particular Church urge this Rule of the Apostle that all things be done decently and in order in justification of their imposition of some indifferent but decent Rites and Ceremonies in religious Worship which are not commanded by God If any Church may why not the Church of England unless he can prove that our Ceremonies are indecent irreverent and disorderly If they may not then the Apostles Rule signifies nothing for it will not justifie the Governours of the Church in taking care of the Decency and Reverence of Worship And if this Rule will justifie any one Church in appointing decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship it will equally justifie all the Churches in the World in their Rites and Ceremonies how different soever they be from each other so they be all decent and reverent And yet I suppose should the Advocates of any particular Church as for instance the Commissioners of the Savoy urge this Apostolical Rule in vindication of the Ceremonies of their own Church no man in his wits would hence conclude that they did believe the particular Ceremonies of their Church to be the Command of God and that religious Worship could not be decently or reverently performed without them which would be to condemn all other Churches which did not observe the same Rites and Ceremonies with themselves And thus all the several Churchâ—s in the World which enjoyn nothing but what contributes to the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship may by the Apostles Rule justifie themselves and yet according to this way of arguing cannot justifie themselves without condemning all other Churches which I confess is very hard to my understanding Does not such a general Rule for the Decency of Worship require that there should be some particular Rules of Decency and Order prescribed Does not such a general Rule suppose that there may be several Rules given several Rites and Ceremonies of Worship prescribed differing indeed from each other but all complying with the general Rule of Decency and Order for that is a strange general Rule which contains but one particular under it Does not such a general Rule suppose that the choice of particulars is left to the prudence of Ecclesiastical Governours while they keep themselves within the general Rule And is not the true reason of this general Rule and consequently of those particular Rules and Orders for Worship which are prescribed by vertue of this general Rule to prevent a disorderly irreverent indecent performance of religious Worship And may not Church-Governours then assigne this as a reason why they prescribe these Rules and why they will not alter them because they must not perform the publick Service indecently and irreverently If they may then their saying so does indeed suppose that those Ceremonies which they prescribe are decent and reverent but it does not suppose that there are no other decent or reverent ways of performing religious offices and that whoever does not use those Ceremonies which they institute and command must be guilty of an indecent and irreverent performance of publick Worship For that would be to overthrow the main Principle by which they act which is the authority of a general Rule which does not prescribe the particular Rules of Decency and Order and therefore supposes that there may be several and that every Church has liberty to chuse for her self In short I would desire our Reconciler to consider that if Church-Governours must not prescribe any particular Rites and Ceremonies to prevent the disorders and indecencies of Worship while there are any other Rites and Ceremonies as decent and orderly as those which they prescribe then this Apostolical Rule signifies nothing for it can never be reduced into practice As for instance suppose the French Protestants enjoyn standing at receiving the Lords Supper or at publick Prayers as the Primitive Church did on the Lords days and should assigne this reason for it that they must not suffer the Worship of God to be indecently or irreverently performed and so break that Commandment Let all things be done decently and in order presently our Reconciler has seven Arguments to oppose against them though they may all be reduc'd to one That this makes standing at the Lords Supper not to be an indifferent Ceremony of humane institution but necessary in its own nature and by a divine command antecedent to all humane Authority and that which no humane Authority can alter and therefore a necessary part of Worship For how can they say that they require their Communicants to receive standing in obedience to a divine command and because they must not worship God irreverently and indecently unless they believe that standing at the Lords Supper is not an indifferent Ceremony but such a necessary posture that he who does not stand at receiving breaks the Command of God and receives irreverently and Indecently And thus the French Church is utterly ruined and must no longer enjoyn standing at the holy Communion Well the Church of England requires kneeling for the same reason that the French Church requires standing and therefore the same Arguments are good against her and should any man have the confidence to use the same reason for sitting that they must not worship God irreverently and indecently the same Arguments would hold good against them also So that here is a general Rule given to Church-Governours to take care to preserve Decency and Order in the Worship of God and all the parts of it and yet no Church-Governours can reduce this to practice for a general Rule cannot be reduced to practice but by particular Rules and Orders and yet whoever prescribes any particular Rules of Decency and Order and insists on them to prevent irreverence and indecency in Worship falls undeâ— our Reconcilers censure and is with all humility intreated to answer seven terrible Arguments in his own vindication The plain Answer to our Reconciler then is this That the Governours of every Church are by vertue of this Apostolical Command required to prevent the indecency and irreverence of publick Worship and they have no other way of doing this but by prescribing some particular Rules of Decency and Order And though the constitutions and usages of several Churches may be very various and different from each other yet every constitution which is decent and orderly prevents the indecent and irreverent performance of publick Worship and therefore all Church-Governours may justifie such Impositions as the Commissioners at the Savoy did by saying that they must not break Gods Commandment and therefore must not suffer the publick Service to be indecently and irreverently performed and therefore must prescribe some particular Rules of Order and Decency without either making their own Rites and Ceremonies essential to the Decency of Worship or censuring and condemning the decent usages and customs of other Churches But since great part of this Controversie turns upon this hinge that it is a very trifling and inconsiderable thing to prescribe Rules for Habits
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
Church-Authority that without it the wisdom of Christ is obscured and exposed to censure the Peace and Unity of Christians rendered impracticable Protestants left destitute of any means of Union and occasion given to Papists to cry up the necessity of an infallible Judge that which draws so many fatal consequents after it does not seem to me to be any great act of charity and yet thus it would be should the Governours of the Church in compliance with the frowardness and scruples of Schismaticks give up their authority in the Externals of Worship and leave every man to do as he pleased While the Church maintains her Authority a little Discipline and Government and a few good Arguments may in time cure the Schism and if it will not let Schismaticks answer for it at the last day but if Schismaticks once gain this point and wheedle the Church for peace sake out of her Authority then we must bid an eternal farewel to Peace and Order and Uniformity in Religion for men will never agree in these matters without the determination of Authority There is no other means left in the Church to decide these differences when the Church has parted with her Authority and thus the Wisdom of Christ will be reproached and censured and the Protestant Name and Religion exposed to contempt and this is our Reconciler's Protestant Charity Well but suppose this compliance with Dissenters did not infer a renuntiation of their Power and Authority but onely a suspension of the exercise of it the case is much the same for this forbearance must be for ever unless we could suppose that these men will return to the obedience of the Church when the Church leaves off to command Now it is the same thing for the Church to renounce her Power and to renounce the exercise of it I suppose Christ gave this Power to the Church that she should exercise it and if the Power be necessary to the welfare and unity and edification of the Church to be sure the exercise of it is For Authority is a meer empty name and good for nothing when it doth nothing This I think is sufficient to prove that the charity of Governours does not require them to renounce their Government neither in the authority nor exercise of it And therefore II. The Charity of Governours must consist in the acts and exercise of Government that is as far as it concerns our present Dispute in making and repealing Laws And I dare joyn issue here with our Reconciler and challenge him and all his dissenting Clients to fix the least imputation of uncharitableness upon the Church of England on this account as to discourse this matter a little more particularly to confound all such unjust Defamers of Authority and Government 1. I shall begin with repealing Laws and altering such Rituals and Ceremonies as were either sinful superstitious or inconvenient because here our Reformation began And what Rules our Church ' observed in this we learn from the Preface to the Common-Prayer where the reasons are assigned why some Ceremonies were abolish'd As 1. Becauâ—e some of them which were at first well intended did in time degenerate into vanity and superstition 2. Others were from the beginning the effects of an indiscreet Devotion and such a Zeal as was without knowledge and dayly grew to more and more abuses and they were rejected because they were unprofitable blinded the people hindred them from a right understanding of the true nature of Christian Religion and obscured the glory of God 3. Some were put away because their very numbers were an intolerable burden and made the estate of Christian people in worse case concerning this matter than were the Jews as St. Austin complained in his days when the number of Ceremonies was much less than it was in this Church at the time of Reformation which was a great injury to the Gospel of Christ which is not a Ceremonial Law as much of Moses Law was but a Religion to serve God not in the bondage of the figure or shadow but in the freedom of the Spirit And lastly the most weighty cause of the abolishment of certain Ceremonies was that they were so far abused partly by the superstitious blindness of the ignorant and unlearned and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre than the glory of God that the abuses could not well be taken away the thing remaining still With what grave and mature consideration our Church proceeded in this affair is evident from this account which contains all the wise reasons that can be thought of for the alteration of any publick Constitutions Here is charity to the Souls of men in delivering them from ignorance and superstition to which they were betrayed by the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion a tender regard to the case and liberty of Christians which was oppressed by such a multitude as were hard to know and to remember and very troublesom to observe and almost impossible to understand which made them wholly useless and unprofitable Here is a great regard to the glory of God which was obscured by these Ceremonies to the purity of the Christian Religion which was transformed by a multitude of Ceremonies into a meer external and figurative Worship And here are the true reasons why any Ceremonies which have been long used in a Church and confirmed by Ecclesiastical Canons or Civil Laws ought notwithstanding that to be removed when either their numbers are excessive or the abuses of them such as cannot be taken away without abolishing the Ceremony it self Several instances of this may be given as to name onely Images in Churches which could not be safely retained at that time without the danger of idolatrous Worship For the generality of people in those days were so superstitiously addicted to the worship of Images that had they been left in Churches though the worship of them had been expresly forbid yet infinite numbers of people would have worshipped them notwithstanding This very reason our Church gives in her Homily against the peril of Idolatry part 3. of the necessity of removing Images out of Churches That as well by the origine and nature of Idols and Images themselves as by the proneness and inclination of mans corrupt nature to Idolatry it is evident that neither Images if they be publickly set up can be separated nor men if they see Images in Temples and Churches can be stayed and kept from Idolatry Wherefore they which thus reason though it be not expedient yet it is lawful to have Images publickly and do prove that lawfulness by a few picked and chosen men if they object that indifferently to all men which a very few can have without hurt and offence they seem to take the multitude for vile Souls of whose loss and safeguard no reputation is to be had for whom Christ yet paid as dearly as for the mightiest Prince or the wisest and best learned of the Earth
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
the coming of his Kingdom is to pray for the enlargement of his Church which was never enlarged yet by the preaching of Schismaticks which divides and lessens the Church but will never enlarge it and therefore those who pray heartily Thy Kingdom come must take care to suppress all Schisms and Schismatical Preachers who are the great Obstacle to the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom Q. 3. Can you or any mortal man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolick Primitive Church Ans. I dare put the final decision of this Controversie upon this issue whether the Church of England or Dissenters come nearest to the Pattern of the Apostolick Primitive Church But though it should be granted that we do not use all those Ceremonies which were in use in the Apostles times and that we use some which were not then used yet this will not justifie Dissenters for the Church in all Ages has authority to appoint her own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship while they comply with that general Rule of Decency and Order but private Christians have no authority to dissent from the Church while she enjoyns nothing which is contrary to the divine Laws Q. 4. What if the old Liturgie and that new one compiled and presented to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used several Modes of Worship without breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks What if our King and Parliament should make a Law enjoyning Conformists and Nonconformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for substance to attend peaceably upon their Ministry and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Ceremonies and scrupled expressions of the Liturgie or no without uncharitable reflections or bitter censures upon one another in word or writing where would be the sinfulness of such a Law Ans. This is much like Mr. Humphrey's Project of uniting all Dissenters into one National Church by an Act of Parliament under the King as the accidental Head of the Church which is largely and particularly answered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation The onely fault in short is this That it destroys the Unity of the Church by dividing Christians into distinct and separate Communions and lays a foundation of eternal Schisms and Emulations which no Laws can prevent As for Mr. Baxter's Liturgy I confess I do not see why men may not as well be allowed to pray ex tempore as to use a form of Prayer which was written ex tempore It argued very little modesty in those men to present such crude and indigested stuff to the Commissioners and it argues as little understanding and honesty in our Reconciler to plead for it Q. 5. Dissenters ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Vnity would soon follow And if the obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extend so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in mens varying from such Rules Ans. I wonder what these men mean by the Dissenters yielding as if they stood upon equal terms with the Church and that the Church and Dissenters like two Equals to compose a difference and quarrel should yield and condescend to each other The Dissenters ought not to yield to but to obey the Chuâ—ch the Church ought not to yield to Dissenters but to govern prudently and charitably The Church has done her part as I have already proved and the onely quarrel is that Dissenters will not do theirs But what an admirable Rule is this to make Peace when they do not they cannot tell us how far the Dissenters will yield and what the Church must yield to make Peace but for ought I perceive this is a great secret and like to continue so I suppose the Dissenters aâ—ter all think they can yield nothing and the Church sees no reason to alter any thing and here is an end of this Project Indeed it appears that the designe is to perswade the Church to yield every thing all her unnecessary Rules which others cannot otherwise called will not submit to that is at least all the decent Ceremonies of Worship if not her own Authority too And the onely Argument he uses to prove that the Church ought to yield is because Dissenters ought to yield that is it is the duty of Governours to submit to their Subjects because it is the duty of Subjects to submit to their Governours I do not much care to be an Undertaker and yet I will venture for once to propose this Expedient for Peace Let the Dissenter as in duty bound yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul and the Church shall yield every thing else that is necessary to this desired Union This is but a reasonable Proposition not onely because Subjects ought first to yield but because the Church knows not what is necessary to be yielded till she sees how far the Dissenter can yield Indeed would the Dissenter yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul there would be no need for the Churches yielding any thing for the Church enjoyns nothing which is a sin against God or injurious to the Souls of men and there is great reason to believe that the Dissenters themselves do not think she does Both dissenting Preachers and Hearers when it serves a secular interest can hear the Common-Prayer receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling though the Minister officiate in a Surplice and I am so charitable as to hope that when they do so they do not believe that they sin in it and therefore all this they can yield without sinning against God or their own Souls and therefore this they ought to yield and then there will be little left for the Church to yield His two next Questions Whether the Worship of God cannot be performed decently and in order without these Ceremonies and whether if men must be without the Word and without Sacraments rather than without these Ceremonies which yet there is no necessity of nor is it the intention of the Church that it should be so as you have already heard this do not make them of equal necessity with divine Institutions have been already answered at large in the first Chapter Q. 8. Whether the constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompassing of all true Christians and whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental errour
