him without his consent for I doubt Church-authority does not extend to such matters which are purely civil and secular and though when such things are highly expedient for the Worship of God the Bishop has authority to exhort and perswade and that man sins who disobeys yet this is not properly the object of Church-censures and Ecclesiastical authority no more than when men refuse to do some pious or charitable act at the Bishops request Philemon's obligations to St. Paul who was his spiritual Father who had converted him to the Christian Faith gave him a peculiar authority over him but the bare Apostolical authority did not extend to the disposal of mens Fortunes and Servants which in those days were part of their Estates 3. In those things where God had interposed no command though the Rule they gave contained in it that which was fit and decent yet if men would resist they gently did admonish reprove them let them alone So S. Paul in case of the Corinthian men wearing long hair If any man list to be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God that is let him chuse it is not well done we leave him to his own liberty but let him look to it But this does not reach the case neither for wearing long hair did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies and Uniformity of religious Worship which is our onely Dispute but was an Indecency in common conversation and a great many such things the Apostles indulged both to Jews and Heathens till they could be reformed by Reason and better Instructions though at the same time they did more severely correct the Disorders and Indecencies of Worship And yet I confess it seems a very odd Comment upon the Apostles words We have no such custom nor the Churches of God viz. let him chuse it is not well done we leave him to himself Whereas in these words the Apostle is so far from leaving them to do as they please that he determines the Controversie against them by the highest Authority to a Christian next to an express Law of God viz. the Customs and Usages of the Christian Church The Apostle indeed does not here threaten Church-censures against them but first tries what Reason and Argument will do which is a very proper method for Bishops to use but a very ill Argument to prove that the Church must not censure those who refuse Obedience to her Laws and Constitutions 4. If the Bishops power were extended farther it might extend to Tyranny and there could be no limits beyond this to keep him within the measures and sweetness of the Government Evangelical but if he pretend to go farther he may be absolute and supreme in the things of this life which do not concern the Spirit and so fall into Dynasty as one anciently complained of the Bishop of Rome and change the Father into a Prince and the Church into an Empire This is a plain Argument that the Bishop does not speak here of the decent Rites and Circumstances of Worship for how the Authority of the Church to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion should degenerate into Tyranny and secular Power is unintelligible to me The Usurpations of the Church of Rome we know came in at another door and the Presbyter who has little regard to the external Order and Decency of Worship can find other pretences to get some secular power into his hands But what limit can be set to Ecclesiastical Authority if the Church exceed what is barely necessary to prevent confusion in religious Worship I answer Decency is the bound of it and there needs no other What is decent and orderly in religious Worship belongs to Church-authority what is more is an irregular abuse and there is no great danger that such a Power as this should make Bishops secular Princes This makes it evident to me that this learned Prelate intended not one word of all this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England or the imposition of them and it is certain he could not unless we will say that he contradicts himself and then his authority is good on neither side And I shall make this appear once for all and thereby answer the Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop to countenance this Reconciling Designe all together I observe then that the Bishop himself does expresly justifie the Ceremonies of the Church of England as not offending against any of those Rules he had prescribed for Ecclesiastical Laws When he speaks of Rituals and significant Ceremonies and censures such Ceremonies which are meerly for signification which seems to come nearest to our Case there he designedly not onely vindicates the Practice but applauds the Wisdom of the Church of England in reference to her Ceremonies There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom of the Church of England which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ritual or Ceremony that is not of divine Ordinance or Apostolical Practice and that is the Cross in Baptism which though it be a significant Ceremony and of no other use though in this I cannot agree with the Bishop and have given my reasons for it above so it is very innocent in it self and being one and alone is in no regard troublesome or afflective to those who understand her power her liberty and reason I say she hath one onely Ceremony of her own appointment for the Ring in Marriage is the Symbol of a â—ivil and religious Contract it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation not of the Religion And those other Circumstances of her Worship are but determinations of time and place and manner of a Duty they serve to other purposes besides signification they were not made for that but for Order and Decency for which there is an Apostolical Precept and a natural reason and an evident necessity or a great convenience Now if besides these uses they can be construed to any good signification or instruction that is so far from being a prejudice to them that it is their advantage their principal end being different and warranted and not destroyed by their superinduc'd and accidental use In other things we are to remember that Figures and Shadows were for the Old Testament but Light and Manifestation is in the New This is the judgment of this excellent Bishop about the Ceremonies of the Church of England which I think makes little for our Reconcilers purpose and therefore when he had transcribed that large Discourse about Rituals and Ceremonies meerly for signification out of the Bishops Writings he stops when he comes to this as being convinc'd in his Conscience that the Bishop did not intend one word of this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England which he expresly excepted and justified Well but though the Bishop out of civility to the Church made such an exception yet there was no reason for it his Arguments were as strong against the
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
us is on our part And if he were not a Disciple his very working Miracles in Christ's Name was a very likely way to make him and others also the Disciples of Christ and therefore might be permitted by our Lord for that very reason Forbid him not for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me But was not our Reconciler asleep when he tells us that this man did not hold Communion with the Disciples What Communion then was he of Was he not a Jew and a Member of the Jewish Church And was he not then in Communion with Christ and his Apostles For did not Christ all the time he was on Earth live in Communion with the Jewish Church Did he set up any distinct Church and Communion of his own But I perceive our Reconciler is of Mr. Baxter's mind that Church-Communion is a presential Communion And because he did not always follow Christ and give his personal attendance on him therefore he could not hold Communion with him And now let our Reconciler try again how from this Example he can prove that Schismaticks must be suffered to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom VII And yet it is wonderful to observe how he turns the Tables in his next Argument and proves from Christ's being the good Shepherd who lays down his life for his Sheep that the Governours of the Church should part with their indifferent things to preserve the Sheep from such Thieves that is Schismatical Preachers those who if his last Argument be good ought not to be forbid to preach though they do not profess Communion with us But I must tell him That for the Church to destroy her Constitution to pull down all her Hedges and Fences is the way to let in these Thieves as he calls them not to keep them out VIII His last Argument is of the same nature That because Christ prays for the unity of the Church therefore to procure this unity and concord we must part with all unnecessary things which do not in the least advance his Kingdom And truly I think so too but if the external Decency of Worship is not so unnecessary a thing nor easily to be parted with if parting with these Ceremonies will not heal our Schisms and Divisions of which I have discours'd largely already there needs no other Answer to be returned to this Argument He concludes this Chapter with retorting some of these Arguments upon the Dissenters I have answered for the Church let the Dissenters now try how they can answer for themselves for he very truly observes that they fall with more weight upon them To prefer some arbitrary Platforms of Worship and Discipline which God has nowhere instituted or commanded before the substantial Duties of Peace and Unity and Obedience to Government looks more like an offence against that Law I will have mercy and not sacrifice than what he charges upon the Church and to forbid the observation of the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship as unlawful and superstitious is a much more intolerable yoke and burden than the imposition of them But I shall leave the Dissenters and our Reconcileâ— to adjust this matter among themselves CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to our Reconciler's Arguments drawn from the 14th and 15th Chapters to the Romans THough our Reconciler makes a great flourish with a multitude of Arguments as usually those men do who cannot find one good one yet he seems to put the greatest confidence in those Arguments which are drawn from that condescension and mutual forbearance which St. Paul requires the Jewish and Gentile Converts who differed about the observation of the Mosaical Law to exercise towards each other And this I confess were a very good Argument if it were a parallel Case But I suppose our Reconciler will grant that there are some cases wherein it is very reasonable to exercise such forbearance and yet there may be other cases wherein it is not prudent and reasonable to allow the same Indulgence and therefore it does not follow that because St. Paul required the Jewish and Gentile Christians to forbear