity to a Church from which we have ſeparated, and in thoſe things for which we ſeperated, viz. Communion does not appear to be lawful or juſtifiable in a Diſſenter, nor are there any Pre⯑cedents for it in the Scripture.

But Occaſional Conformity being practis'd as a Quali⯑fication for Civil Employments, is a Reproach to Reli⯑gion, and ſcandalous to the Diſſenters.

The laſt is fairly acknowledg'd by the Author of Moderation a Vertue, and I think the firſt is made plain in theſe Sheets.

[27]Of the whole Argument then this is the ſum.

1. Thoſe Diſſenters who are yet of the Opinion, it is not unlawful in it ſelf, ſhould take care to practiſe it ſo, as that thoſe Circumſtances of Qualification may not be ſuſpected.

2. They ſhould ſtate what are ſufficient Occaſions to juſtifye our Conforming, to what at other times we have Diſſented from, and give us Scripture Authorities to prove them.

3. They ought to let us ſee how they can juſtifye Diſſenting at all, if they can defend Conforming again.

4. They ought to prove that the Conformity, or Occaſional Conformity (as they call it) of Chriſt, and the Apoſtles, was to ſuch things as were meerly of Mans' Appointment, or purely to ſuch as were Divine; or whether they Conform'd to any thing they Diſſen⯑ted from before.

But till ſome of theſe Points are ſettled, I cannot but think the whole practice of it a Scandal to the Diſſen⯑ters, ruinous to their Intereſt; and tends to the redu⯑cing them all or their Poſterity at leaſt to an abſolute total Conformity, or at beſt a general Indifferency in Matters of Religion.