A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING AN ANSWER To the First Part OF THE Protestant Reconciler By WILL. SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for Abel Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. who exclude so many Labourers for things indifferent p. 212 His fourth Argument from our Saviour's command not to scandalize little ones p. 213 What is meant by little ones p. 214 What it is to scandalize them p. 215 His fifth Argument from the Woe denounced against those who shut up the Kingdom of Heaven p. 216 How the Pharisees shut the Kingdom of Heaven ibid. What is meant by heavy burdens p. 218 And what it is our Saviour condemns under that notion p. 219 His sixth Argument that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid that man who wrought miracles in his Name but did not follow him and therefore dissenting Preachers who renounce the Communion of the Church must not be forbid to preach p. 220 His seventh Argument from Christ's laying down his life for his Sheep to prove that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for them p. 223 His last Argument from Christ's Prayer for the Vnity of the Church ibid. CHAP. V. The Answer to our Reconciler's Argument drawn from the 14 of Rom. p. 225 There may be some cases wherein forbearance is reasonable others wherein it is neither prudent nor reasonable ibid. And therefore we cannot argue from the case of the Iews to the case of the Dissenters unless they appear to be the same ibid. St. Paul in the 14 Rom. onely exhorts the Iewish and Gentile Converts to mutual forbearance in such cases which had already been determined by the highest authority in the Church 226 And therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Ceremonies which are scrupled by Dissenters 227 The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem the foundation of this Apostolical forbearance ibid. Private charity may be exercised in such cases where publick authority can make no determination in favour of the scrupulous 231 The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters of a different nature from that between the Iews and Gentiles the one concerns indifferent things the other the observation of the Law of Moses 235 No Dispute about the use of indifferent things in Scripture nor any exhortation to forbearance in such matters 236 An Answer to the Reconciler's Argument which he alleadges to make it probable that St. Paul in this Chapter does not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses ibid. So that this Chapter does not concern the Dispute about indifferent things 243 The Apostle did not plead for indulgence to the Iews in the observation of the Law of Moses under the notion of an indifferent thing ibid. The reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia 244 Whether though the case of the Iews and Dissenters be different yet by a parity of Reason the same indulgence ought to be granted to both 247 The nature of such Arguments from a parity of Reason ibid. That there is no parity of Reason between these two cases 249 The Arguments the Apostle uses in this 14 Chap. very proper to the case of the Iews but not applicable to the case of our Dissenters proved at large ibid. c. What the Apostle means by receiving one another and Dr. Falkner vindicated from the Reconciler's Objections The Apostles first Arg. That God has received them the meaning of it that it is peculiar to that case of Iews and Gentiles and not applicable to Dissenters 257 c. 2 Arg. that they must not judge another mans servant 262 That this Arg. relates onely to such matters as God has determined by his own immediate authority 264 3 Arg. that they acted out of conscience towards God 265 Whether every man must be permitted to act according to his own Conscience 266 God will judge the Consciences of men and therefore grants no such liberty as this 267 Civil Magistrates ought not to regard mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the publick good 268 Nor is there any obligation on the Governours of the Church to do this 269 What St. Paul means by regarding a day to the Lord 270 To do any thing to the Lord does not meerly signifie a private perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it 272 The Apostles Exhortation not to offend a weak Brother 274 What the scandal was of which the Apostle speaks 275 Who this weak Brother is and whether this be applicable to Dissenters 276 The offence which was given was a supposed violation of an express Law of God 277 The nature of a criminal scandal 279 The danger of offending these weak Iewish Brethren which the Apostle warns them against was lest they should renounce the Christian Faith and fall back into Iudaism 282 The weak in Faith who are to be indulged signifies those who are not well confirmed in the truth of Christianity 284 The same indulgence not to be granted to Schismaticks though ignorant and weak in understanding ibid. The Reasons whereby the Apostle disswades them from giving scandal 287 A Paraphrase on the 14 15 c. verses of the 14 Rom. ibid. These Arguments to avoid scandal concern onely the exercise of every mans private liberty 292 That this compliance must be in such matters wherein Religion and religious Worship is not concerned 293 Meat and Drink does not signifie the Externals of Religious Worship 294 Nor does Righteousness and Peace c. signifie all the Essentials of Religion 296 The mistake of Reconcilers that the Externals of Religion are nothing worth and of small account with God 297 This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith 298 The meaning of Hast thou Faith have it to thy self 299 What is meant by Him that doubteth 302 How far the Apostle allows that every man must be left to the conduct of his own Conscience This extends onely to such cases where every mans Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule 303 Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us 306 This proved to be the meaning of the Apostle ibid. The Case of liberty of Conscience briefly stated 304 A short Recapitulation of this Discourse by comparing the case of the Iews with the case of Dissenters 311 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the Vniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church what the Reconciler pleads for must do one or both 321 Dr. Stillingfleet vindicated 322 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was in order to prevent Schisms which our Reconciler's forbearance cannot do 333 This indulgence to the Iews was
very consistent with the Apostolical Authority in governing the Church but an indulgence of Dissenters is not 335 St. Paul always asserted and exercised the Apostolical Authority as much as any Apostle and therefore would not suffer any diminution of it 337 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary 339 CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the 5th Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler His 1 Arg. from St. Paul's reproving the Christians for going to Law before the unbelievers 341 His 2 Arg. that St. Paul would not impose Virginity upon the Christians though he owned some advantages in that state above marriage therefore the Church must not impose her Ceremonies though they had the advantages of greater Decency 345 The difference between these two cases plain the Apostle had not authority to impose the one the Church has to impose the other 346 His 3 Arg. is from the Dispute about meats offered to Idols ibid. Those knowing persons who eat in the Idols Temple were the Gnostick Hereticks 347 The weak persons who were offended at this were some Paganizing Christians who still thought it lawful to worship their Country-Gods and were confirmed in this belief by seeing the Gnosticks eat in the Idols Temple 349 In the 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle Disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks upon a supposition of the lawfulness of it because it encouraged these imperfect Christians in Idolatry 350 The Reconciler mistakes the whole case The Apostle does not grant it lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but proves the contrary in chap. 10. 352 The weak Conscience is not a Conscience which did abstain from eating but which did eat 354 Not a scrupulous Conscience which doubted of the lawfulness of eating but a Conscience erroneously perswaded that it might lawfully eat 355 And therefore the Apostle does not plead for indulgence to this weak Conscicnce but warns them against confirming such persons in their mistakes 356 The Apostle's decision of this Controversie that it is not lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but that it is lawful to eat meats offered to Idols when sold in the Shambles or eat at private houses 357 But yet they were to abstain in these cases also when it gave offence 358 For whose sake the Apostle abridges them of this liberty of eating such meats at private houses ibid. Nothing of all this to our Reconciler's purpose 359 This forbearance onely in the exercise of their private liberty 360 His Argument from St. Paul's own example of charity and condescension ibid. St. Paul was an example of no other condescension than what he taught and if that do not plead for Dissenters as I have already proved it does not neither can his example do it 361 His Argument from St. Paul's preaching the Gospel freely at Corinth answered at large 362 c. CHAP. VII An Answer to his Motives for mutual condescension 372 His first Motive from the smalness and littleness of these things which ought not to come in competition with Love and Peace ibid. This inforced from Gods own example who suffered the violation of his Ceremonial Laws upon less accounts than these 377 And gave his own Son to die for us 380 His second Motive that God does not exclude weak and erring persons from his favour for such errours of judgment as â—re consistent with true love to him 382 His third Argument that Christ broke down the middle wall of partition between Iew and Gentile 387 His fourth Motive from the example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel who concealed at first many things from their Hearers which they were not then able to bear 390 Mot. 5. from that Rule of Equity to do to others as we would be dealt with 392 6. From the obligations of Charity 397 7. That the same Arguments which are urged to perswade Dissenters to Conformity have equal force against the impositeon of Ceremonies as the terms of Communion The particular Argument considered and answered ibid. His Arguments from many general Topicks which he says are received and owned by all Casuits 404 An Answer to the Dissenters Questions produced by our Reconciler 405 CHAP. VIII Some short Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface 431 His Testimonies relating to the judgment of King James King Charles the first and our present Soveraign answered 433 Whether those Doctors of the Church of England whose Authority he alleadges were of his mind 438 Concerning the testimonies of foreign Divines 442 And the judgment of our own and foreign Divines about the terms of Concord between different Churches which does not prove that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church  A conclusion containing an Address to the Dissenters to let them see how the Reconciler has abused them that they cannot plead for indulgence upon his Principles without confessing themselves to be Schismaticks and weak ignorant humorsome People 443 Errata P. 35. l. 32. for and r. as p. 47. l. 28. f. bind r. bend p. 96. l. 10. f. charity r. clarity A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING An ANSWER TO THE Protestant Reconciler The INTRODVCTION THE name of a Reconciler especially of a Protestant Reconciler is very popular at such a time as this and it is a very invidious thing for any man to own himself an Enemy to so Christian a Designe and therefore I do not pretend to answer the Title which is a very good one but to examine how well the Book agrees with the Title and whether our Author has chosen the proper method for such a Reconciliation For this Reconciliation will prove very chargeable to the Church if she must renounce her own Authority to reconcile Dissenters The usual methods taken by Reconcilers have been either to convince men that they do not differ so much as they think they do but that the Controversie is onely about the manner of expressing the same thing or that they are both gone too far into opposite Extremes and have left Truth and Peace in the middle or that the matter in dispute is not of such moment as to contend about it or that the truth of either side of the Question is not certain or that one of the contending Parties is in the wrong and therefore ought to yield to him who is in the right But our Reconciler has taken a new way by himself to prove that both the contending Parties are in the wrong and that both of them are in the right for thus he adjusts the Controversie He who saith that it is sinful and mischievous to impose those unnecessary Ceremonies and to retain those disputable expressions of our Liturgie which may be altered and removed without transgressing of the Law of God saith true And thus the present Constitution of the Church of England in these present circumstances is with great modesty and submission without any dispute pronounced sinful by a professed Member and
had said very true and this would have justified the Ceremonies of the Church of England and all the decent Ceremonies of any foreign Churches in all Ages But it is a manifest Fallacy to say that the particular Ceremonies which are used in the Church of England have no positive Order Decency or Reverence because the acts of Worship may be performed orderly decently and reverently without them which our Church always owned for she never condemned the Worship of other Churches which do not use her Ceremonies while by other means they secure the external Decency and Reverence of Worship But the Question is Whether the Ceremonies injoyned by the Church of England or some other decent Ceremonies in the room of them be not necessary to the external Decency and Reverence of Worship Whether we can worship decently and reverently without some decent habits postures places c Whether the Ceremonies used by the Church of England be not as decent and reverent as any other We do not pretend that our Ceremonies are the onely decent and reverent Ceremonies that can be used in religious Worship then indeed his Argument had been strong That those who do not use them must worship God irreverently and indecently but we say they have a positive Decency and Reverence and that those who worship God according to the Prescriptions of our Church observe an external Decency and Reverence of Worship But this he says not one word to and therefore I presume cannot for he has given evidence enough that he never wants will but when he wants power to be civil to the Church of England And therefore he might have spared his pains in proving that God may be decently and reverently worshipt without the use of the English Ceremonies for no body ever said otherwise that I know of and the very Argument whereby he proves it plainly shews that the Church of England is of that mind for she asserts these Ceremonies to be indifferent and alterable whereas as he well urges they could be neither if they were absolutely necessary to the Decency and Reverence of Worship But before I proceed it will be necessary for the clearer stating of this matter to consider the several kinds of Decency and upon what account we assert That our Ceremonies have a positive Decency in them Now we may distinguish between the decency of circumstances and the decency of things or actions No action can be performed without some circumstances and no action can be decently perâ—â—rmed without decent circumstances such as â—ime and place and posture and habit and this is as absolutely necessary as the Decency of publick Worship is And to this Head of decent circumstances we reduce the Surplice which is a decent habit for the Minister when he performs the publick Offices of Religion and kneeling at the Lords Supper which are two of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England The Cross in Baptism which is the third Ceremony is not a circumstance of action and therefore has not the same kind of Decency nor the same necessity that the other Ceremonies have but it is to be considered as a decent thing or action Now these two being of so distinct a nature must be considered distinctly also and therefore I must advertise my Reader that what I shall now discourse about the Decency of Worship and the necessity of iâ— concerns onely the decent circumstances of religious actions such as the Surplice and kneeâ—ing at the Lords Supper are As for decent things or actions such as the signe of the Cross is at Baptism I shall discourse of that distinctly by its self Having premised this let us now return to our Reconciler This modest man who is so sensible of his own weakness and proneness to mistake in judging who is so unwilling to do the least disservice to the Church of England who has such a hearty honour for his Reverend Superiours yet with great humility ventures to confute and expose all the Savoy-Commissioners who were very grave and reverend Persons The Commissioners observed That the Apostle hath commanded that all things be done decently and that there may be uniformity let there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rule and Canon for that purpose And hence he says they infer that though charity will move to pity and relieve those that are perplexed and scrupulous that we must not break Gods commandment in charity to them and therefore we must not perform publick Services indecently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences Which he adds is expresly said to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies especially these three the Surplice the signe of the Cross and Kneeling This seems to me to be very wisely and judiciously urged by our Commissioners but our Reconciler thinks they have greatly overshot themselves when they assert That by abating the use and imposition of these Ceremonies they should break Gods Commandment and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly Truly I think this is a little too much and our Author has loaded it with a great many hard consequences which I see not how they can answer but the best of it is that the Commissioners never said any such thing I am sure there is no such thing contained in the words cited by him which he reduces to this absurd Proposition But do not they say that they must not break Gods Command in Charity and therefore must not perform publick Services indecently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences Yes they do say so And was not that said to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies Suppose that too Does not this then signifie that by abating the use or imposition of these Ceremonies they shall break Gods Commandment and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly By no means This is onely one instance of our Author's proneness to mistake in judging which I wish he were more thoroughly sensible of and that would make him more modest without a complement The Commissioners assert very truly That the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order This they take to be Gods Command as well they might and therefore it is a breach of Gods Command to perform publick Services indecently and disorderly and charity does not oblige them to break any Command of God and therefore they must not do this for the sake of tender Consciences All this I presume our Reconciler himself will acknowledge What then is the fault Why the Commissioners urge this upon occasion of the Dispute about abating the Ceremonies of the Church of England and therefore it proves that they thought the Worship of God could not be decently and reverently performed without those particular Ceremonies for otherwise their Argument is not good Yes say I the Argument is very good without this Supposition and therefore the Reconciler's consequence is not good For I would ask him one plain Question Can any