each other in their Disputes about the Mosaical Law therefore the Governours of the Church must forbear Dissenters and not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship nor exact Conformity to them unless it appear that these two cases are the same or so like to each other that we may fairly argue from one to the other That these cases are not alike and that the Apostle's Arguments for mutual forbearance are not applicable to the case of our Dissenters I doubt not but I shall make so plain as to satisfie all impartial Readers And this I hope may pass for an Answer to his fourth Chapter I. Then I observe that St. Paul in the 14th Chapter to the Romans onely exhorts the Jewish and Gentile Christians to mutual forbearance in such cases which had been already decreed and determined by the highest Authority in the Church There is a great Dispute between our Reconciler and Dr. Womack now the Reverend Bishop of St. Davids to whom this Epistle was directed Whether onely to the private Christians at Rome or to Church-Governours also and consequently whether it be the duty onely of private Christians or of Church-Governours also to exercise this forbearance towards Dissenters The Bishop supposes that there was no Presbytery setled at Rome at this time and offers several Arguments to prove it Our Reconciler attempts to answer these Arguments and to prove the contrary that the Church of Rome whose Faith was spoken of throughout the World could not be without a setled Ministry at that time I am not willing to interpose in this Dispute for though it would be of great moment to answer all our Reconciler's Arguments from this Chapter were it certain that St. Paul did not designe these directions for Church-Governours but onely for private Christians as an Expedient to preserve Peace and Unity till these Disputes should be determined by a just Authority yet whatever fair probabilities there may be of this I doubt there is not evidence enough for it to convince a Reconciler or an obstinate Dissenter And indeed upon the principle which I have now laid down there is no need of this for whether these Exhortations to forbear one another and to receive one another and not to judge condemn or despise one another concern private Christians or Church-Governours or equally both yet since this forbearance extends onely to such cases as were determined by Ecclesiastical Authority to be the proper matter for the exercise of this Christian charity and forbearance every one sees how impertinently it is alleadged by our Reconciler to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Customs and Usages which are scrupled by our Dissenters For what consequence is there in this that because private Christians or Church-Governours must allow the free exercise of
imposing the Ceremonies now used in the Church of England because it hath been proved already that they have nothing of this nature in them that is nothing of positive Order or Decency But what he says has been proved already I have made appear is not proved by him yet and I hope I have proved the contrary But if the Ceremonies of our Church which are nothing else but the decent circumstances of action or contribute to the Gravity and Solemnity of religious actions have no positive Decency and therefore cannot be prescribed by the Church I desire to know what that positive Decency is which the Church has authority to command for if it does not extend to the determination of the necessary circumstances of action I cannot see that the Church has any authority in matters of Decency And if as the Bishop says the Rulers of the Church are the perpetual Iudges and Dictators in such matters which he seems to assent to how does it become the great modesty of our Reconciler to assert That there is no positive Decency and Order in those Ceremonies which the Church has appointed for the sake of Decency and Order If the Rulers of the Church be the proper Judges of this how does our Reconciler come by this authority to judge his Judges II. Our Reconciler adds a limitation of this Rule That all things be done decently and in order in the words of the same Reverend Bishop That it is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament but is to be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion The reason is because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their duty unless things be so orderly that there is no confusion But if it can go beyond this limit then it can have no natural limit but may extend to Sumptuousness to Ornaments of Churches to rich Vtensits to Splendour and Majesty for all that is decent enough and in some circumstances very fit But because this is too subject to abuse and gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops and an authority over mens estates and fortunes and is not necessary for Souls nor any part of spiritual Government it is more than Christ gave to his Ministers How much our Reconciler has injured this learned Prelate by his numerous citations of his words to a quite different sence from what he intended shall be made appear before I leave this Argument though he has dealt no worse by him than he has by Christ and his Apostles whose words â—e has as grosly abused That this excellent Bishop had no designe in this or any thing else which our Reconciler transcribes from him to reflect on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England I have more than one reason to believe as will appear presently and therefore though I could not give an account of every particular expression yet none but such a Protestant Reconciler would expound any of his words in contradiction to his declared sence of things I am sure what he here says if it be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England has no reason in it and that is a sufficient Argument to me that he never meant it so For 1. Supposing this to be true That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament this does not concern the Church of England which has no such Ceremonies as are meerly for ornament And therefore the Church has authority enough to prescribe the decent Rites and Modes of Worship though she have not authority to make her Worship gay and theatrical which indeed is not decent and therefore not contained within this Rule The Bishop never thought of the Church of England when he gave this Rule but had his eye upon the fantastick Ceremonies and Amusements of the Romish Worship 2. But yet when he says That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament it is evident that he does not exclude all Ornaments neither if they serve any ends of Religion beside For if they be really such Decencies and Ornaments as become Religion and Christian Worship I cannot imagine any reason why they should not be included in the Rule of Decency and Order Such Decency and Order as is opposed to confusion and disorder is always necessary and may always be had what state soever the Church is in while there is any publick face of a Church Ornamental Decencies cannot always be had and therefore do not always oblige as in the case of Persecutions But why any man should say that the Authority of the Church does not extend to Ornaments when it is in her power to adorn the Worship of God I cannot guess Must there be no difference between the afflicted and prosperous state of the Church When God has made in all other things a distinction between Necessaries Conveniences and Ornaments does he allow nothing but what is barely neâ—essary to his own Worship It is possible indeed that men may mistake in what they call the Ornaments of Religion as the Church of Rome evidently does but if they do not mistake and have it in their power to give an external beauty and lustre to Religion do they exceed their Commission in this too The Bishop acknowledges that Sumptuousness Ornaments of Churches rich Vtensils Splendour and Majesty is decent enough and in some circumstances very fit and I should much have wondered had he denied it Now when these things are decent and fit does it exceed the Authority of the Church to appoint them Can any thing be decent and fit to be done in any circumstances which the Church has no Authority to do And therefore when he says that meer Ornaments are not comprehended within the Rule of Decency and Order he means no more by it than that the Governours of the Church are not so strictly obliged to take care of the external Ornaments of Religion which cannot be had at all times as they are of the Decency and Order of Worship Ornaments are very fitting when they can be had but the Bishop has not authority to oblige the People to the charges and expences of such Ornaments unless they freely and willingly consent And that this is his meaning appears from the Reasons he gives of it That this is too subject to abuse and that it gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops and an authority over mens Estates and Fortunes Which are good Arguments onely upon this supposition that the Bishop had such authority as to oblige his People to such expences as he should think fit for the Ornaments of Religion but suppose devout people liberally contribute to such pious uses if his Authority and Commission does not extend to Ornaments he must not receive their money nor adorn the Church with it if he may then his Authority extends to Ornaments though he has no Authority over mens Estates for he must not do any thing in
