An answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischief of separation being a letter written out of…An ansvver to Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischief of separation being a letter written out of…

Nor, though it be uncertain to us what Laws they are, the Authority whereof this reverend person relies upon to make our practice sinful, yet we hope he doth not mean to urge us herein with the Laws of the Civil Government, because those as much forbid our Non-Communion (and under as severe penalty) for which he acquits us from the Guilt of Shism (or▪ if we endeavour satisfaction) from any sin imputable to us.

But if that should be his meaning, we desire it may be considered how unreasonable it seems, that the design of the Law relating to that part of our practice which the Doctor in this Sermon condemns, being declaredly to prevent sedition; they should take themselves to be meant who are conscious of no such design or disposition.

And again, that it is not with any reason, Charity or Justice to be supposed, that when that, and other, restrictive Laws were made, either the Temporal ruin of so great a part of the Nation as are now found to be dissenters, was intended by the legislators, or the reducing them to the condition of Heathens. But an uniformity in the Worship of God being, in it self, a thing really desirable; this means was thought fit to be tried in order to that end. And so are humane Laws, about such mutable matters, generally designed to be probationary; the event and success being unforeknown. Whereupon, after a competent time of▪ Trial, as his Majesty was graciously pleased to declare his own favourable sense and intention, so it is very commonly known that the like propensions were by Common suffrage expressed in Parliament, viz. To grant a relaxation. So that the Law, being in its own Nature, nothing ⟨p. 22⟩else but an indication of the Legislators will, we may account the thing was in substance done, so far as may satisfy a mans private reason and conscience concerning the Law-givers intention, and pleasure; though it were not done with that formality as uses (and is generally needful) to be stood upon, by them who are the Ministers of the Law. And that it was not done with that formality also, seemed rather to be from a disagreement about the manner, or method of doing it, than about the thing to be done. And how usual is it for Laws, without formal repeal, gently and gradually to expire, grow Old, and vanish away, not being longer useful, as the ritual part of the Mosaical Law did, being come an ineffectual and unprofitable thing? And how easy were it to instance in many other Laws, the letter of which they that urge these against the Dissenters, do without scruple transgress? and from which no such weighty reasons do urge to borrow now and then a point? How many dispense with themselves in many parts of their required Conformity, that have obliged themselves to it? The Priests in the Temple transgress the Law and are blameless. Yea, and he that knows all things, and who is judge of all knows how little scruple is made of transgressing the Laws by gross immoralities and debaucheries. Men learn to judge of the sacredness of Laws by their own inclinations.