of the Cross on their foreheads at the same time that they were received into the Church by Baptism which does no more derogate from the perfection of Baptism than their forms of renouncing the Devil with their faces towards the West and spitting at him Those constant Persecutions which in those days attended Christianity made this a very useful and necessary Ceremony And it may be observed that no Christians in any Age of the Church ever scrupled to receive the signe of the Cross on their foreheads but those who think the Doctrine of the Cross now out of date and can as profanely scoff at a suffering Religion as the Heathens did at a crucified Christ None but those who profess Treasons and Rebellions for Christ and never think it their duty to suffer but when they want â—trength and power to fight for him which â—ives little encouragement to Christian Prinâ—es to part with this symbolical Signe and Ceâ—â—mony of a suffering Religion But there is one Objection which our Reconciler makes against the positive Order and Dcency of these Ceremonies which aâ—e used in the Church of England which is fit to be considered in this place and that is That Christ and his Apostles did not use them and therefore they either worshipt God indecently or the use of them is not necessary to the Decency of Worship Now this is sufficiently answered by what I have already discours'd That though the Decency of publick Worship be a necessary Duty and some decent Rites and Ceremonies be necessary to the external Decency of Worship yet where there is choice of such Ceremonies which are very decent we cannot say that such or such particular Ceremonies are absolutely necessary because the Decency of Worship may be preserved by the use of other decent Rites and therefore Christ and his Apostles might worship very decently without the use of these Ceremonies and the Church of England may worship very decently with them But yet to shew the folly of this Argument we may consider 1. That all the time Christ was upon Earth he never set up any publick Worship distinct from the Jewish Worship He lived in Communion with the Jewish Church anâ— worshipped God with them at the Temple oâ— in their Synagogues And it is as pleasant 〈◊〉 Argument to prove that there is no reason 〈◊〉 using such Ceremonies now because 〈◊〉 did not use them as it would be to proveth tht we must not use such Ceremonies as are proâ—er to the Christian Worship because they wre not used in the Temple or Jewish Synagogâ—es in our Saviours days for he never performed any act of publick Worship any-where else But you will say Christ instituted the Sacrament of his own Body and Bloud but he neither received kneeling himself nor commanded his Apostles to do so Now in answer to this it is not evident to me that Christ received at all himself much less does it appear in what posture he received It is said in St. Matthew and St. Mark that after the institution of this holy Supper when he had blessed the Bread and brake it and divided it among his Disciples and commanded them all to eat of it and had likewise took the Cup and having given thanks commanded them all to drink of it that he added But I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new with you â—n my Fathers kingdom From whence some â—ay conclude that he did at that time drink 〈◊〉 the Cup though he tells them it was the 〈◊〉 time he would drink of it But St. Luke 〈◊〉 us that these words were spoke at eating 〈◊〉 Passover before the institution of his last Super and then they are a plain demonstratiâ—â— that he did not drink of the Sacramental Wâ—e and it is not likely that he should feaâ— on the symbols of his own Body and Bloâ— But suppose he had it had been as imprper for him to have received kneeling as it â—s decent in us to do so for this had been â—n act of Worship to himself And though we do not read in what posture the Apostle received yet I am pretty confident they did receive in their ordinary eating posture For it is very improbable that our Saviour would require them to kneel for he exacted no act of Worship from them while he was on Earth they never prayed to him as their great High-Priest and we may as well argue that we must not pray to him now he is in Heaven because he did not command his Apostles to pray to him while he was on Earth as that we must not worship him when we approach his Table nor receive that mysterious Bread and Wine with all humility of Soul and Body now he is in Heaven because at the first institution of this holy Supper while he was still visibly present witâ— them he did not command his Apostles tâ— receive kneeling Nor is it likely the Apostles would do 〈◊〉 of themselves any more than that they 〈◊〉 any other act of religious Worship to Chst on Earth for though they heard the wrds of institution yet at that time they understod nothing of the mystery of it as it is impoâ—ble they should who understood so little oâ— his Death and Passion much less of the merorious Vertue and Expiation of his Bloud 2. As for the Apostles who founed a Christian Church and set up Christian Worship after the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour what particular Rites and Ceremonies of Worship they used we are no certain though that they were careful of the Decency of Worship is evident from this Apostolical Precept That all things be done decotly and in ordâ—r And their Love-Feasts anâ— the holy Kiss are a plain proof that they were not without their religious Rites also And if we may judge of the Apostolical Churches by the succeeding Ages of the Church even while they were under Sufferings and Persecutions there was no Age of the Church till the Reformation so free from Rituals and Ceremonies as the Church of England is at this day Thirdly Let us now consider how our Reconciler states this matter and here I shall once for all examine whatever I can find in his Book pertinent to this Argument I. Now in the first place I observe that our Reconciler agrees with Bishop Taylor That it is for ever necessary that things should be done in the Church decently and in order and that the Rulers of the Church who have the same power as the Apostles had in this must be the perpetual Iudges of it And he adds It cannot therefore rationally be denied that the Rulers of the Church have power to command things which belong unto the positive Order and Decency of the Service of God This is so fair a Concession that methinks we might agree upon it but he immediately undoes all again and says That this Command affords no ground for the
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
to one case and not to the other and argues great ignorance as well as impudence in our Reconciler to censure it which I shall largely prove when I come to answer his fourth Chapter And because our Reconciler so often mentions not onely the abatement of the Ceremonies but the alteration of some scrupled expressions in the Liturgy without mentioning what those are I can give no other answer to it but to represent that account which is given us of those late alterations which were made in our Liturgy as we find it in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book Our general aim therefore in this undertaking was not to gratisie this or that Party in any of their unreasonable demands but to do that which to our best understanding we conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church the procuring of Reverence and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgie of our Church Most of the alterations were made for the more proper expressing of some words or phrases of ancient usage in terms more suitable to the Language of the present times and the clearer explanation of some other words or phrases which were either of doubtful signification or otherwise liable to misconstruction And what other Rule our Reconciler would have the Church observe in altering scrupled phrases I cannot tell for if she muâ—t alter while some people cease to scruple she must alter it all or rather take it quite away 3. But you will say It is at least a breach of Charity to impose such Rites and Ceremonies as are scrupled by great numbers of Christians and the imposition of which occasions a formidable Schism in the Church As for the Schisms and Divisions which are said to be occasioned by the imposition of these Ceremonies I shall consider that in the next Chapter My designe at present leads me to consider the Mistakes and Scruples of Christians and how far Governours ought to have any regard to them and for the explication of this there are several things to be observed 1. I readily grant that the Church ought not to command any thing which is of a doubtful or suspicious nature for where the thing is doubtful her Authority to command is doubtful too Or rather it is certain that the Church has no Authority in doubtful matters for her Authority can be no larger than her Commission and it is no part of her Commission to teach or command things which are doubtful Thus it may well be doubted whether it be lawful to set up Images in Churches to pray before a Crucifix to excite and quicken our Devotions though we have no intention to pay any religious homage to them For the same reason the Church cannot by her Authority adopt doubtful Propositions into Articles of Faith and require all Christians to believe them as the necessary terms of Communion To this purpose our Reconciler at his usual impertinent rate of Citations alleadges several passages out of Mr. Chillingworth to prove that no doubtful Propositions ought to be made Articles of Faith or necessary terms of Communion in which I perfectly agree with Mr. Chillingworth but can by no means see how it follows from hence that because the Church must not make new Articles of Faith therefore she must not prescribe the necessary Rules of Worship that because she must not impose things which are of a doubtful nature therefore she must not command any thing which some people raise doubts and scruples about But our Reconciler thinks that it is a sufficient evidence that a thing is doubtful and that the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon the determination of it when there are a great number of men doubt of it and the thing is disputed and controverted and Arguments produced on both sides and if this be so there is not any Article of our Faith but what is doubtful it is very doubtful whether there be a God and whether Christ were the true Messias or an Importer for we know there are a great many Atheists Jews Turks and Infidels in the world And if it be an Argument against the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Dissenters dispute against them if this prove That the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon submission to them and that the decision of the Controversie concerning them was not intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God in these Kingdoms farewell to all certainty in Religion But he proves this by an Argument transcribed from Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum a book which certainly did such great service at the time when it was written to draw men on to a calm consideration of things and whose Reverend Author has done such excellent service since to the Church of England by his incomparable Writings both against Papists and Fanaticks that whatever fault there may be in it both the Book and the Author have merited something more than a pardon especially since that Book stands now upon its own legs and can derive no authority from that great Name he having sufficiently declared his dislike and I think sufficiently answered some principal parts of it himself And though I cannot assent to every Proposition in the Irenicum as I am pretty sure the Author himself does not yet I can by no means think that it deserves all that clamour which some men have raised against it I am sure it never can make any man a Dissenter and I think it much more desirable and more for the interest of the Church that men should conform upon the Principles of the Irenicum than that they should continue Dissenters I could not forbear saying this once for all out of that sincere honour I have for that excellent person who has met with very ill usage from some men who either envy his deserved praises or hope to make themselves considerable by being his Rivals But let us hear what the Argument is Where probable Arguments are brought for the maintaining one part of an Opinion as well as another though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbyassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both Parties would make it to be on their own sides and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that the final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God Now I confess I see no reason why I may not assent to all this for if the Arguments be onely probable on both sides and such as are not convincing either way to an unbyassed judgment it is a signe the
thing is doubtful though some men may be very confident both ways and nothing that is doubtful can be necessary to salvation nor can the final decision of it be necessary to the peace of the Church But if the Arguments on one hand to an unbyassed and disinteressed judgment be plain and certain and the Objections on the other hand nothing but empty and trifling Cavils which is the true case between the Church of England and Dissenters in the dispute of Ceremonies if the dissent of these men shall be thought sufficient to render this matter uncertain we shall be condemned to eternal and unavoidable Scepticism But our Reconciler says Let any man peruse the Arguments of the Dissenters against Conformity to symbolical Ceremonies and he will find them strengthned by the suffrages of many grave and learned Divines both of our own and other Churches As for the grave Divines of other Churches let them mind their own business for their Authority is nothing to us and as for the Divines of our own Church who strengthen the Dissenters Arguments against Ceremonies who they are or how many or how grave and learned they are I cannot tell He has indeed transcribed several Sayings out of some of our Divines to plead for the relaxation of such Impositions but none that I know of to strengthen the Dissenters Arguments which no Divine in our Church can do who honestly conforms himself Well but how does this Passage in the Irenicum countenance this reconciling designe Suppose there be probable reasons on both sides where yet it is necessary to act one way what must be done in this case must every man be left to do as he pleases So says the Reconciler that this is the onely way to peace but the Irenicum says the quite contrary That the way to peace cannot be by leaving an absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace It must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations Which is a peremptory determination against our Reconciler who very rarely quotes any Author without wresting his words to another sence than what was intended If every thing were doubtful of which some men doubt and nothing must be determined which is thus doubtful it were impossible that there should be any external form and constitution of a Church or any external Worship If it be a good Argument that a thing is doubtful because some men doubt of it methinks it is as good an Argument that that is not doubtful which no body doubts of and thus symbolical Ceremonies as our Reconciler calls them are past all doubt for no Christian ever had any doubt about them for above fifteen hundred years which is time enough in this way to prove the certainty of any thing And though some Christians begin to doubt and to invent Arguments to countenance their doubts after fifteen hundred years yet this is no reason for the Church to doubt also Well but if mens doubting be not an Argument that the thing whereof they doubt is doubtful how shall we know what is doubtful and what not I answer Where there is no positive evidence and the probabilities or difficulties are great on both sides there is sufficient reason for doubting and in such cases I think the Church has not authority to determine either way when the doubt is about the lawfulness or unlawfulness the truth or falshood of things for the authority of the Church cannot alter the nature nor the evidence of things and therefore ought not to determine that to be lawful which it is equally probable may be unlawful nor that to be true which has equal proofs of its being false But this cannot concern the controversie about the lawful use of some Ceremonies in religious Worship for which we have as plain and positive evidence as we can desire for a thing of this nature as I have already shewn and therefore any mens doubting of this makes it no more doubtful than their doubts about any plain and necessary Article of Faith renders that also doubtful and suspicious 2. Though the Church must not command any thing which is of a doubtful nature yet the doubts and scruples or mistakes of Christians ought to have no influence upon acts of Government There cannot be a more unreasonable and senseless Imposition upon Governours than this which makes all Government the most arbitrary and precarious and useless thing in the world If this Rule were allowed what work would it make in Kingdoms and Families when Princes Parents and Masters must command nothing which their Subjects Children or Servants scruple to do That which makes Government necessary is that the generality of mankind do not know how to govern themselves but this Principle makes all men their own Governours and makes it unlawful for any Authority to impose any thing upon their Subjects which they have not a mind to for it is an easie matter to scruple or to pretend to scruple whatever we have no mind to do and yet if we will believe our Reconciler here is no distinction to be made between men who are really weak and scrupulous and those who pretend to it for it is an uncharitable thing it seems whatever evidence we have for it to charge those men with obstinacy malice or perverseness who pretend to Scruples and tender Consciences But to what purpose has God committed any Authority to some certain persons in Church or State if they must not govern according to the best judgment they have of things but must be governed by the mistakes or scruples of those whom they ought to govern If they must not command what is innocent useful and convenient when those whom they ought to command do not think it so This all men will acknowledge to be intolerable in the State and I challenge our Reconciler to shew me any wise reason wâ—â— the Secular Powers must have no regard to mens scruples in making useful Laws and the Governours of the Church must Whoever considers how wild unreasonable and fantastical some mens mistakes and scruples are must needs think it a very ridiculous Constitution of Government which has any regard to them It is in the Government of the Church as it is in the State and as it must of necessity be in all Governments Those who have authority to govern must take care to do it wisely and charitably and those who are subject must obey in all things lawful without cavilling at their Superiours commands where they are not manifestly contrary to some divine Law and if there happens any