the Church which he has no authority to do But this is not necessary for mens Souls Right and therefore not an absolute and necessary Duty otherwise how does it appear that the Bishops Authority extends onely to Necessaries Why may not the Honour of God and the external Beauty of his Worship be considered in Religion as well as the salvation of mens Souls Why may not spiritual advantages find place in our Worship as well as what is barely necessary But it is no part of spiritual Government Right not to seize mens Estates to adorn the Worship of God By these Reasons he proves that this is more Authority than Christ has given to his Ministers From whence we may easily learn what kind of Authority he means such an absolute Authority to adorn Religion as gives the Bishop authority over mens Estates for such prous uses But Christ has given Authority to his Ministers to take care of the Decency of Worship and therefore their Authority is of equal extent with the Decencies of Religion 3. When that Reverend Bishop says That Rule Let all things be done decently and in order must be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion he must have some larger notion of confusion than the usual signification of that word will justifie for men may avoid all confusion and yet neglect all the natural Decencies of religious Worship The Meetings of Quakers may be very orderly without any confusion and yet without any Decency And the reason the Bishop assigns for this Because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their Duty unless things be so orderly that there be no confusion is a very good reason against confusion but is no reason at all to prove that the Rule of Decency and Order extends no farther than to rescue from confusion in the common acceptation of the word for there is something more required in religious Assemblies than meerly that the Bishop or Pastor may do his Duty without disturbance and confusion viz. that the People worship God in such a decent manner as becomes the divine Majesty The external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship are an essential part of Religion and therefore naturally belong to the care of Church-Governours whether there had been any Law for it or no much more when they are commanded to do all things decently and in order we may reasonably conclude that their Authority extends to whatever is truly decent in Religion But our Reconciler thinks that this limitation of the words to matters done in confusion and disorder may be plainly gathered from all the instances preceding which gave occasion to the Rule they being instances of great indecencies and disorders committed in the Church of Corinth And from thence he tells us This onely can be certainly collected that when any thing is performed indecently and disorderly in the Service of the Church the Rulers of it should correct them And to the same purpose he urges an Argument of Mr. Ieanes The words of the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order are not disobeyed unless there be some indecency committed in the Worship and Service of God or some disorder in it for Decency and Indecency Order and Disorder or Ataxy are privatively opposite and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no indecency But now by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no indecency in those parts of the Worship of God and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them I wonder how learned men can impose upon themselves and others with such silly Sophisms as these for let us consider 1. Suppose this Precept to do all things decently and in order were given upon occasion of those disorders and indecencies which were committed in the Church of Corinth how does it hence follow that the Apostle requires no other Decency than just what will remove the indecencies of Worship Is Decency a thing valuable for it self or onely as it is opposed to indecency If the Decency of Worship be a good thing and if it be not Indecency cannot be a fault then it is a ridiculous thing to say that the end of Decency is onely to prevent Indecency as if the end of seeing were onely to prevent blindness or the end of Vertue onely to prevent Vice They tell us that Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite that is I suppose that Indecency is the privation of Decency not that Decency is the privation of Indecency and therefore though the nature of Indecency consists in its opposition to Decency yet the nature of Decency does not consist in its opposition to Indecency Though we should allow that to be decent which is not indecent yet it is not decent meerly because it is not indecent but because it is agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency And therefore though the Apostle gave this Precept upon occasion of these Indecencies committed in the Church of Corinth yet the Command extends to any instances and degrees of Decency for he does not command Decency meerly out of opposition to Indecency which is to invert the natural order of things but for its own sake as necessary and essential to publick Worship as he who reproves the Vices of the Age and exhorts men to the contrary Vertues does not mean that they should onely practise so much Vertue as not to be guilty of these popular Vices but that they should aim at the highest degrees and instances of Vertue 2. And therefore those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion may be included in this Apostolical Precept to do all things decently and in order the omission of which is not disorderly and indecent if they be agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency because the Decency of our Actions does not consist in its opposition to Indecency but in conformity to the Rules of Decency This is the principal Argument on which our Reconciler and Mr. Ieanes rely to prove that the Ceremonies of the Church of England cannot be included in that Apostolical Precept of doing things decently and in order because the omission of these Ceremonies is not indecent If then says the Reconciler it can appear that praying without a Surplice or receiving the Sacrament without kneeling or baptizing without the Cross is doing these things indecently and disorderly then must it be confess'd that this is a good warrant for the imposition of these things but till this can be made appear it must be vainly pleaded to that end But now says Mr. Ieanes by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no Indecency in those
parts of the Service of God and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them That the Apostolical Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of these Ceremonies I readily grant but not for his reason that the omission of them is not indecent for this Precept commands the positive Decency of Worship as well as forbids the Indecency of it but because the Decency of Worship may be secured by other decent Rites and Ceremonies though these were omitted but his consequently is a far-fetch'd one The imposing any decent Rites may be warranted by this Precept though the neglect of them be not indecent for every decent Rite excludes Indecency and makes the Worship decent which is the sum of this Apostolical Precept Decent Rites and Ceremonies are not opposed to the Indecency of omitting such Rites but to other indecent Modes of Worship Kneeling at the Sacrament ought not to be opposed to not kneeling nor wearing a Surplice to not wearing a Surplice for they cannot be opposed as doing a thing decently or indecently but as doing or not doing a thing which may be decent or indecent according to the nature of things but they must be opposed to other Postures or Habits in Worship And such Rites as exclude Indecency and have a natural Decency in them are comprehended in this Rule 3. As for his Logick he tells us That Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no Indecency This our Reconciler calls a plain Argument which is nothing else but a plain Fallacy For suppose we grant him that Decency and Indecency Reverence and Irreverence are privative Opposites that is opposed to each other as a habit and its privation as sight and blindness how does it hence follow that there is Decency enough where there is no Indecency Sight and blindness are privatively opposite but will you say that man sees well enough who is not blind Though there be no medium between a habit and a total privation yet there are great degrees in habits and no man thinks he sees well enough though he be not stark blind if his eye be weak and tender or short-sighted or wants the assistance of Spectacles or other helps of Art Thus though Indecency were nothing else but the privation of Decency yet there are great degrees of Decency And when the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order our Reconciler must prove that he meant onely the lowest degree of Decency which is but one bare remove from Indecency otherwise he must give us leave to conclude that whatever is truly decent is comprehended in this Precept and the more decent any thing is the more agreeable is it to the Apostles designe But besides this Mr. Ieanes and our Reconciler after him are grievously out in their Logick For Decency and Indecency Reverence and Irreverence are not privative opposites for Indecency is not the meer privation of Decency but they are opposed as Vertue and Vice that is as two extreams are opposed to each other which are properly called adversa which are affirmative not negative opposites though the Grammatical Notation of the words Indecency and Irreverence seems to have betrayed him into that mistake And I suppose they will allow that there is a medium between two extreams and let our Reconciler consider how it would sound to say That man is vertuous enough who is not vicious Indecent and not decent do not signifie the same thing no more than unlearned and not learned I have been taught in Logick that homo est indoctus and homo est non doctus are not equipollent Propositions To say A man is learned a man is not learned a man is unlearned signifie very differently and so do these Propositions An action is decent an action is not decent an action is indecent the first signifies a positive Decency the second that there is no positive Decency the third that there is a plain opposition and contrariety to the Laws of Decency Civility and â—udeness in common conversation are opposed as Decency and Indecency are but there is an untutored and undisciplined humour which is neither civil nor rude This I think is sufficient to prove that there may be no Decency nor Reverence in such actions which cannot be strictly charged with Indecency and Irreverence and therefore when the Apostle commands that all things be done decently he requireâ— something more than not to be guilty of aâ—â— Indecency or Irreverence in Worship III. To proceed He observes that the same Reverend Bishop proves That beyond commanding that which hath a necessary relation to the express command of God or is so requisite for the doing of it that it cannot be well done without it by any other instrument or by it self alone the Bishops can give no Laws which properly and immediately bind the transgressors under sin I confess I do not certainly understand what this learned man refers to he having given us no particular instances which has given advantage to our Reconciler to apply it as he pleases But let us consider his Reasons and by that we may guess how far we are concerned 1. Because we never find the Apostles using their Coertion upon any man but the express breakers of a divine Commandment or the publick disturbers of the peace of the Church and the establisht necessary Order Thus far the Bishop To which the Reconciler adds Men must not therefore first make unnecessary Orders and when men cannot conscientiously submit unto them and therefore do not so cry out that they disturb the Churches peace These words he represents as the Bishops also though they are his own which is one of his pious frauds But as for the Argument I think it is evident it does not relate to our Dispute who pretend no other authority but to censure those who disturb the peace of the Church and the establisht necessary Order for such the Rules of Order and Decency are But how the Apostles censured such persons we cannot tell neither for we never read that any Christians in those days disputed the Apostolical authority in such matters or refused to obey their Canons and Injunctions and therefore there was no occasion to exercise such censures 2. Because even in those things which were so convenient that they had power to use Injunctions yet the Apostles were very backward to use their authority of commanding much less would they use severity but entreaty It was St. Paul 's case to Philemon before-mentioned Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoyn that which is convenient yet for loves sake I rather entreat thee But this does not concern us neither for what is this to the Rules and Orders of Worship that he would not take Philemon's servant Onesimus from
significant Ceremonies of the Church of England as of any other Church But it seems the Bishop did not think so and when the Reconciler alledges the Bishops Authority as well as Arguments against us he ought to have urged his Arguments no farther than he himself did or to have told his Readers what exceptions the Bishop made and left it to him to judge whether the exception was good and reasonable or not And I am apt to think that every ordinary Reader would have made some little difference as the Bishop did between such significant Ceremonies as are withall the necessary circumstances of religious actions and receive their Decency from their signification and such Ceremonies as contribute nothing to the decent performance of religious actions but onely entertain a childish fancy with some Theatrical Shews and arbitrary Images and Figures of things of which the Bishop there speaks And indeed all his other Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop are as little to his purpose because none of them concern the decent circumstances of religious Worship which is our present Dispute and therefore we cannot from thence learn what the Bishop's judgment was in these matters as to take a brief survey of these Arguments as he calls them taken out of Bishop Taylor 's Ductor Dubitantium His first Argument is patcht up of two Sayings at the distance of fifteen pages from each other and yet they are much nearer to each other in the book than they are in their designe and signification He says The Bishop truly saith That 't is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes This is said in one place and to make up his Argument he tacks another Saying to it Now Rituals saith he and Externals are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances a wise man will observe them not that they are pleasing to God but because they are commanded by Laws The first of these Sayings is under the third Rule That the Church hath power to make Laws in all things of necessary Duty by a direct Power and divine Authority So that this does not relate to the circumstances of religious actions but to some necessary Duties The instance the Bishop gives in that place is this That the Bishop hath power to command his Subject or Parishioner to put away his Concubine and if he does not he not onely sins by uncleanness but by disobedience too This sure is remote enough from the Dispute of Ceremonies But then he proves that such men sin by disobeying the Bishop in such cases by this Argument among others That it is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes For it is a trifling thing to have Authority to command if that Authority have no effect if men may disobey such commands without sin So that these words whereby the Bishop proves the Authority of the Church to command and that those sin who disobey our Reconciler produces to prove that the Church has no Authority to command the decent Ceremonies of Religion because in his opinion they are trifling and needless things The latter part of his Argument is taken from the Bishops sixth Rule which is this Kings and Princes are by the ties of Religion not of Power obliged to keep the Laws of the Church His resolution of which in short is this That such Ecclesiastical Laws which are the Exercises of internal Religion cannot be neglected by Princes without some straining of their duty to God which is by the wisdom and choice of men determined in such an instance to such a specification but in Externals and Rituals they have a greater liberty so that every omission is not a sin in them though it may be in Subjects and his reason is That they are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances and therefore a wise man will observe Rituals because they are commanded by Laws not that they are pleasing to God Since therefore these are wholly matter of obedience Kings are free save onely when they become bound collaterally and accidentally So that the Bishop does not here speak one word of Externals and Rituals as such trifling and needless things that the Church has no Authority to command them to which purpose our Reconciler applies it but as such things which being bound on us onely by humane Authority a Soveraign Prince who owns no higher humane Authority than his own is not so strictly obliged by them as his Subjects are but may dispense with himself when he sees fit These are excellent premises for such a conclusion as our Reconciler draws from them But yet it is worth the while to consider what the Bishop means by the Externals or Rituals of Religion Whatever our Reconciler finds said about Ecclesiastical Laws or the Externals and Rituals of Religion he presently applies to the Ceremonies of the Church of England which excepting the Cross are onely decent circumstances without which or such-like the Worship of God cannot be decently or reverently performed that is without which there can be no external Worship which consists in the external expressions of Honour and Devotion It is sufficiently evident what a vast difference the Bishop makes between these two Thus he expresly does in these words To the ceremonial Law of the Iews nothing was to be added and from it nothing was to be substracted and in Christianity we have less reason to adde any thing of Ceremony excepting N. B. the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry as time and place and vessels and ornaments and necessary appendages But when we speak of Rituals and Ceremonies that is exterior actions or things besides the institution and command of Christ c. Where he expresly distinguishes between the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry what is necessary or convenient for the decent and orderly performance of the publick acts of Worship from Rituals or Ceremonies whereby he understands exterior actions or things that is such Ceremonies as are not the circumstances of religious actions but are distinct acts themselves either instituted as parts of Worship and then he says they are intolerable or meerly for signification and that is a very little thing and of very inconsiderable use in the fulness and charity of the Revelations Evangelical Such he reckons giving Milk and Honey or a little Wine to persons to be baptized and to present Milk together with Bread and Wine at the Lords Table to signifie nutrition by the Body and Bloud of Christ to let a Pidgeon flie to signifie the coming of the Holy Spirit to light up Candles to represent the Epiphany to dress a Bed to express the secret and ineffable Generation of the Saviour of the World to prepare the figure of the Cross and to bury an Image to describe the
the King of England must not impose the Laws of England on Italy or Spain therefore he must not make Laws for England neither This our Reconciler was aware of and therefore in his Preface to strengthen these Authorities he asks this Question Why that agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among those Members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters For if the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body and therefore Fellow-members of the same Church and Body with us since the same reason proves the Members of any Church whatsoever who differ onely in non-fundamentals capable of being real Christians and so of the same Church and Body with us why should it not oblige us to receive them as Christian Brethren i. e. persons of the same Communion with us if we can do it without sin Now the Answer to this is so obvious that I wonder our Reconciler should miss it For 1. The reason of Communion between distinct Churches can be nothing else but the common Principles of Christianity one Lord one Faith one Hope one Baptism c. that is whatever is essential to Christian Faith and Worship for what is more than this as the particular Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government and Modes of Worship are the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority and since no Church has authority over another they ought not to impose their own Rules of Discipline or Worship upon each other But now no private Christian can live in the Communion of any particular Church without submitting to its Government and Discipline and conforming to its Rules of Worship Though one Church must not usurp Authority over another yet every Church must govern her own Members and direct her own Worship and there can be no Order nor Decency of Worship where there are no Rules of Worship no Uniformity but every man is left to do as he pleases And yet 2. Though the Communion of distinct Churches with each other does not require that they should all observe the same Usages and Rites of Worship in their own Churches yet it requires that the Members of these distinct Churches should communicate with each other and conform to each others Customs where they happen to be present It is a ridiculous thing to talk of two Churches being in Communion with each other who will not as occasion serves communicate together upon the terms of each others Communion For Calvinists to call the Lutherans or Lutherans the Calvinists Brethren but to refuse to joyn in Communion when they happen to be in each others Churches this is not to live in Communion with each other or for a Calvinist to communicate in the Lutheran Church or a Lutheran in the Calvinists but according to the Rites of their own Churches not of the Church in which they communicate this is not to communicate with but publickly to affront each other The onely Principle of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches in such matters as these is so far to allow of each others Rules and Modes of Worship as to conform when occasion serves to such indifferent Customs and Usages though very different from their own rather than divide the Communion of the Church and if this be necessary to the Communion of distinct Churches with each other then certainly it is necessary for the Members of every particular Church to submit to its Authority and conform to its Rules and Orders of Worship For 