a long debate determined against the Circumcision of the Gentiles notwithstanding the Jewish scruples about it On the other hand they lay a Burden for so the Council calls it upon the Gentile Christians without any regard to any scruples they might have about it though as Dr. Falkner shews there was a fair colour and pretence for many The Reconciler indeed answers those pretences of scruple which the Doctor says the Gentile Christians might have though he sufficiently blunders in it But what is that to the purpose the Doctor did not pretend that they were unanswerable but expresly says That though these are far from solid Arguments yet to an indifferent person for he did not dream of the Protestant Reconciler may possibly seem as plausible as many exceptions used by some men in other cases that is by the Dissenters in the Dispute of Ceremonies But the force of the Argument which our Reconciler conceals because he could not answer it is this That notwithstanding such plausible exceptions and scruples That Apostolical Sanction was both lawful and honourable yea though it concerned things indifferent and was established as many think by that Ecclesiastical Authority which they committed to their Successors in the Church As for what the Reconciler urges that this Decree was onely about necessary things it has been sufficiently answered already for the Decency of publick Worship is a necessary thing and I think a little more necessary than abstaining from Bloud which is part of that Decree And whereas he pretends that the abating our Ceremonies is necessary upon the same reason which made that Apostolical Decree necessary viz. in order to avoid scandal and offence I shall largely shew how different these cases are in answer to his fourth Chapter I observe farther that our Saviour himself who certainly knew as well as our Reconciler what indulgence was fit to be used to mens scruples and mistakes and in what cases Charity did oblige to such an indulgence yet was so far from complying with the errours and mistakes of the Pharisees that he seems to have done many things on purpose to oppose their superstitious conceits This Argument was urged by Dr. Falkner and proposed as an Objection by the Reconciler though not in the Doctor 's words as he would have his Readers believe by putting them into a different Character The Doctor 's Argument in his own words are these It is truly observed by Ursin to adde confirmation to erroneous Opinions in the minds of the weak about indifferent things is a giving offence or being guilty of an active scandal Vpon this account though our Saviour knew that his healing and commanding the man who was healed to take up his bed on the Sabbath-day his eating with Publicans and Sinners and his Disciples eating with unwashen hands were things in the highest manner offensive to some of the Iews he practised and allowed these things in opposition to the Scribes and Pharisees who in their censures of him proceeded upon erroneous and corrupt Doctrines vented by them for divine Dictates Our Reconciler seems conscious to himself that this was an untoward Argument as it was stated by the Doctor and therefore in his Margin he refexs his Reader to the place where these words are found which I have now cited but yet he durst not trust his Readers with them but puts the Objection into his own words which he thought he could better deal with And that every one may see how unlike they are to Dr. Falkner's Argument I shall transcribe them also which are these Our Saviour knew that his healing on the Sabbath-day gave great offence unto the Pharisees and also ministred unto them an occasion to traduce his mission and to perswade the people that he was not of God because he did not keep the Sabbath although he could as well have done it on the following day and therefore his Embassadours may still persist in the imposing of our Ceremonies though others are offended at them Where we see he durst instance onely in his healing on the Sabbath-day which he thought he could say something to but slips over those other instances which the Doctor gave and conceals the force of the Doctor 's Argument which consists in this That our Saviour did not think fit by his compliance with men in their errours and mistakes to confirm them in such superstitious conceits But let us hear what our Reconciler answers to it I. He says touching the act it self our Saviour declares affirmatively that there was a moral goodness in it that it was to do well to do good to save life But what is this to the purpose Was there any moral goodness too in commanding the man whom he had cured to take up his Bed and walk on the Sabbath-day which we know gave equal offence to the Jews who told the man that was cured It is the Sabbath-day it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed Was there any moral goodness in his Disciples eating with unwashen hands which gave as great offence as any thing else and yet was publickly justified by our Saviour Was there any moral goodness in Christ's eating with Publicans and Sinners Could not he have instructed them in the Will of God without such a familiar conversation with them as he knew gave great offence to the Pharisees Was there any moral goodness in healing on the Sabbath-day when there was no necessity for doing it just on that day for our Saviour might have healed them at any other time as well Yes says our Reconciler our Saviour adds That the neglect of doing this on the Sabbath was to do evil and destroy life But where does our Saviour say this He proposes this Question indeed to them Is it lawful on the Sabbath-day to do good or to do evil to save life or to destroy it And from hence our Reconciler infers that not to heal on the Sabbath-day had been to destroy life an inference worthy of his great and profound judgment for I would ask him Whether our Saviour could be charged with destroying those mens lives whom he did not heal whether on the Sabbath-day or on any other day Whether he were under a necessity of healing all that were sick If he were not then he might have chosen his times of healing as well as the persons whom he would heal without being guilty of destroying any mans life and so might have forborn healing on the Sabbath-day Nay Whether our Saviour could be charged with destroying life by neglecting to heal a withered hand on the Sabbath-day which did not endanger life and the cure of which might have been deferred till the next day without any hazard And therefore St. Matthew represents the force of our Saviour's Argument onely to prove that it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-day And if we compare what St. Matthew and St. Luke say we shall find this to be the whole meaning
the Church ought in charity to the people to shew them the blindness of their Guides and therefore not to comply with them in their superstitious scruples III. But the men who were offended at it were onely Hypocrites whose hearts were hardened against the truth What were they all Hypocrites was there not one honest man among them Some Hypocrites there were then and so there are still Hypocrites in another sence than these men were Hypocrites For the Jews did generally believe the unlawfulness of any kind of work on the Sabbath-day and therefore were really scandalized and offended but we have a company of Hypocrites among us who do not really scruple what they pretend to do but onely make a pretence of scruples an occasion to abuse the People to stir up Schisms in the Church and Factions in the State men who can conform when they please and be offended and scandalized when they please But our Lord did all that could be reasonable to prevent their scandal No he did not abstain from working Miracles on the Sabbath-day which he might have done if he had pleased but he was so far from avoiding giving offence to them that he did it on purpose because they were offended at it and to deliver men from such Superstitions as made them take offence But he first satisfies them from their own practice on a less occasion and from the nature of the action and that with so much evidence and conviction that they were ashamed and could not answer him one word And has our Church been wanting in this to give satisfaction to Dissenters How many unanswerable Books have been written in justification of the Constitutions and Worship of our Church And that our Dissenters are not ashamed but will talk on when they have not one wise word to say is onely an Argument that they have less wit and more impudence than the Pharisees had Our Church indeed cannot work Miracles as Christ did to convince them though where plain and convincing Reasons will not do I doubt Miracles will not do neither for though the Pharisees were silenced by Christ yet they were neither convinc'd by his Reasons nor his Miracles Thus I have considered what obligation Charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church to abate those Ceremonies which some men scruple and take offence at But I must here briefly consider one Principle more of our Reconcilers which he no-where pretends to prove but takes for granted That the Charity of Governours requires the abatement of every thing which is not absolutely necessary in Religion if it prove an occasion of scruple and offence For why must the Church be tyed up to what is necessary Her Power and Authority extends to things which are useful and expedient though not absolutely necessary and therefore she may exercise this Power according to the measures of Prudence and Charity notwithstanding the unreasonable superstitious scruples of men which ought to lay no restraint upon the prudent Exercise of Government as I think I have already sufficiently proved and yet our Reconciler thinks it a sufficient reason why the Church should alter any scrupled Ceremonies how decent or expedient soever they are if we cannot prove them to be absolutely necessary Thus I have considered the main Principles of his Book and shall not think my self any further concerned to take notice of them as often as I meet with them If these Principles which I have now laid down hold good his Book is answered and the Governours of the Church may exercise their just Authority and he that is offended let him be offended And yet for the more ample satisfaction of all men what a trifler our Reconciler is I shall particularly examine his Arguments from Scripture and shew how impertinent they are to our present Dispute CHAP. III. Concerning a more particular Answer to our Reconciler's Objections against the imposition of indifferent things when they are an occasion of Discords Divisians and Schisms THough what I have already discours'd bâ— sufficient to satisfie every impartial Reader that all our Reconciler's Arguments are meer Fallacies as proceeding upon false and mistaken Principles yet for the more abundant satisfaction of all who are willing to be informed I shall proceed to a more particular examination of his Reasons why Church-Governours ought to alter or abate such scrupled Ceremonies I. And first he declaims very copiously about the great evil and mischief of Divisions and truly I believe Discord and Division especially among Christian Brethren to be as bad a thing as he can possibly describe it to be But what then what then the consequence is very plain For if Conformists do not conceive it better at least that we should run the hazard of all these dreadful evils than that we should consent to lay aside the imposition of a few indifferent Ceremonies or to the altering of a few scrupled expressions in our Liturgie then must they yield up these few Ceremonies and alter these expressions to prevent all the aforesaid evils 1. I answer Does our Reconciler then think that every thing that is the occasion of Discords and Divisions must be removed Is the cause of Divisions in the nature of things or in the minds of men And is it not most proper to apply the remedy to the disease to instruct people that they ought not to quarrel about such matters that they ought to pay such deference to their Superiours as chearfully to obey them in all things which God has not expresly forbid Till this be done the Church may aâ—ter her Constitutions every year and be as far off from Peace as now for while men are ignorant scrupulous and quarrelsome it is impossible for the Governours of Church and State by the most wise and prudent Constitutions to prevent Divisions 2. Is not the contempt of Ecclesiastical Authority and the rude and unmannerly performance of religious Worship as great a mischief as Divisions and yet it is impossible to indulge every scrupulous person without destroying the Authority of the Church and the Decency of Worship as I have already proved Now I must confess bonâ fide to our Reconciler that I think all our Divisions about Ceremonies a less scandal to the Christian Religion than this would be for it is better to have a well constituted Church with Division than to have none without it 3. Will our parting with some few Ceremonies cure these Divisions which he so much complains of This our Reconciler cannot undertake for and it is demonstrable it will not Is this the onely Controversie that Presbyterians Independents Quakers and other Sectaries have with the Church of England Has our Reconciler never read Mr. Baxter's Pleas for Peace and those other venomous Pamphlets of late date When the Church of England was pull'd down and these Ceremonies and Episcopacy it self removed out of the way did it cure Divisions or increase them When the Reverend Dean
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
the Idols Temple and then the sound Christian was to forbear for fear of encouraging such weak Christians in their Idolatry for they might apprehend it as lawful to sacrifice to an Idol as to eat of the Sacrifice and as lawful to eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple as in a private house And thus the use of their innocent liberty in eating what is set before them without scruple might confirm such men in their Idolatrous practices and for that reason they were to forbear And it is probable enough that St. Paul might have respect to all these from what he adds v. 32. Give none offence neither to the Iew nor to the Gentile nor to the Church of God Not to the Jew who had a great abhorrence of Idolatry by doing any thing which should make them suspect you of the least approach to Idolatry which would confirm them in their aversion to Christianity not to the Gentile by confirming them in their Idolatry not to the Church of God by scandalizing either weak or scrupulous Christians much less by scandalizing the Christian Profession as the Gnosticks did by eating in the Idols Temple But how any thing of all this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I cannot see that which comes nearest the business is if we suppose that the Apostle commands them to abstain for the sake of those who scrupled the lawfulness of such meats but then this forbearance was only in the exercise of their private liberty in eating or not eating wherein Religion is not immediately concerned for though it were lawful to eat of such meats yet it was not their duty to do it their eating in it self considered did not please God though they eat without scandal much less when their eating was an offence to weak Christians Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse as he had before told the Romans The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore in such cases it became them to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty But how little this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I have already shewn at large in the fifth Chapter and our Reconciler has offered nothing new here to deserve a new Answer All that remains to be considered in this Chapter is the Example of St. Paul himself which may be answered in a very few words He exercised great charity and forbearance both towards Jews and Gentiles and therefore being so great an Apostle ought to be an Example of the like forbearance to all succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now if our Reconciler can prove from the Example of St. Paul that the Governours of the Church ought not to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion or ought to alter and abolish them in charity and condescension to Dissenters I will yield the Cause Let us then consider what St. Paul's condescension was and I observe in general that he was an Example of the same condescension and forbearance which he perswaded other private Christians to exercise and therefore if that charity and forbearance which he exhorts the Christians to exercise towards each other does not overthrow Ecclesiastical Authority nor plead for the Indulgence and Toleration of Dissenters then St. Paul's Example cannot do this neither This will appear from considering particulars In this Epistle to the Corinthians he perswades them not to eat meats offered to Idols especially in an Idols Temple for fear of offending and scandalizing weak Christians and this he tells them he would observe himself Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend In the Epistle to the Romans he perswades believing Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and not to judge and censure and scandalize one another about the observation or non-observation of the Law of Moses and this condescension both â—o Jews and Gentiles he exercised himself Vnto the Iew I became as a Iew that I might gain the Iews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law to them that are withouâ— the Law as without Law that I might gain them that are without Law That is when he was among the Jews he lived as a Jew observed the Law of Moses as they did when he was among the Gentiles who had no regard to the Law of Moses he did not observe it neither he complied with the weakness and mistakes both of Jews and Gentiles he became all things to all men that he might by all means gain some that is he practised that condescension and forbearance which he taught others to practise And if that did not concern the case of our Dissenters nor plead for the like Indulgence and Toleration for them as I have already proved at large it does not neither can the Apostle's Example prove any such thing All this condescension of the Apostle was not in the exercise of his Apostolical Authority but in the use of his private liberty which he was very willing to restrain to make his Ministry the more effectual but he never parted with his Authority to govern the Church and to prescribe the Rules and Orders of Worship for the sake of any Dissenters as I have already proved But there is one instance more of St. Paul's condescension which our Reconciler takes notice of and indeed it is a very notable one viz. that though St. Paul asserts his right to live upon the Churches stock as well as other Ministers yet he maintained himself by his own labour that he might preach the Gospel to the Corinthians without charge for it is plain that he did receive Contributions from other Churches and this he did lest he should hinder the Gospel of Christ and to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion From whence our Reconciler thus argues Wherefore although the Rulers of the Church have certainly a right to impose things indifferent yet with submission to them I conceive they should not exercise that power in like circumstances viz. when by the exercise thereof they give occasion to them that desire occasion to traduce them as men who more regard a Ceremony than an immortal Soul the exercise of their commanding power than the preserving poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions when it hinders the preaching of the Gospel to their Flock as this imposing seems to do Ad Populum phalerae Now I shall briefly consider the Case and then I will consider our Reconciler's Application The Case is this St. Paul had a right to live on the Gospel by Gods own appointment and ordination as the Priests under the Law who ministred in holy things lived of the things of the Temple and they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the Altar have their portion