3. It is ridiculous to imagine that nothing more is necessary to a Christian in Church-Communion than what is absolutely necessary to the State of a Christian out of the visible Communion of any Church as if nothing more were necessary to make a man a Member of the Commonwealth than what is necessary to make him a man The belief of the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and Obedience to those Laws of Righteousness which have an eternal and immutable goodness in them will make a man a good Christian in a private and single capacity but obedience to Government and conformity to the Rules of Discipline and Worship are as necessary to make a man a good Christian in Church-society as they are essential to the being and constitution of a Church and it is impossible to form a Church-Society onely of the Essentials of Christianity considered as a Systeme of Doctrines and Laws which every private Christian ought to observe for there are the Essentials of Christian-Communion as well as of Christian Religion Christ did not onely publish the Gospel but instituted a Church and the Government and Discipline of the Church is of a distinct consideration from the belief of the Gospel No man can be a Member of the Church without believing the Gospel but Church-Society lays some new obligations upon us beyond what is necessary in a single state out of Church-Society But to return Though this learned Bishop did not urge the abrogation of the Mosaical Law against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England nor against any other Rituals or Ceremonies neither but only against such usurpt Authority as challenge a power to make Laws for the whole Christian World yet this Argument is frequently alleadged by others and more than once repeated by our Reconciler to this purpose but how trifling it is appears from this distinction between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent Circumstances of Worship They tell us that Christ removed those burdens which were on the Church and therefore would not impose new ones But does the Church of England lay any new burdens upon men Does she require any thing more than what is necessary Christ requires that we should celebrate his last Supper in remembrance of him that the Minister should perform all the publick Offices of Religion and that this should be done in a decent and reverent manner and does the Church of England require any more Does she institute any Ceremonies excepting the Cross in Baptism which is a professing Signe and relates to no act of Worship though it be thought decent to be done at the time of Baptism but what are decent circumstances of action And is Decency then a new burden which Christ hath not imposed on his Disciples Is Decency an unnecessary or unreasonable thing Did Christ leave it at liberty then whether his Disciples should worship God decently or not Christ hath taken away the Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies and has the Church of England put another Jewish Yoke on the Disciples necks Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke Did Christ when he abrogated the Jewish Law abrogate all Decency
of Worship too or is the bare Decency of Worship a Jewish Yoke What correspondence is there between the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law and the decent circumstances of Worship between new and distinct acts and the decent Modes of actions But our Reconciler proceeds Ecclesiastical Laws must not be perpetual that is when they are made they are relative to time and place to persons and occasions subject to all changes c. Now besides that the Bishop stills speaks of such Laws as concern Rituals and external Observances not the decent circumstances of Worship and therefore it is impertinently alleadged in our present Controversie yet suppose it did relate to our Ceremonies what advantage could he make of it They must not be perpetual that is they are alterable when the wisdom of Governours sees fit and who denies it But must every one who believes these Ceremonies alterable presently grant that they must be altered right or wrong This is much like another mangled Testimony which he cites from Rule 12. n. 9. I shall transcribe the whole because our Reconciler has concealed the sence by transcribing onely part of it Excepting those things which the Apostles received from Christ in which they were Ministers to all Ages once for all conveying the mind of Christ to Generations to come in all other things they were but ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times and left all that ordinary power to their Successors with a power to rule their Churches such as they had and therefore whatever they conveyed as from Christ a part of his Doctrine or any thing of his appointment this was to bind for ever All this our Reconciler leaves out which is a Key to what follows For Christ is our onely Lawgiver and what he said was to bind for ever In all things which he said not the Apostles could not be Lawgivers they had no such authority and therefore whatsoever they ordered by their own wisdom was to abide as long as the reason did abide but still with the same liberty with which they appointed it for of all men in the world they would least put a Snare upon the Disciples or tye Fetters upon Christian liberty To what purpose he cites this he does not say but I suppose it was to insinuate that there is no Authority in the Church to make any Laws which Christ has not made because he is our onely Lawgiver and that to make such Laws is to put a Snare upon the Disciples and to tye Fetters upon Christian Liberty which the Apostles of all men would not do but this is directly contrary to the designe of the Bishop All that he says is no more than this That the Apostles had not authority to make such Laws as should perpetually oblige the Church in all Ages for Christ onely is so our Lawgiver that his Laws are perpetual and unalterable and therefore what they taught as from Christ that was to bind for ever but what Laws they made as ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times they might be altered when the reason of them ceas'd by the Bishops and Ministers of following Ages who have as much ordinary authority for the government of the Church as the Apostles themselves had So that the Governours of the Church have authority to make Laws though not unalterable ones and therefore it is not making Laws but making perpetual Laws which he calls putting a Snare upon the Disciples and tying Fetters on Christian Liberty for the more unalterable Laws there are the less Liberty the Church enjoys and those Laws which were of excellent use when they were first made yet when their reason and use ceases might prove Snares to Christians if there were no power in the Church to repeal them All his Citations from this excellent Bishop about Ecclesiastical Laws are of the same nature they do not concern the decent circumstances of Worship but Rituals and external Ministeries of Religion and I suppose I need not tell any man how impertinent his Testimonies about Fasts and Evangelical Councils and Subscriptions to Articles c. are to this Controversie This is sufficient to prove that this excellent Bishop is ours and to satisfie all men that this Protestant Reconciler is either a very ignorant and careless Reader of Books or a shameless Impostor in suborning mens words to give testimony against their own protest and avowed Principles and Doctrines There are several other little Arguments which are frequently repeated by our Reconciler and confirmed with great Names and great Authorities though it is probable enough that he has as much abused other great men as he has done the Bishop and I have not leisure nor opportunity to examine all and it is no great matter when the Argument is weak and trifling whose Argument it is They tell us that to impose such Ceremonies and Rites of Worship is to come after Christ and to mend and correct his Laws and to require new terms of Communion which Christ hath not required This is a great fault if the charge be good and just but is the Church of England guilty of any such thing Does she require any new acts of Worship which Christ has not required Has not Christ required that we should worship God decently Has he not made Obedience to our Rulers and Governours a necessary condition of Communion And does the Church of England require any more Has the Church of England imposed any thing upon her People but the Rules of Order and Decency and has not Christ enjoyned this Are the Ceremonies of our Church decent circumstances of Worship or are they not If they be then here are no new terms of Communion here is no mending nor correcting the Laws of Christ but onely a determination of some necessary circumstances which Christ left undetermined and gave authority to his Church to determine But why should Church-Communion be suspended upon such terms as are not necessary to Salvation Why is not that sufficient to make a man a Member of a Church which is sufficient to carry him to Heaven No doubt but it is and the Church of England requires no more The Decency of Worship is as necessary to eternal Salvation as publick Worship is which is not Worship if it be not decent Decency is necessary and though such or such particular Modes of Decency be not necessary yet some decent Mode of Worship is and therefore that Church which requires no more than the Decency of Worship requires nothing but what is necessary to Salvation That which confounds and blunders these men and makes them dream of new terms of Communion is this That they distinguish the act of Worship from the manner of performing it and because Christ hath onely instituted and commanded the act but the Church directs and prescribes the manner therefore they say the Church mends Christs Laws and makes new terms of Communion by requiring something more than Christ has