sorts of People that when they are under they desire that liberty and indulgence which they judge unreasonable to grant when they are in power And whereas some attribute this to the weakness of humane nature which is corrupted by Power and grows insolent and domineering that Subjects see what is fitting for Governours to do but Governours lose that tender regard to their Subjects when they have Power in their hands I take the contrary to this to be the true reason of it that men who are in Power understand the reasons and necessity of Government and have a greater regard to a publick Good than to gratifie mens private Interests and Inclinations but Subjects when the Power is not on their side are bribed by their own interest and self-love to censure and condemn such acts of government as they liked very well in themselves when they were in Power Which is a plain demonstration that this Rule To do as we would be done by is onely a Rule for private Conversation not for publick Government and that the private Resentments of those who suffer is no Argument against the Justice Prudence or Charity of Government VI. His sixth Argument is from the nature and obligations of Charity but I have considered this at large in the second Chapter and explained the difference between a private Charity and the Charity of Government and made it appear that there is no want of Charity in the Constitution of the Church of England VII His next Argument is this That those Arguments which with the greatest strength of reason are offered to induce Dissenters to conform to the Constitutions of the Church of England do with equal force and clearness conclude against the imposition of those Rites as the condition of Communion If this prove true I am sure such Arguments are good for nothing on neither side but let us hear what they are 1. It is well argued by Conformists that the Rules and Canons of the Church-Governours imposed for Decency and Order are to be obeyed by inferiours till it be made as clear that they are not bound to obey in the instances enjoyned as it is evident in general that Inferiours ought to obey Superiours for if the exemption from obedience be not as evident as the command to obey it must be sin not to obey Now our Reconciler mistakes the nature and use of this Argument which is not directly to press any man to Conformity but onely to conquer mens unreasonable scruples about Conformity that in case they have any doubts and jealousies whether it be lawful to obey in such instances yet if they are not as certain that the thing commanded is unlawful to be done as they are that it is unlawful to disobey the lawful commands of their Superiours they ought to chuse the safer side that is to obey their Superiours which they are sure is their duty when they are not equally sure that to obey them in such instances is a sin This our Reconciler says is a good Argument and therefore I shall not dispute that point now But let us hear how he turns this Argument upon the Church That the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles not to offend his little ones not to condemn and scandalize our weak Brother c. must be obeyed by Superiours till it be made as clear that by imposing of such things which grieve and scandalize their Brethren c. they do not offend against the forementioned Precepts as it is evident in the general that they ought not to offend against them Very good But to whom must this be made as clear to the Dissenters or to the Governours of the Church If the Governours of the Church are onely concerned to satisfie themselves in this all is safe for I suppose they have no scruple about it and therefore may impose these things with a safe Conscience and yet this Rule concerns onely the private satisfaction of every mans Conscience whether he be a Governour or a Subject in the lawfulness of what he either commands or obeys 2. It is strongly urged against Dissenters that nothing can be unlawful which is not by God forbidden and therefore that Dissenters cannot satisfie their Consciences in their refusal to obey the commands of their Superiours unless they can shew some plain Precept which renders that unlawful to be done by them which is commanded by Superiours But our Reconciler misrepresents this Argument which is this Nothing is unlawful which is not forbidden by God the Ceremonies of the Church are not forbidden by God therefore they are not unlawful for as for the satisfaction of a Dissenters Conscience that is so wild and uncertain a thing that whatever the premises be you can never conclude whether they will be satisfied or not for they can be satisfied when they please with or without or against a divine Law and nothing shall satisfie them when they are not pleased to be satisfied But let us hear how this recoils upon Imposers Nothing can be unlawful to be forborn or laid aside for avoiding the scandal and offence of our weak Brother c. which is not plainly by God forbidden to be done for those good ends Wherefore unless that our Imposers can shew some plain Precept which renders it unlawful to leave these Ceremonies indifferent or alter some few places in the Liturgie which give this scandal and offence to their weak Brethren they cannot satisfie their Consciences in their refusal to forbear the imposition of those things But how does our Reconciler know this Suppose Governours can satisfie their Consciences without such an express prohibition what then Is it a sin not to grant that indulgence which they are not forbid to grant by an express positive Law For suppose that nothing is unlawful to be forborn which is not plainly by God forbidden to be done how does this prove that it is unlawful not to forbear that which God has not plainly forbidden to be done The Imposers cannot shew any plain Precept which renders it unlawful to leave these Ceremonies indifferent therefore it is unlawful not to leave these Ceremonies indifferent that is it is unlawful not to do that which we are not forbidden not to do which cannot be true unless whatever God does not forbid he commands which would make ill for our Reconciler and all his dissenting Clients for then we could easily prove that God has commanded them to observe all the Ceremonies of the Church of England because he has not forbid them to observe them And indeed now I think on 't I suppose he takes this to be the meaning of that Argument which is urged against the Dissenters that they are bound to do what they are not bound not to do that what is not forbidden by God and therefore not unlawful to be done they are bound to do and then I confess the same Argument would hold against the Imposers as well as against the Dissenters but it is a
very foolish Argument against either The true Argument against the Dissenters is this That they are bound to obey their Superiours in those things which God has not forbidden for where God has not interposed his Authority they are subject to the Authority of their Governours The Argument is not That they are in all cases bound to do what God has not forbid them to do which is ridiculously absurd for what is not unlawful not forbidden by God may either be done or may be let alone without sin unless some other consideration besides its being not forbidden alter the case But the Argument is this That what God has not forbidden Governours may command and Subjects are bound in Conscience to obey Let us see then how he applies this to our Imposers as he modestly calls our Governours in Church and State It is not unlawful as not forbidden by God to leave these Ceremonies indiffâ—rent so far indeed it agrees with the case of the Dissenters that the Ceremonies are not unlawful as not being forbidden by God but now where is the superior Authority over Governours to make it unlawful for them to impose that which it is not unlawful not to impose then the case of Imposers would be exactly parallel with the Dissenters who are under the Authority of their Governours which makes that their duty which God had left indifferent and that unlawful which God had by no express prohibition made unlawful but here the Parallel fails and therefore the Argument is not the same For the supreme Authority of Church and State can have no superiour Authority on Earth to make that unlawful to them which God has not made unlawful All that our Reconciler offers to this purpose is onely this That the avoiding scandal and offence and the preservation of Charity Peace and Vnity in the Church lays as necessary an obligation on Governours to forbear what they may lawfully forbear for the promoting these ends as the Authority of Governours obliges Subjects to obey them in all things wherein they lawfully may that is that Governours are bound not to command any thing which they may lawfully not command when hereby they serve the ends of Charity and Peace Now if this were the case yet so the Argument would not be the same for then we must state the case of Governours thus That they must not do that which is unlawful to be done not that they must not do that which is not unlawful not to be done The Authority of Governours does not alter the intrinsick nature of things and therefore we may very properly say that Subjects must obey their Governours in all things which are not unlawful and that the things commanded are not in their own natures unlawful is a good Argument to oblige them to obey but the end and circumstances of action alters its moral nature and that which in some circumstances is not unlawful in other circumstances becomes absolutely unlawful And if this be the case here that the imposition of these Ceremonies is unlawful when it gives scandal and offence and disturbs the Peace and Unity of the Church then the Argument to disswade Governours from such Impositions is not that it is not unlawful to forbear imposing which is parallel to the Argument used against Dissenters that it is not unlawful to obey but that it is unlawful to impose in such circumstances which differ as much as to perswade men not to do what they lawfully may not do differs from disswading them from doing what is not lawful to be done This I think is abundantly enough to shew that our Reconciler is very much out in his Logick when he makes this Argument against Dissenters and Imposers to be the same as for the Argument it self that it is unlawful for Governours to impose these Ceremonies when it gives offence and scandal to weak Brethren c. I have sufficiently answered that already 3. His next Argument which he says equally holds against the Dissenters and Imposers is taken from the littleness and small importance of the things upon which we are divided and it is in short this That Dissenters ought not to disturb the Peace of the Church by refusing obedience in such little things nor the Governours of the Church by imposing such little things Now I need not concern my self about this Argument which is not likely to have any effect either upon Dissenters or Imposers who if they understand themselves and act honestly it is plain do not think these things so little and inconsiderable that they are not worth contending about That the decent Ceremonies of Religion are not such very contemptible things I have already proved at large in the first Chapter that they are not so little that Governours ought not to impose them I have proved at the beginning of this Chapter and that sufficiently proves that this is no Argument against Governours and if as our Reconciler says it be an unanswerable Argument against Dissenters I am contented to leave it so However our Reconciler is mightily out when he thinks the littleness of a thing to be as good an Argument against the imposition of Governours as against the disobedience of Dissenters for Governours are bound to take care of little as well as of great things because things which are little in themselves may have very great effects either good or bad but there is no excuse for the disobedience of Subjects in such cases for the less the command is the less reason have they to refuse obedience I believe all Parents and Governours in the world think so excepting our Reconcilers In the next place our Reconciler argues from many general Topicks received and owned by all Casuists As 1. Qui non vetat peccare cùm possit jubet Which he translates thus He that being a Superiour a Father a Master of a Family c. doth not what lawfully he may for the prevention of the sin of those who are subject to his government becomes partakers of their sin Now suppose all this what care can be taken to prevent sin which it becomes Governours to take which is neglected by the Church of England Yes says the Reconciler they may abate those Impositions which occasion the Schism But this has been so often answered already that I shall now onely direct my Readers in the Margin where to find the Answer 2. He says Divines concerning the right interpretation of the Ten Commandments and of the Laws of Christ do generally lay down these Rules viz. That when any thing is forbidden by these Laws all those things are forbidden also which follow from that forbidden action and for whose sake it was forbidden Now I think this is a very good Rule and if he can prove that the imposition of these Ceremonies is a forbidden action I will grant that the Schism which is consequent upon it is imputable to the Church but if it be not forbidden if the Church has this
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
as we may suppose from his own Character of himself by a dignified Clergy-man of our Church And that he also who pleads for separation from Communion with us on account of those few scrupled Ceremonies and disputable Expressions of our Liturgie is sinful and unreasonable as well as mischievous doth also speak the words of truth and soberness or that one should not impose these things as the conditions of Communion and the other should not when they are once imposed refuse Communion upon that account i. e. the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter sins in disobeying such Impositions The Church is in the right as to the lawfulness of what she imposes but sins in the exercise of her Authority in commanding lawful things The Dissenter is in the right in affirming these Impositions to be the sin of the Imposers and yet sins in not obeying them that is the Dissenter judges aright of the duty of his Superiours but is mistaken in his own And if he can reconcile these things it will be one good step towards a Reconciliation Governours indeed may be over-rigorous and severe in the exercise of a just Authority but I dare not say that they always sin when they are so but that they do not act so wisely or so charitably as they might do For the Wisdom and Charity of Government is so nice a thing and subject to so many difficulties that the case of Governours would be very hard should every mistake in such matters be a sin and Government it self must necessarily lose its Sacredness and Authority if every Subject may censure the Wisdom and Charity of lawful Commands and Impositions and vote them to be mischievous and sinful if they do not agree with his Notions of Prudence and Charity All that Subjects are concerned to enquire about the Commands of their Superiours is concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of them if they go any farther they make themselves Governours not Subjects and therefore it is not very modest to condemn the Commands otherwise civilly called Impositions of Superiours as sinful and mischievous when it is lawful to obey them And he who thinks Dissenters do ill in refusing Obedience does not well himself in charging the Church with doing what is sinful and mischievous in imposing But then on the other hand if the Church do sin in imposing she either exceeds her Authority and Commission and so imposes without Authority or else she imposes something unlawful and in either of these cases no man can blame Dissenters for refusing Communion with the Church in such matters For no man is bound to communicate in unlawful things nor to obey where there is no Authority to command And therefore our Reconciler can never reconcile these two Propositions That the Church sins in imposing the Dissenter sins in rejecting such Impositions and in refusing Communion where it cannot be had without submitting to â—hem For though we are bound to submit to the Supreme Powers when they act illegally because we are bound never to resist yet we are not bound to yield an Active Obedience to any illegal Commands but the Church considered as a Church or Ecclesiastical Body having no external and compulsory Authority if she commands what she has no Authority to command no man is bound to obey her and if this occasion a Schism she her self is the Schismatick But to shew how ominously our Reconciler stumbles at the threshold let us state the case a little otherwise The great reason he assignes throughout his Book to prove that the Church sins in these Impositions is that there is a great number of men among us who either scruple the lawfulness or positively afsert the unlawfulness of them and this occasions a Schism in the Church To prevent which the Church is bound in charity to the Souls of men not to command such scrupled and unnecessary Ceremonies and sins if she does Now in this case also the sin and guilt can lie but on one side For if the Dissenters notwithstanding this may and ought to conform to such Impositions then there is no necessity upon that account for the Church to alter her Constitutions nor does she sin in imposing if they may not then the Dissenters do not sin in rejecting such Impositions If some particular Governours are acted by ill principles this contracts a personal guilt on themselves but it neither excuses Dissenters nor affects the Government while they command nothing but what the Church has Authority to command and what may be lawfully obeyed but if the meer scruples of Dissenters will make the Commands of the Church sinful when there is no other fault to be found in her Constitutions but that Disfenters will not obey them this overthrows all government in the Church So that our Reconciler who is resolved to prove both these Propositions that the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter in breaking Communion for such Impositions will have much ado to reconcile his two Books together One part of his Task is certainly needless for if he can but convince the World of the truth of either part he effectually does the businâ—ss If he can convince the Disâ—enter that he ought to conform to these Impositions the Church may impose without sin or if he can perswade our Governours that it is sinful to impose there is no need to deal with Dissenters and therefore methinks it had savoured of more modesty and greater deference to Authority to have tried his skill upon Dissenters first But our Author by over-doing is like to spoil all For it is very probable he will convince Dissenters of what they believed before that the Church cannot impose such things from whence in spight of all his Logick they will conclude that they are not bound to obey and he will convince the Government that the Dissenter ought to conform and sins in not doing it which justifies their Impositions And thus he ends just where he began Nay could he convince the Church that she ought not to impose upon Dissenters while their scruples last and the Dissenters that they ought not to scruple these things nor disobey them when they are commanded we may expect it will take up some time to adjust the dispute after all this between the Church and the Dissenters which of them shall yield for both sides cannot yield unless we will say that the Church must leave off imposing and then the Dissenters must begin to obey that the Church must no longer command and then the Dissenter is bound to obey when no body commands So that could he effectually prove that the Church and the Dissenter are both guilty of sin the one in imposing the other in refusing Obedience yet I do not see what Reconciliation this is like to make For it is not enough to reconcile two contending Parties to prove that they are both in the fault unless you can propose some middle terms of accommodation or prove that though they are both