hard case as such cases will happen under all Governments God who is our supreme Governour will take care to rectifie it when the Governours of Church or State cannot do it without loosening the Sinews of Government As for instance The Governours of the Church must take care to prescribe Rules for the decent performance of religious Worship and in such an Age of mistakes and scruples as this it is possible some very honest but weak Christians may take offence at the best and most prudent Constitutions and separate from the Church and involve themselves in the guilt of Schism what must the Church do in this case Must she alter her Laws as often as any Christians pretend to scruple them or must she make no Laws about such matters but suffer every Christian to worship God as he pleases This is to renounce their Government because some Christians will not obey or to make Government contemptible and ridiculous when it must yield to mens private fancies and scruples And yet it is very hard that the Government of the Church which is instituted for the care of mens Souls should prove a snare and temptation to them and occasion their eternal ruine and misery But I hope that there is no necessity for either of these Governours must do their duty must take care to make such Laws as are for the advantage of Religion and the edification of the Church and are least liable to any just offence and if after all their care some very honest men may take offence and fall into Schism we must leave them to the mercy of God who will make allowances for all favourable cases The Church can give no relief in such cases without destroying her Authority and Government and giving advantage to Knaves and designing Hypocrites to disturb the best constitutions of things but God can distinguish between honest men and Hypocrites and if men be sincerely honest and do fall into Schism through an innocent mistake God will be merciful to them which secures the final happiness of good men and yet maintains the sacredness and reverence of Authority For when men know that nothing can justifie a Schism and nothing can plead their pardon with God but great honesty and some invincible mistake it will make all honest men careful how they separate from the Church and diligent in the use of all means for their satisfaction without which no man can pass with Almighty God for an honest Separatist and I doubt not but were men convinced of this it would sooner cure our Schisms than the removal of all scrupled Ceremonies But in is so far from being the duty of Church-Governours to take any notice of mens scruples when there is no just occasion for them that they ought not to allow any man to scruple their authority in such matters which weakens Government and opens a gap for eternal Schisms to enter It is very true as our Reconciler has proved at large in a whole Chapter to that purpose that the Church in several Ages has made great alterations in the Externals and Rituals of Religion but how this serves his Cause I cannot tell No body questions but the Church has done this and that she had authority to do it and that she has so still when she sees just occasion to do it but the Question is Whether she must do this as often as every little Reconciler or every scrupulous Christian demands such an alteration The Question is Whether unreasonable scruples and prejudices be a necessary reason for the Church to make such alterations And if he can give any one example in all Antiquity that the Church altered her Constitutions for no other reason but to comply with the scruples of private Christians he will say something to the purpose No in those days private Christians did not use to scruple any Ceremonies which the Governours of the Church thought fit to appoint but Bishops made or repealed Laws about such matters as they thought most expedient for the good government of the Church The Question is Whether they repealed all Laws for the Order and Decency of Worship or renounced their Authority to make such Laws in compliance with those who denied any such Authority to the Church Again the Question is Whether in the same Church they allowed all private Christians to worship God after what manner they pleased according to their own private perswasions and apprehensions of these things that those who are for a May-pole may have a May-pole as our Reconciler very reverently expresses it If he can say any thing to these points I confess it will be to his purpose and therefore I would desire him to consider of it now he knows what he is to prove But though his History of those alterations which the Church in several Ages has made in the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion would not serve his main designe yet it highly gratified his pride and insolence to trample upon a great man whom he thought he had taken at some advantage The Reverend Dean of St. Pauls assigns some reasons why the Church of England still retains the use of some Ceremonies His first reason is out of a due reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the gross and intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the innocent Rites and Practices which were observed in the Church before This says our Reconciler is very like Hypocrisie to pretend to retain three Ceremonies of humane institution out of respect to their supposed antiquity whilst we reject as many which were unquestionably of a divine original and therefore sure of an antiquity which more deserveth to be reverenced Truly if our Church has parted with any thing of a divine original I think she has reformed too far but will our Reconciler say that every thing that was an Apostolical Practice is of divine original Bishop Taylor to whom he so often appeals would have taught him otherwise as I have already observed who says that the Apostles in ordering religious Assemblies and in prescribing such Rules of Worship as they did not immediately receive from Christ acted but as ordinary Ministers of the Church and what they prescribed obliged no longer than the reason and expediency of the things and the Governours of the Church in after-Ages had as full and ample Authority as the Apostles themselves in such matters But does the Dean say that these Ceremonies were retained onely for their antiquity then indeed the Reconciler's Objection had been strong that other Ceremonies which are as ancient as they should have been retained also But is it not a just reverence to Antiquity that when our Church had for other reasons determined what number of Ceremonies to retain and for what ends and purposes she chuses to use such Ceremonies as were anciently used in the Christian Church rather than to invent any new ones for it had been an affront to the ancient
â—udge when it is fit to stop and every wise man will think it fit to stop when she has cast every thing out of her Worship which is a just cause of scandal and offence and if she goes further to satisfie unreasonable and clamorous demands she can never have a reason to stop till she has satisfied all Clamours 2. Yes says our Reconciler she may remove things indifferent and unnecessary which is all at present desired No say I she cannot part with all things which are in their own nature indifferent for some such things are necessary to the Order and Decency of Worship which must not be parted with and the Church never owned the contrary She says indeed that her particular Ceremonies are indifferent and alterable that we may exchange one decent Ceremony for another when there is reason for it but the Church ought to alter no Ceremony without reason nor part with all indifferent Ceremonies for the external Decency of Worship for any reason And now we are beholden to him that 3. He grants with some reconciling salvo's that we must not part with our Church-government under the pretence of parting with indifferent things But if we must not part with that we may as well keep all the rest for our Divisions will be the same No party ever separated from the Church for the sake of Ceremonies who did not quarrel with the Order and Authority of Bishops The rest of his Arguments in that Chapter do not concern this business but whatever he would prove by them there are two general Answers will serve for them all 1. That indifferent things which serve the ends of Order Decency are not such unnecessary trifles as to be parted with for no reason which I think I have sufficiently proved above And 2. Tâ—at parting with them will not heal our Divisions and therefore at least upon that account there is no reason to part with them What I have now discours'd about Divisions and Discords is a sufficient Answer to his next long Harangue about the evil of Schism in which I heartily concur with him as believing that Schism it self will shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven which is as bad a thing as can be said of it and therefore out of love to my Brother's Soul I would not upon any account be guilty of his Schism But how does this prove that Church-Governours must part with the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion Oh! because Dissenters take offence at these things and run into Schism and consequently must be damned for it and therefore Charity obliges to part with such indifferent things to prevent the eternal damnation of so many Souls But now 1. Suppose the imposition of these Ceremonies be neither the cause of the Schism nor the removal of them the cure of it what then Why must the Church part with these Ceremonies which are of good use in Religion to no purpose And yet this is the truth of the case as appears from what I have already discours'd The several Sects of Religion were Schismaticks to each other when there were no Ceremonies to trouble them and would be so again if the Church of England were once more laid in the dust No man separates from the Church of England who has not espoused some Principles of Faith or Government besides the Controversie about Ceremonies contrary to the Faith and Government of the Church and will the removal of Ceremonies make them Orthodox in all other points or are they of such squeamish Consciences that they can submit to an Antichristian Hierarchy and an Antichristian Liturgy but not to Ceremonies 2. The Argument of Schism is the very worst Argument our Reconciler could have used as being directly contrary to the end and designe of it All the Authority the Church has depends on the danger of Schism and the necessity of Christian Communion The onely punishment she can inflict on refractory and disobedient Members is to cast them out of the Church and that is a very terrible punishment too if there be no ordinary means of salvation out of the Communion of the Church and therefore the danger of Schism is a very good Argument to perswade Dissenters to consider well what they do and not to engage themselves in a wilful and unnecessary Schism But it is a pretty odde way to perswade the Governours of the Church out of the exercise of their just Authority for fear some men should turn Schismaticks and be damned for it The reason why the Gospel has threatned such severe punishments against Schism is to make the Authority of the Church sacred and venerable that no man should dare to divide the Communion of the Church or to separate from their Bishops and Pastors without great and necessary reason and our Reconciler would fright the Church out of the exercise of her just Authority for fear men should prove Schismaticks and be damned for it Christ has made Schism a damning sin to give Authority to the Church and our Reconciler would perswade the Church not to exercise her Authority for fear men should be damned for their Schism Now whether our Saviour who thought it better that Schismaticks should be damned than that there should be no Authority in the Church or our Reconciler who thinks it better that there should be no Authority in the Church than that Schismaticks should be damned are persons of the greatest Charity I leave others to judge Indeed the odium of this whole business which is so tragically exaggerated by the Reconciler must at last fall upon our Saviour himself either for instituting such an Authority in his Church or for confirming this Authority by such a severe Sanction as eternal damnation If Christ will at the last day condemn those who separate from the Church for some external Rites and Ceremonies as our Reconciler's Argument supposes he will then it is a signe that Christ approves of what the Church does in taking care of the Decency of Worship and that he thinks it very just that such Schismaticks should be damned and then let our Reconciler if he think fit charge the Saviour of the World with want of Charity to the Souls of men The Church damns no man but does what she believes to be her duty and leaves Schismaticks to the judgment of Christ if he damns them at the last day let our Reconciler plead their Cause then before the proper Tribunal and if Christ can justifie himself in pronouncing the Sentence I suppose he will justifie his Church too in the exercise of her Authority This is certain that if the imposition of these Ceremonies be a just cause of Separation our Dissenters are not Schismaticks and therefore in no danger of damnation upon that score and if it be not a just cause of Separation then the Church does not exceed her Authority in it and therefore is not to be blamed notwithstanding that danger of Schism which men wilfully run themselves into
of these things unlawful they are unlawful to him and it would be very uncharitable by any Arts to force him to do such things as are contrary to the dictates of his own Conscience This is onely a restraint of their own private liberty and therefore they ought to be indulged in it especially while they are so modest as not to censure those who use their innocent liberty innocently In such cases as these there is no other Rule to guide us but what the Apostle gives Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind which is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us for this must not be extended to all cases as St. Chrysostom observes upon the place for if in all cases we must suffer every man to act according as he is perswaded in his own mind this would subvert all Laws and Government but this is reasonable in such cases as onely concern mens private liberty and are under the restraint and government of no Laws but what men make or fancy to themselves It is true all men who act upon any Principles will in all cases do as they are fully perswaded in their own minds yet this is not a Rule to be given in all cases It can be a Rule onely in such cases wherein let a mans judgment and opinion be what it will he acts safely while he acts according to his own judgment which can never be where there is any other Law to govern us besides our own judgment of things for though we act with never so full a perswasion of our own minds if we break the divine Laws we sin in it and shall be judged for it And that this is the true sence of the Apostle's Argument appears in this that he urges the danger a weak Brother is in of sin if he should be perswaded or forc'd to act contrary to the judgment of his own mind which supposes that he is in no danger of sin if he follow his own judgment for if there were an equal danger of sin both ways this Argument has no force at all to prove the reasonableness of such an indulgence and forbearance For if this weak Brother will be guilty of as great a sin by following his judgment if we do forbear him as he will by acting contrary to his own judgment if we do not the danger being equal on both sides can be no reason to determine us either way and therefore this must be confined to such cases wherein there is no danger of sinning but onely in acting contrary to our own judgment and perswasions that is onely to such cases where there is no other Law to govern us but onely our own private Consciences And therefore this danger of scandal cannot affect Governours who have authority to command nor extend to such cases which are determined by divine or humane Laws and therefore not to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship for whatever our own Perswasions are if we break the Laws of God or the just Laws of men by following a misguided and erroneous Conscience we sin in it And the same thing appears from this consideration that the Apostle perswades them to exercise this forbearance out of charity to their weak Brother but what charity is it to suffer our Brother to sin in following a misguided Conscience If our Brother sin as much in following a misguided Conscience as in acting contrary to his Conscience he is as uncharitable a man who patiently suffers his Brother to sin in following his Conscience as he who compels him to sin by acting contrary to his Conscience or rather by not suffering him to act according to his Conscience Nay since external force and restraint may and very often does make men consider better of things and help to rectifie their mistates it is a greater act of charity to give check to men than to suffer them to go quietly on in sin And here I shall take occasion to speak my mind very freely and plainly about that perplext Dispute of liberty of Conscience It seems very contrary to the nature of Religion to be matter of force for Religion is a voluntary Worship and Service of God and no man is religious who is religious against his will and therefore no man ought to be compelled to profess himself of any Religion which was plainly the sence of the Primitive Christians when they suffered under Heathen Persecutions as is to be seen in most of their Apologies And yet on the other hand it is monstrously unreasonable that there should be no restraint laid upon the wild fancies of men that every one who pleases may have liberty to corrupt Religion with Enthusiastick Conceits and new-fangled Heresies and to divide the Church with infinite Schisms and Factions The Patrons of Liberty and Indulgence declaim largely on the first of these heads those who are for preserving Order and Government in the Church on the second and if I may speak my mind freely I think they are both in the right and have divided the truth between them No man ought to be forc'd to be of any Religion whether Turk or Jew or Christian though Idolatry was punishable by the Law and that with very good reason for though men may not be forc'd to worship God yet they may and ought to be forc'd not to worship the Devil nor to blaspheme or do any publick dishonour to the true God And this was all the restraint that Christian Emperours laid upon the Pagan Idolaters they demolished their Temples and forbad the publick exercise of their Idolatrous Worship But though no man must be compelled to be a Christian yet if they voluntarily profess themselves Christians they become subject to the Authority and Government of the Christian Church The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have authority from Christ and are bound by vertue of their Office to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Decency and Uniformity of Christian Worship and if any Member of the Church either corrupt the Faith or Worship of it or prove refractory and disobedient to Ecclesiastical Authority they ought to be censured and cast out of the Communion of the Church which is as reasonable as it is to thrust a Member out of any Society who will not be subject to the Orders and Constitutions of it This distinction St. Paul himself makes between judging those who are without and those who were within the Church They had no authority to force men to be Christians but they had authority over professed Christians to judge and censure them as their actions deserved and this is properly Ecclesiastical Authority to condemn Heresies and Schism and to cast Hereticks and Schismaticks and all disorderly Christians out of the Communion of the Church and no governed Society can subsist without so much authority as this comes to As for temporal restraints and punishments they belong to the Civil Magistrate and if we
Reverend Bishops once have condescended to these terms of Vnion would they not have rejoyced to have seen the Church restored and themselves readmitted to the execution of their sacred Function upon such terms as the abatement of such trivial things Ans. I judge it very likely they might as a banished Prince would be glad to be restored to his Crown again though he parted with some Jewels out of it But when the providence of God restores them to the exercise of their Function without any such restraints and limitation of their power it is their duty to use their whole power as prudently and charitably as they can The restoring of Episcopacy restored the face of a Church again which was nothing but a Schism without it and no doubt but all good men would be very glad of this though upon hard and disadvantageous terms but surely to restore the Church to its ancient beauty and lustre in a regular and decent administration of all holy Offices is more desirable than nothing but the meer being of a Church still deformed with the marks and ruines of an old Schism and therefore when this can be had it ought to be had and it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Bishops must use no other authority in the government of the Church when they are in a full possession of their power than barely so much as they would have been contented to have bargained for with Schismaticks when they were thrust out of all power Though whether St. Cyprian would have made any such bargain with Schismaticks as inferred a diminution of the Episcopal Authority I much question Had the Wisdom of the Nation at the happy return of his Majesty to his Throne thought fit to have made any tryal and experiment what some condescensions and abatements would have done the Reverend Bishops no doubt would have acquiesced in it not out of any opinion they had of such methods but to satisfie those who do not see the events of things at a distance by making the experiment But that factious and restless Spirit of Phanaticism which began immediately to work convinced our Prince and Parliament how dangerous such an experiment would be and prevented the tryal of it and now we have such fresh and repeated experiments how dangerous these Factions are both to Church and State our Reconciler would perswade our Governours out of their senses to cherish those men who if they be not suppressed will most infallibly involve this unhappy Church and Kingdom in Bloud and Confusion As for what our Reconciler adds concerning the Rubrick about kneeling at the Sacrament and the Canon about