against her uncharitable Impositions And when he has published a Book against the Constitutions of our Church agreed on by the wisdom of the Convocation and establisht by Act of Parliament when he has already the most mature and deliberate judgment of Church and State it looks like a very hypocritical piece of modesty a downright Challenge to the whole Clergy to cry out as he does Teach me my Reverend Brethren and I will hold my peace cause me to understand wherein I have erred and I will thankfully yea I will publickly retract it Any body I think but a Protestant Reconciler would call this libelling the Church and hectoring and out-braving all his Mothers Children How the rest of my Brethren will digest this outragious Contempt of Church-Authority I cannot tell for my part I cannot bear it but am resolved to do my weak endeavours to vindicate my dear Mother from the rudeness and insolence of her undutiful Son And in order to this I shall consider what it is he contends for wherein we agree and where we part and fairly debate on which side the truth lies The Proposition which he undertakes to prove is contained in these words That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws ought not especially under our present circumstances to be imposed by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things though called to that work and none shall be partakers of the publick Ordinances which Christ hath left to be the ordinary means of Grace and of Salvation to mankind bâ—t shall upon refusal to submit unto them for ever be excluded from the Church and from the Priviledges belonging to the Members of it Where by indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws it is plain he means whatever is not expresly commanded by God and so must include all the Externals of Worship Government and Discipline which are not enjoyned by a divine Law That these ought not to be imposed signifies that it is sinful and mischievous to impose them as he expresly asserted before and which all his Arguments are designed to prove viz. that Governours sin in it To impose signifies onely to command and to impose as Conditions of Communion signifies no more than to impose though it sounds bigger For the Church makes such indifferent things the Conditions of Communion in no other sence than as she commands those of her Communion to worship God in such a manner and rejects those which will not which is nothing more than to command as to command is opposed to leaving every one at liberty to worship God as he pleases So that if the Church have not Authority to make these indifferent things the terms of Communion in this sence so as to reject those who will not worship God according to such Prescriptions i. e. who will not obey the Governours of the Church wherein they live then she has no power at all to command And when he adds especially in our present circumstances he refers to those Divisions and Schisms which he says are occasioned by such Impositions Whenever such Ceremonies are doubted and scrupled and made an occasion of Schism then especially it is a sin to impose them but when he says especially he plainly insinuates that it is at all times sinful and unlawful to impose such uncommanded Rites and Modes of Worship though it is a greater sin to do it when there are any who scruple the lawfulness of such Impositions This is the Doctrine of our Protestant Reconciler which I should rather have expected from a profess'd Enemy than from a pretended Advocate of the Church of England He has at once very modestly rejected all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things He has condemned all the Canons and Constitutions of the Church for the orderly performance of Religious Worship from the Apostle days until this time which concern the external Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship He has plainly renounced one of thoâ—e Articles of Religion to which he has subscribed and declared his Assent if he be a Member of our Church For Art 20. asserts That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies And if the Church has power to do this I suppose she may do it without sin and without asking leave of her Inferiours But though our Reconciler has stated this matter so generally as to condemn all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things and has said many things which look that way in several parts of his Book yet his open and avowed designe is onely to prove the sinfulness of such Impositions when they are scrupled and made the occasion of Schisms and Divisions in the Church as he says it is at this day among us And here I shall joyn issue with him and give a particular Answer to every thing which has the least appearance of an Argument which though it will make this Answer larger than I could wish yet is necessary to stop the mouths of such pragmatical Reconcilers who are as troublesome and dangerous to the Government as Dissenters themselves CHAP. 1. Concerning the external Order and Decency of Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters THat I may give a fair Answer to our Protestant Reconciler I shall first examine some of his Mistakes which run through his whole Book and whereon the whole Argument of his Book is founded the removing of which to men of any competent understanding would supersede the necessity of any farther Answer And they either concern 1. The usefulness of some Rites and Ceremonies of Religious Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters Or 2. The obligations of charity to the Souls of men with the due measures and extent of it Or 3. That regard which ought to be had to an erroneous or scrupulous Conscience From these Topicks he all-along argues to prove that Church-Governours ought to alter the external Ceremonies of Worship because they are of no value in themselves and therefore charity to the Souls of men requires them in such things to condescend to the errours or scruples or weakness of their Brethren I shall begin with the first which is the fundamental Mistake on which all the rest depend and therefore must stand or fall with it and that concerns the external Order and Decency of Worship or the Authority of the Church in prescribing Rites and Ceremonies for the more decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship Now concerning this matter our Reconciler thinks that the external Ceremonies of Religion are of no account at all for publick Worship may be performed as decently and reverently without the use of those Ceremonies which are in dispute as with them For thus he expresly and dogmatically asserts That the Ceremonies which are imposed by our Church as they have nothing sinful in their nature for which Inferiours
to eat together at a common Table is a civil action and a testimony of civil kindnesses and respects but when this is done upon a religious account as a testimony and expression of Christian Charity it becomes a holy Kiss and a religious Feast These Ceremonies are as acceptable to God as those Duties and Graces are which we exercise and profess in them if we be sincere but they are no parts nor acts of Worship though performed in the time of Worship This short account of the nature of these Ceremonies shews us what a ridiculous pretence it is to charge them with being Sacraments of humane Institution Some tell us that the definition our Church gives of a Sacrament belongs to such Ceremonies as these that it is an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace and here they stop as if this were the full definition of a Sacrament but our Church adds given unto us and ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a pledge to assure us thereof So that there can be no such thing as a humane Sacrament because there can be no Sacrament but what is ordained by Christ. True say they but that is the fault of it that when upon other accounts it has the nature of a Sacrament it has not that authority which should make it a divine and therefore it is onely a humane Sacrament These Ceremonies then it seems would be Sacraments if they had the authority of Christ then there is one Sacrament more than they think of viz. washing the Disciples feet which was instituted by Christ himself and is as much an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace as the Cross in Baptism or any other significant Ceremony can be but it wants what our Church adds to make up the nature of a Sacrament that it is ordained as a means whereby we receive this spiritual Grace and as a pledge to assure us thereof Which shews that no Ceremony how symbolical soever it be can be a Sacrament which is not the Seal of a Covenant and Promise and an instituted means for the conveyance of Grace But to let that pass the nature of these Ceremonies does not consist in this That they are outward visible signs of an inward spiritual Grace but that they are the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty Their nature does not consist in being signifying signs to teach a Duty but in signifying the actual Exercise or Profession of some Duty and this I suppose does not make them Sacraments Secondly Let us now consider the Decency of such Ceremonies and I cannot imagine what dispute there can be about it For if the Exercise or Profession of such Vertues be decent then the external Rite and Ceremony whereby such a Profession is made if it be used in a grave manner and upon a solemn occasion and be a proper and natural signe of such a Profession must be decent too If it be a decent thing for Christians to express their mutual love and charity to each other when they come together to worship God and to offer up their united Prayers to their common Father or to feast at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour then to kiss one another and to feast at a common Table which are proper and significant expressions of mutual Charity must be decent also at such times And thus they were used by the Primitive Christians they used to kiss each other after Prayers upon which account it is called Signaculum orationis or the Seal of Prayer Thus they kissed each other before their receiving the Lords Supper and began this mysterious Supper with a Love-Feast which was a common Table for the poor and the rich And if it were decent at such times to express their servent charity to each other the external Rite and Ceremony of this must be decent also for inward Charity cannot be expressed but either by words or signs and visible signs which are also the external acts and exercise of Charity are to be preferred before words Thus if it be decent upon some solemn occasions to make a publick profession of our Faith in a crucified Christ and our resolution to follow him even to the Cross and rather to die with him than deny him there cannot be a more solemn occasion for this than at our Baptism when we are received into the Communion of his Church this being an express Condition of our Discipleship to take up our Cross and follow him and therefore also there cannot be a more proper signe and emblem of this Profession than to receive the signe of the Cross in our foreheads for to receive the signe of the Cross is a natural profession of our crucified Lord and a suffering Religion and to receive this signe in our foreheads which are the seat of Modesty and Bashfulness is a visible Profession that we are not and will not be ashamed of the Cross. And as this is decent in it self so it contributes to the Gravity and Solemnity of that religious Administration as all awful grave and solemn Ceremonies do If we consider this as the profession of the Person baptised nothing can be more decent at such a time than to confess a crucified Christ under whose command we then lift our selves and our resolution to fight under the Banner of the Cross. If we consider it as the Profession of the Church who by her publick Ministers solemnly owns the Doctrine of the Cross and declares it as the Condition of our Discipleship when she receives any persons into the Communion of the Church is there any thing unbecoming in this Nay can any thing be more comely and decent than upon such solemn occasions to make such a solemn Profession of the Religion of the Cross Thirdly As for the lawfulness of these Ceremonies I think there is no need to prove that after what I have now discoursed for they being nothing else but the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty upon fit and solemn occasions they cannot be unlawful unless the external Acts and visible Profession of a known Duty can be unlawful If it is our duty to make a publick Profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour no time can be more proper for such a Profession than the time of our Baptism no signe can more naturally signifie this Profession than the signe of the Cross. Now I would gladly hear a wise reason why it should be unlawful to make such a Profession as this at our Baptism or unlawful to do it by signs as well as words I would desire to know why we may not profess our Faith in a crucified Saviour by the signe of the Cross as innocently and decently as make our Appeals to God in an Oath by laying our hand upon the Bible and kissing it Nay I would desire to know why the Church may not as well receive men into her Communion with the signe
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
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
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
instituted and commanded As for instance Christ has instituted his Mystical Supper and commanded us to eat Bread and drink Wine in remembrance of his Body which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us but has not commanded us to do this either sitting standing or kneeling though it is absolutely necessary that we should do it in one posture or other Now the Church of England commands us to receive kneeling and will admit none to the Lords Table who will not receive kneeling This say they is to mend the Laws of Christ and to make new terms of Communion Why so Does the Church require any more than Christ hath required Yes say they she requires kneeling which Christ does not require But how does that appear that Christ does not require it Because say they he has not commanded us to receive kneeling No say I that is no Argument at all that Christ does not require it for he who commands us to receive commands us to receive in some posture or other for though we may logically distinguish between the act of receiving and the posture wherein we receive yet these cannot be actually separate for no man can receive but he must receive in some posture and therefore he who commands doing such an act includes whatever is necessary to the doing of it right You will say But yet Christ has not determined what posture we shall receive in but left them all indifferent Suppose this to be true yet the posture must of necessity be determined before we can receive for no man can receive but in some particular posture and therefore either every man must determine himself or the Authority of the Church must determine us which seems to be much more reasonable both because it is most decent and orderly that there should be some uniform posture of receiving and because the Governours of the Church not private Christians have the sole authority in such cases committed to them by Christ himself But now the question is whether to determine what Christ has not determined and yet what must be determined before we can perform that Duty which Christ commands be to come after Christ to correct his Laws and to make new terms of Communion If it be then whoever receives the Lords Supper whatever posture he receives in must of necessity correct the Laws of Christ and make new terms of Communion at least for himself because he must receive in some particular and determined posture whereas Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined which shews what a senceless and ridiculous imputation this is No you will say to receive in some particular posture though it be not determined by Christ is no correcting his Laws nor making new terms of Communion because Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined and therefore has left it to our liberty to use which we please and when we do so we onely use that liberty which Christ has given us But so to determine any one posture of receiving as not to allow of any other nor to admit any to our Communion who will not use that posture this is to make new terms of Communion which Christ has not made for if he have