bowing of the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship have been sufficiently answered already CHAP. VIII Containing some brief Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface and the Conclusion of the whole with an Address to the Dissenters THus I have with all plainness and sincerity examined the whole reason of this book for as for the remaining Chapters whatever is of any moment in them I have answered before in the first and second Chapters of this Vindication whether the Answer I have given be satisfactory or not I must leave to others to judge but I can honestly say I have used no tricks and evasions nor have I used any Argument but what is satisfactory to my self All that remains now is a brief examination of those Authorities our Reconciler has produced in his Preface to prove that our own Kings and many famous Doctors of our own Church besides many foreign Divines have pleaded for that condescension for which he pleads in this Book Now I thought it the best way in the first place to examine his Reasons for this condescension for if there be no reason to do this it is no great matter who pleads for it without reason and yet I should be very unwilling to leave such a reproach upon so many great men that they declare their opinions and judgment for a Cause which has no reason to support it And therefore to give a fair account of this also I reviewed his Preface and found there were two ways of answering it either by examining his particular Testimonies we having no reason to believe any thing upon his credit or by taking the Testimonies for granted and shewing that this does not prove that they were of his mind The first of these I had no great stomach to as being a tedious and troublesome work which would swell this Vindication to a great bulk which is grown too big already and the onely end it could serve is to prove that the Protestant Reconciler does not quote his Authors faithfully but I have already given such evidence of this in my Vindication of Bishop Taylor as will spoil his credit with all wary men And therefore I resolved upon the other way of answering him to shew that the Testimonies produced by him as he produces them do not prove what he intended them for But I called to mind that I had a Book written upon this very subject entituled Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler in a Letter to a Friend which I read over and to my great comfort found my work done to my hand for that Author has with great judgment said whatever I can think proper to be said in this Cause and therefore I shall onely give some little hints of what I intended more largely to discourse and refer my Readers to those Remarks for further satisfaction The intention of this Preface our Reconciler tells us p. 3. was to strengthen the designe of his Book by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy Persons both of our own and other Churches who have declared themselves to be of the same judgment and have pursued the same designe which he has done in his Book Now the designe of his Book as I have shewn from his own words in my Introduction p. 13 14. is to prove that it is utterly unlawful for the Governours of the Church to impose the observation of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religion especially when these Ceremonies are scrupled and many professed Christians rather chuse to separate from the Church than submit to them Now to prove this he first alleadges the Authority of three Kings King Iames King Charles the first the Royal Martyr and best of Kings and men as he is pleased to stile him and our present Soveraign and I know not where he could have named three other Kings more averse to his Reconciling designe What King Iames his Judgment was is evident from the Conference at Hampton-court where he so severely determined against Dissenters and kept his word all his reign without granting any liberty to these pretended scruples which is very strange had he been of our Reconciler's mind that it is unlawful to impose these Ceremonies upon a scrupulous Conscience How much King Charles the first suffered
Authority and ought to take care of the decent circumstances of Worship then the Schism can be charged onely upon the disobeying Schismatick But this I have largely discoursed in the place before cited And now I come to those shrewd Questions which our Reconciler says he has met with in the Books of the Dissenters to which he finds no answer in the Replys of any of their Adversaries and which he entreats the Champions for the Church of England as they respect the credit of our Church-Governours the reputation of the Church and of her Discipline not to pass by without the least notice taken of them as hitherto they have done Now though I do not pretend to the honour and character of a Champion yet I have such a hearty love and reverence for my dear Mother the Church of England that I cannot deny so easie a Request as this the most troublesome task being to transcribe all these Questions Quest. 1. The first Question is Whether they do well that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a straight by needless Laws for additions in Religion that the Consciences of men fearing God must unavoidably be perplexed between a fear of treason and disobedience against Christ and disobedience to their Prince and Pastors Ans. I answer Such men do certainly very ill in it but then this is not the case of the Church of England for she has made no needless Laws for Laws to direct and determine the external circumstances of Worship according to the Rules of Order and Decency are not needless but necessary as I have already proved Our Reconciler grants that the Church has this Authority and if the exercise of it be needless the Authority is so too and then Christ has given his Church a needless Authority for I suppose he will not own that the Church has any Authority but what she has from Christ. Nor does the Church make any additions in Religion for the decent circumstances of Worship are no additions to external Worship but as necessary to it as Decency is unless our Reconciler thinks that it is an addition to the Law of God which commands us to reverence our Prince and Parents and Superiours to command Children Servants or Subjects to stand bare before them Nor need the Consciences of men fearing God be unavoidably perplexed between a fear of treason and disobedience against Christ and of disobedience to their Prince and Pastors for a great many men who fear God are not thus perplexed and therefore it is not unavoidable I will instance onely in the Reconciler himself if he will give me leave to reckon him among those men who either fear God or reverence their Prince and Pastors And there is another good reason why this is not unavoidable because there is no competition in this case between obedience to Christ and obedience to our Prince and Pastors and therefore no man need to be perplexed about it and if there were a plain competition there were no need of being thus perplexed neither because all men who fear God do or ought to understand that where Christ commands one thing and our Prince another inconsistent with the command of Christ we must obey God rather than men Quest. 2. Whether Rulers may command any indifferent and unnecessary thing which will notably do more harm than good or make an unnecessary necessary thing a means or occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God or preaching of the Gospel Ans. If by indifferent and unnecessary things he means things wholly useless and by their notably doing more harm than good that they are in their own nature hurtful as well as useless it is certain Governours ought not to command such things but what is this to the Church of England The Ceremonies of our Church though upon some accounts they may be called indifferent yet are very useful as contributing to the Decency of Worship which is as necessary as publick Worship is and are not apt to do any hurt at all and therefore are the proper Object of Ecclesiastical Authority And with what face can our Reconciler pretend that they exclude the necessary Worship of God or preaching of the Gospel when God is still worshipped and the Gospel preached in all the Parish-churches of England unless he thinks that God is not worshipped nor the Gospel preached any where but at a Conventicle Quest. 3. Whether is it more to common good and the interest of Honesty and Conscience that all the Parsons in a Nation be imprisoned banished or silenced that dare not swear say and practise all that is imposed on them than that unnecessary impositions be altered or forborn Now I think I may have the liberty to ask our Reconciler a Question now and then I ask therefore Whether is most for the common good that there should be any setled Order and Government in the Church or that there should be none Whether it is possible to maintain any Order or Government without rejecting and censuring those who will not conform to it Whether is most for the publick good to maintain and encourage a loyal and conformable Clergy when there is no scarcity of such men or to nourish Shism and Schismaticks to say no worse Quest. 4. Had Images been lawfully used in places or exercise of Gods Worship yet whether was it not inhumane and unchristian in those Bishops and Councils who anathematized all that were of a contrary mind and ejected and silenced the Dissenters Ans. The bare lawfulness of any thing does not make it a fit matter for a Law but whatever is both lawful and useful if it be enjoyned by a just Authority ought to be obeyed by the Members of that Church where it is enjoyned and Dissenters ought to be censured according to the nature of the offence for without this there can be no government in the Church But why he particularly instances in Images I cannot tell unless it be to insinuate that the Ceremonies of our Church are of the same nature with them but our Church which retains Ceremonies removed Images as just matters of scandal and offence Quest. 5. Whether Christ who made the Baptismal Covenant the test and standing terms of entrance did set up Pastors over his Church to make new and stricter terms and Laws or to preserve Concord on the terms that he had founded it and to see that men lived in Vnity and Piety according to those terms and when they as Christs Ministers have received men on Christs terms whether they may excommunicate and turn them out of the Church again for want of more or onely for violating these Ans. The Baptismal Covenant is sufficient for our admission into the Church but Church-communion requires our submission to Church-authority as I have already shewn and to say that nothing more is required of us in a Society than what is necessary to our admission into it is contrary to the nature of all Societies in the World wherein the