left all postures undetermined then to be sure he has not said that no man shall be admitted to the Sacrament who will not kneel And though every man may determine for himself or the Church may determine for us all yet it must not be determined so as to destroy the indifferency of the posture which is directly contrary to Christ's Institution who has left all postures indifferent This Objection at a distance I confess seems very plausible and to bear hard upon the Church but when we look more narrowly into it it vanishes into nothing For 1. I readily grant should the Church of England determine against the lawfulness of any other posture but kneeling in receiving the Lords Supper she might be charged with correcting the Laws of Christ and altering the nature of things for this would be to make some things necessary and other things unlawful which Christ had left indifferent 2. Should she refuse to communicate with any other Church which does not kneel at the Sacrament meerly because she does not kneel she might be charged with making new terms of Communion which Christ has not made for she has no authority to prescribe to other Churches in matters of an indifferent and undetermined nature and therefore cannot pretend her authority for such an Imposition but must pretend the nature of the thing that kneeling at the Sacrament is a necessary term of Communion which being no term of Christ's making must be a term of her own making and then she would be guilty of making new terms of Communion and if a Schism followed upon it she would be the Schismatick 3. But yet for the Church to determine for the regulating her own Communion what Christ has not determined but yet what must be determined before that Duty can be performed which Christ has commanded is not to make new terms of Communion though she refuse to admit any to her Communion who will not use the prescribed posture of receiving and my reason for it is this because she neither prescribes kneeling as necessary in it self but onely as a decent posture of receiving nor prescribes it to any but those of her own Communion whom she has authority to govern In such cases the Church does not make new terms of Communion but exercises a just authority in determining what was left undetermined and in prescribing Rules for the Decency of her own Worship But you will say Does not the Church of England make that a term and condition of her Communion without which she will not admit any man to communicate with her I answer No this does not always follow every such thing is a Rule of her Government but not a term of her Communion which are of a very distinct consideration in the constitution of every Church The Laws of Catholick Communion require that she make nothing a term of her Communion but what is necessary for the whole Catholick Church and she can never be charged with making kneeling a term of her Communion while she holds Communion with such Churches who do not kneel at receiving or at least refuses the Communion of no Church upon that account but now the Rules of Government in every Church are very distinct from the terms of her Communion Every Church has authority to make Laws for her self to prescribe the Forms and Rules of Worship and Discipline and though she have not authority to deny Communion to other Churches who will not submit to her private Laws and Rules yet she has authority to deny Communion to her own Members who refuse to obey her Laws or else she has no authority to make Laws if she have no authority to punish the breach of them So that here are two distinct reasons
And they that would have it generally to be taken for indifferent that a very few take no hurt of it though infinite multitudes besides perish thereby shew that they put little difference between the multitudes of Christians and bruit Beasts whose danger they do so little esteem Thus in another place of the same Homily What shall I say of them who lay stumbling-blocks where before there were none and set snares for the feet nay for the souls of weak and simple ones and work the danger of everlasting destruction for whom our Saviour shed his most pretious Bloud where better it were that the Arts of painting plaistering carving or graving never had been found out or used than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious should by occasion of Images or Pictures perish and be lost This makes it very evident that our Church in her Reformation had a peculiar regard to the care of mens Souls and therefore removed whatever might prove a snare and temptation to them and so hazard their eternal salvation Our Reconciler transcribes these Passages out of that Homily and endeavours from thence to prove that the Church by a parity of Reason and out of care of mens Souls ought to part with all other Ceremonies since the imposition of them tempts men to Schism which is a damning sin But is there no difference between these two cases The Church must not retain that which though it may possibly be innocently used by some men yet is apt in its own nature to tempt the generality of men to sin as Images in Churches are to tempt men to Idolatry and the Church must not retain such Ceremonies which serve to very good purposes in Religion and are not apt in their own natures to serve any bad one because there are some men who will not submit to such Impositions but will separate from the Church and involve themselves in the guilt of a damning Schism if such Ceremonies be imposed Let us put a like case and see how this Argument will look then A Father out of charity to the Soul of his Son must not carry him to nor indulge him in going familiarly to the Tavern or the Stews because though it is possible to go to those places without being drunk or unchast yet very few young men can resist such temptations and therefore he apparently hazards his Son by it Now suppose from hence our Reconciler should argue that by a parity of Reason he ought not to command his Son to go to School nor to do any thing which he strongly suspects he will not obey him in though it be otherwise very innocent and useful and fit to be commanded because this involves his Son in the guilt of disobedience to his Father which is a damning sin and will destroy his Soul as well as Adultery or Drunkenness What would all Parents think of such a Casuist as this At this rate a disobedient Son must give Laws to his Father as well as a Schismatick give Laws to the Church Superiours must not in charity command any thing but what Inferiours please to obey for if they disobey and be damned for their disobedience those Superiours who commanded what their Inferiours would not obey are guilty of their damnation But the plain Answer to it is this The obligations of Charity extend no farther than our own part and duty does for we cannot shew our charity in that which is not our duty nor in our power to help or hinder Whatever evil happens to others upon the neglect of our duty or the uncharitable performance of it is imputable to us but if other men by the neglect of their own duty accidentally suffer by what we have wisely and charitably done the sin and guilt as well as misery is their own Otherwise it were a dangerous thing for us to do our duty unless we were sure that other men would do theirs For the wise and charitable discharge of our duty may in most cases aggravate the sin and condemnation of those who will not do theirs It may at this rate prove the most uncharitable thing in the world to reprove an obstinate and incorrigible sinner or to attempt to convince an obdurate and inflexible Schismatick because such reproofs and such means of conviction if they do not reclaim them make their sin more inexcusable Thus it is between Governours and Subjects It is the duty of Governours to govern and they must do it wisely and charitably and it is the duty of Subjects to obey If the Subjects suffer by the ill government of their Superiours it is their fault if they suffer by their own disobedience the fault also is their own If the Governours of the Church set up Images in Churches which is a great temptation to people to worship them especially if they have been educated in such an idolatrous Worship this is very uncharitably done and argues little care of mens Souls but if they give wise and charitable Rules of Worship and people will not obey them but divide themselves from the Church and unite in a Schism if they be damned for their Disobedience and their Schism the fault is their own 2. Let us now consider what Rules our Church observed in retaining Ceremonies and if she have acted as charitably there too I know not where our Reconciler will fix the charge of uncharitableness upon the Church Now she has retained but very few and therefore they are not burdensom by their numbers nor do they obscure or adulterate the simplicity of the Christian Worship She has retained onely those which are for decent Order and Edification since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Order or quiet Discipline in the Church She has retained such as are venerable for their antiquity and age and have a plain and easie signification are neither dark nor dumb Ceremonies but so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean and to what use they do serve For though meer signification without any other use is a very little thing in Christian Religion yet when the decent circumstances of Worship which are necessary to the orderly performance of it have an additional signification also suitable to the nature of the Worship we are engaged in it is an additional ornament and advantage to the Ministry as I have already discours'd Nay the Church has taken care as she says to appoint such Ceremonies as are least capable of being abused to superstition That it is not like that they in time should be abused as others have been In which case she has left a liberty to alter them if they should be so abused which is the onely reasonable occasion there can be for such an alteration Now how any Church can be more easie and charitable in her Impositions I confess I cannot tell and if that be a charitable Church whose Impositions are easie and charitable which are innocent and
useful themselves and not apt to tempt men to any sin then the Church of England is very charitable though Dissenters should be damned for their wilful and causeless Schism But besides this as far as it is possible to prevent the Cavils of evil-minded men our Church has taken care to explain the meaning of the signe of the Cross in Baptism and kneeling at receiving the Lords Supper to remove all suspicions of any superstitious opinions about them which is an Argument of great charity and great care of the Souls of men But you will say Had it not been greater charity to the Souls of men not to have retained such Ceremonies as needed explication than to explain the meaning of them which may not give satisfaction to all men of the lawfulness of their use This were something to the purpose indeed were there any thing doubtful in their signification but it is not the obscureness of these Ceremonies but the perverseness of men who endeavour to find out some superstition in them which makes such Declarations of the Church more charitable still as being a condescension not to the ignorance but to the frowardness of her Children Though to worship the Cross be Idolatry to use it as a Charm and Spell savour of Superstition yet to use it as a venerable Badge of our Christian Profession is neither and no man can reasonably suspect that it is used otherwise in Baptism To kneel at the Sacrament is a decent posture of receiving and can never be suspected as an act of Worship to the Bread in those who believe that after consecration it is Bread still and not the natural Body of Christ for to worship Bread which we believe to be nothing but Bread would be a more absurd Idolatry than the Papists are guilty of who believe it not to be Bread but the Body of Christ. This reason the Church assigns for it in the second Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth Although no Order can be so perfectly devised but it may by some either for their ignorance and infirmity or else for malice and obstinacy be misconstrued depraved and interpreted in a wrong part yet because brotherly charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away therefore we willing to do the same declare that in kneeling at the Sacrament no adoration of the Elements is intended Thus our Reconciler cites this passages and I must trust him at present because I have not the Book by me but this sufficiently proves what I alleadge it for that our Church did not adde this explication as apprehending any necessity of it but to prevent the absurd interpretations of ignorant or malicious Cavillers But what our Reconciler adds Who can tell why this whole Preface in our present Common-Prayer-Book is left out is only a spightful insinuation of I know not what since the same Declaration is as large and full in our Common-Prayer-Book as words can make it But he proceeds and Why that Charity which willeth that as much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away should not will also the taking away or the abatement of unnecessary Ceremonies or alteration of scrupled expressions in our Liturgie I am not bound to answer these trifling Cavils as often as he repeats them but I think every man of sense will see some little difference between making the Rules and Orders of the Church as inoffensive as may be and destroying all decent and orderly Constitutions the first is such a Charity as becomes Governours the second is nothing better than the dissolution of Government But of Scruples more presently Thus our Reconciler observes that the Convocation held An. 1640. speaking of the laudable custom of bowing with the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship saith thus In the practice or admission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they who use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not them who use it Now saith the Author of the mischief of Impositions I would gladly hear a fair reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another And our Reconciler very modestly adds The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when and where and in what cases they please and in others where it is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons This is wonderful deference to Authority But however this is another instance of the Churches Charity and moderation at least in this one Rite and methinks it deserved a little more civility than to be turned into an Argument of Reproach But cannot our Reconciler guess at any reason for this difference why she should grant that liberty in this one Rite which she denies in other cases Why then I 'll tell him one Because it is more capable of such an indulgence than other Ceremonies are for it is an act of private Worship though performed in the publick Church and therefore different usages in such matters do not disturb the Order and Decency of publick Worship When we offer up our common Worship to God which is the act of the whole Congregation it is fitting that there should be one Rule and Order observed for Uniformity is necessary to the Decency of Worship and to the Unity of it but there is no necessity that all mens private Devotions should be alike And it is possible to think of another reason too That this bowing the body in reverence to God when we enter into his house is properly a Ritual or Ceremony that is an exteriour action or thing not meerly a circumstance of Worship it is it self an external Rite of Worship not the circumstance of any other act It may be very decent to bow our body in reverence to God when we enter his house but it is not a decent circumstance of religious Worship and therefore there is not the same necessity that the Church should determine it as there is that she should determine the necessary circumstances of action without which the Worship of God cannot be decently performed and it seems to me to be an Argument of great wisdom in the Church that she has not made an uniformity in this Rite as necessary as in the other Ceremonies of Religion since there is not an equal necessity for it And I further adde that the Apostles Rule of Charity not to judge and censure one another upon such different usages does not relate to those Ceremonies which are also the decent circumstances of religious actions and so are necessary to the uniformity of publick Worship which must not be neglected out of a pretence of Charity but it may extend to such Rites as these which shews the great judgment of our Church in applying this Rule
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
of St. Pauls made some Proposals for the ease of scrupulous persons with reference to these Ceremonies what thanks had he for it How many bitter Invectives were written against him And can we flatter our selves then that the removal of these Ceremonies would cure our Divisions And if it will not why does he urge the evil and mischief of Divisions to perswade the Church to part with these Ceremonies Whatever other reasons there may be to part with these Ceremonies the cure of Divisions can be no reason when we certainly know before-hand that this will not cure them unless he thinks the Church bound to act upon such reasons as he himself and every body else knows to be no reason for nothing can be a reason for doing a thing which cannot be obtained by doing it But because our Reconciler attempts to say something to this in his tenth Chapter I shall follow him thither His first Objection is That the Church will gain little by such an Indulgence and this I verily believe to be true Let us hear then what he has to say to it And 1. he takes it for granted that he has already proved it the duty of Superiours to condescend in matters of this nature rather than to debar men from Communion with the Church of Christ for things unnecessary and which they nowhere are commanded to impose and if so let us do our duty and commit the event to God Now I answer 1. I can by no means grant that he has proved this and have in part already and doubt not to make it appear before I have done that he has not proved it But 2. Suppose he had proved that it is the duty of Superiours to condescend in such matters when they can do any good by their condescension has he proved also that it is their duty to condescend when they know they can do no good by it When these Divisions will not be cured by such condescension which is the present case The gaining of some very few Proselytes would not countervail the mischief of altering publick Constitutions though we should suppose it reasonable to condescend to such alterations when we can propose any great and publick good by doing it II. Our Reconciler answers Suppose that we by yielding in these matters should not reduce one of the Tribe of our dissenting Brethren yet should we take off their most plausible pretences and leave them nothing which could be rationally offered as a ground of Separation or accusation of our proceedings against them I doubt not but our Dissenters despise this Reconciler in their hearts for thinking that they have no plausible pretences nor rational grounds of Separation but the Dispute about Ceremonies What pretences then have the Dissenters in Scotland where none of these things are imposed And are they more quiet and peaceable or less clamorous in their Complaints than our Dissenters in England For whose sake shall the Church make this Experiment with the loss of their own Orders and Constitutions for the sake of Dissenters And what charity is it to them to discover their obstinacy and hypocrisie and render them more inexcusable to God and men Is it to satisfie our selves that the Dissenters are a sort of peevish and obstinate Schismaticks who will make Divisions without any just pretence or reason for it We know this already we know they have no rational grounds for their Separation though these Ceremonies be not removed Or do we think to stop their mouths and escape their reproaches and censures As if any man could stop the mouth of a Schismatick or make him blush Those who are resolved to continue Schismaticks will always find something to say for it and let them talk on the true Sons of the Church will defend her Constitutions with more reason than Dissenters reproach them III. However he says This will intirely stop the mouths of the Layety and if they be gained their Preachers must follow But who told him this I am sure Mr. Baxter often complains that their Layety is so headstrong and stubborn that they cannot govern them and in all my observation I find that they are as fond of Schism as zealous against Liturgies and Bishops as obstinately addicted to the peculiar Opinions and Practices of their Party as their Preachers are though I am of our Reconciler's mind that their Preachers will sooner follow their People to Church than the People their Preachers But with what face can our Reconciler say That these Ceremonies chiefly debar the Layety from full Communion with us when every one knows the contrary They can communicate with us notwithstanding these Ceremonies when they please and when they can serve any interest by it and their Preachers can give them leave to do so and is it not an admirable reason for altering the establish'd Constitutions of a Church to gratifie such humoursome Schismaticks who can conform when they please IV. He adds They who at first dissented from the Constitution of our Church declared they did it purely upon the account of these things i. e. the Ceremonies still used among us This now is a mistake in History for the first dislike that was taken against our Church was for the square Cap and Tippet and some Episcopal habitâ— which are not talked of in our days and some of which were used in the Universities without scruple in the late blessed times of Reformation But the use of these Ceremonies was never scrupled till Queen Elizabeth's days which was the fruit of the former Heats at Francford during the Marian Persecution and these men indeed did dissent as our Reconciler expresses it that is they expressed their dislike of these things but they did not separate upon it The first that made any steps to Separation set up other pretences complained for want of a right Ministry a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures without which there can be no right Religion which are the pretences of our Separatists at this day Well but suppose what he says to be true what reason is this for altering our Ceremonies at this day Will our Separatists conform now if these Ceremonies are taken away That he dares not say but we shall gain this by it That it will appear that they are not the genuine Off-spring of the old dissenting Protestants As if any man but a Reconciler were to learn that now when it has been so often proved upon them and they themselves scorn and huff at the Argument and will not have the old Puritans made a President for them V. In the Treaty at the Savoy the abatement of the Ceremonies and the alteration of some disputable passages in the Liturgie was all that was contended for That is he means the Dispute went no farther but if they had gained these points we should then have heard more of them I am sure whoever reads their Petition for Peace will find all the Principles of Mr. Baxter's
no more than a Prince is to be blamed for making good Laws because some men will break them and be hanged for it 3. He perswades the Governours of the Church out of Charity to the Souls of men not to tempt them to Schism by their Impositions whereas there is no way to prevent Schism but by maintaining and asserting their own Authority When there is no Authority in the Church there will be as many Schisms in it as there will be Factions in the State without some â—upreme Power to whom all must obey And therefore out of Charity to the Souls of men and to prevent their Schism Church-Governours are bound to exercise their Authority and not to give way to ignorant and groundless scruples There is nothing occasions more Schisms than the different Rites and Modes of Worship and therefore if they would prevent Schism they ought to exercise their utmost Authority in maintaining the Decency and Uniformity of Worship which will prevent more Schisms than it can make It will preserve unity among those who have any reverence for the Authority of the Church or any sense of the danger of Schism and those who have not will be Schismaticks notwithstanding The onely way I know of to prevent Schism is by wise Instructions and by a strict Discipline the one to cure their ignorance and their scruples the other to curb their wantonness and petulancy but for Governours to suffer their Authority to be disputed and to give way to the frowardness fullenness or ignorance of men to alter the Laws and Constitutions as often as any man can find any thing to say against them would breed eternal confusion both in Church and State Government is the onely Cement and Bond of Unity and when Governours give the Reins out of their hands every young Phaëton will think himself fit to drive the Chariot of the Sun and no man will be governed when there is none to govern and what Order Unity there can be in the Church without Government or what Government where those who are to be governed must give Laws to their Governours I would desire our Reconciler at his leisure to tell me What follows in this Chapter has already been considered in my first Chapter and thither I refer my Reader CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Reconciler's Arguments from the Words the Doctrine the Deportment of Christ whilst he was here on Earth contained in his third Chapter THere are two main Principles on which all our Reconciler's Arguments are founded 1. That these disputed Ceremonies are wholly useless and unnecessary things 2. That the imposition of them is the cause of our Divisions and Schisms which would be cured by the removal of them which therefore is so great a charity to the Souls of men that Church-Governours ought to consent to and promote such an alteration Now all this being false as I have already proved his other Arguments must fall with it but yet to avoid all Cavils I shall particularly consider the force of what he urges And First He begins with the Doctrine and Deportment of our Saviour which I confess is a very good Topick if he could prove any thing from it and he has no less than eight Arguments to confound all the stiff Imposers of unnecessary things I. That our Lord doth frequently produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice to justifie himself and his Disciples when for the good of their own bodies or the souls of others they did what was forbidden by the Law of Moses or by the Canons and Traditions of the Scribes â—nd Pharisees who sate in Moses Chair This is what every body will grant and therefore he needed not have troubled himself to prove it And his inference from hence is this That Precepts which contain onely Rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of mens bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brother's soul so that when both cannot together be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter From whence he concludes that therefore we must part with those Ceremonies which being made Conditions of Communion do accidentally afford occasion to such great and fatal evils to the Souls of men Now does not every body see that there is more in the conclusion than there is in the premises For 1. Does our Saviour here speak of abrogating the Laws of Sacrifice for the sake of Mercy How does he then hence conclude any thing about repealing the Laws of Ceremonies and Rituals which neither the Prophet nor our Saviour ever thought on when they said these words Though God prefers Mercy before Sacrifice yet he gave Laws about Sacrifices and Ceremonies and continued those Laws after these words were spoken and so may the Church do also for any thing that is here said to the contrary For 2. Our Saviour neither speaks here of making nor replealing Laws about Sacrifices or Rituals but onely prefers Mercy before Sacrifice when there happens a competition between them he supposes that both may be done and that both ought to be done but if both cannot be done at the same time Mercy must take place of Sacrifice And this Mercy our Church allows as much as any man can desire She is not so severe to exact kneeling at the Sacrament or at Prayers or standing at the Creed if men have any such infirmity on them that they cannot do it without great inconvenience she does not exact Godfathers or Godmothers or the signe of the Cross nor bringing the Child to Church when it is sick and in danger of death she does not impose fasting on weak and crasie persons nor think her Laws so sacred that no punctillo must be neglected when it is done without offence and scandal she will not blame any for staying from Church or going out in the midst of Prayers to quench a fire or to help a sick person And this answers to our Saviour's cases wherein he prefers Mercy before Sacrifice But how does this prove that the Governours of the Church must not exact obedience to wholsom Constitutions because some men scruple them Our Saviour never applies this saying to any such case and I am sure our Reconciler has neither reason nor authority to do it When our Reconciler proves from these words I will have mercy and not sacrifice that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for the sake of those who will separate from her if she do not he must either argue from the Saying it self or from those cases to which it is applied by our Saviour Now this Saying as it was meant by the Prophet Hosea signifies no more than this That God preferred all acts of real and substantial goodness before an external Religion even before Sacrifice it self as the Prophet Micah expresses it more at large but to the very same sence Wherewith shall I come before
the Lord and bow my self before the high God shall I come before him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oyl shall I give my first-born for my transgression the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God Now because God prefers true and real goodness before the externals of Religion does it hence follow that there must be no external Worship or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them Just as much as that God did not require them to offer Sacrifice because he preferred Mercy before it Our Reconciler obsâ—rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying 1. To justifie his Disciples who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields and rubbed them in their hands and eat them on the Sabbath-day which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest as being a servile work and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point but justifies what they did by their present necessity and by this Rule I will have mercy and not sacrifice That God who prefers acts of Kindness and Mercy before Sacrifice when they come in competition with each other is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this and our Church does so as I have already observed but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremonies or repeal them if men won't obey them I do not understand The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners which he tells them was onely in order to reform them as a Physician converses with the sick and certainly it was lawful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sinners in order to make them good men than with our abstaining from their company though a familiar conversation with them upon other accounts be scandalous And how this proves what our Reconciler would conclude from it I cannot see Well but this is a general Rule which may be applied to more cases than one or two Right But if we will argue from our Saviour's authority and application we must apply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it otherwise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour but the reason of the thing and let him set aside our Saviour's authority and we shall deal well enough with his Reason All that can be made of this Rule is this That where there happens any such case that there is a temporary competition between two Duties which are both acknowledged to be our duty there the greatest and most necessary duty must take place and particularly that all Rituals must give place to Mercy So that to make this a parallel case our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship what is the other Duty then to which this must give way To the care of mens Souls says our Reconciler No say I there is no inconsistency between the care of mens Souls and the care of publick Worship which is the best way of taking care of mens Souls and therefore there can never be a competition between these two O but some men are ignorant and scrupulous and wilful and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship they will dissent from them and turn Schismaticks and be damned and thus accidentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils Let him prove then if he can from these words of our Saviour that the Governours of the Church must never do their duty for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs Such cases as these if they be truly pitiable must be left to the mercy of God but the Church can take no cognizance of them especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship and renouncing her own just Authority the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be I shall onely farther observe his great civility to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member For his third Observation from these words is That they were used by the Prophet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Israelites in the observance and the requiring these Rituals whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts there being no truth no mercy nor knowledge of God in the land but killing committing adultery stealing lying and swearing falsly c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews at that time to be zealous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation he thetorically introduces it with a God forbid Now God forbid that I should say that it is thus in England but he is pleased to put men in mind of it if they please to think so This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks because our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Religion took more care to decry this Pharisaical Hypocrisie of an external Religion and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness than at this day who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices nor think any man a Saint because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil We leave this good Reconciler to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters who can strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel who cannot see a Surplice without horror but can dispence with Lying and Perjury with Slanders and Revilings and speaking
conceive non enim carnes secundum legem sed sola olera manducabant Because the weak persons mentioned here onely did eat herbs abstaining from all flesh and not from that alone which was forbidden by the Law of Moses But if we will take the opinion of this Commentator we must understand also one who is weak in body who has an ill stomach or ill digestion and therefore eats herbs because he cannot eat flesh through sickness or old age Infirmus aetate aut corporis vigore which are the words immediately before and then how this will reach the case of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies I cannot tell As for his reason that these weak persons eat onely herbs it is not evident from the Text. Herbs may be taken synecdochically for all sorts of meats allowed by the Law no sort of herbs being forbidden or it may signifie that rather than eat any meats forbidden by their Law they chose to live on herbs which might be often the case of those Jews who lived among Heathens as the Jews at Rome who are primarily concerned in this Epistle did And St. Chrysostom who positively asserts that this concerns meats forbidden by the Law of Moses assignes another reason for their eating herbs Because if they had onely abstained from Swines-flesh and other forbidden meat they would have discovered their Reverence for the Law of Moses still which he supposes they had a mind to conceal and therefore to palliate the business they abstained from all flesh and eat onely herbs that it might look more like fasting and abstinence than the observation of the Law Whether this be a good reason or not I am not now concerned to inquire it plainly shews what St. Chrysostom's opinion was in the case which I suppose may be thought as considerable as this Commentators But there can be no doubt about this if we consider what the Apostle saith v. 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common the word peculiarly used to signifie the distinction of clean and unclean meats among the Jews and there was no other Law that ever made such a distinction For though the Pythagoreans did forbid eating of flesh yet that was an inconsiderable Sect of Philosophers which could not occasion such a general Dispute as this was and they did not forbid flesh upon this distinction of clean and unclean meats which was peculiar to the Mosaical Law but for reasons peculiar to their Philosophy which were so vain and superstitious that we cannot imagine the Apostle would grant any indulgence to such fancies 2. His next reason is Because the Apostle doth in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossions speak severely against their observation of the Iewish Festivals and therefore here would not speak of them as things indifferent concerning which it was onely needful that the observers or not observers of them should be well assured in their own minds and be permitted to continue in their practice as St. Ambrose saith the Apostle here asserts nor is it like that in such things he would permit them to abound in their own sence Which last assertion directly overthrows his whole Hypothesis for it seems the Apostle might have required of them to renounce the Law of Moses and the observation of it whatever scruples they pretended and then how does it become so necessary a duty in Church-Governours to renounce their own Authority to gratifie and humour every scrupulous Conscience for if ever there were reason to be favourable to scruples it was in the case of the believing Jews whose scruples were occasioned by a Divine Law which they were not yet convinc'd was abrogated and out of date And if as he says it was not likely the Apostle should suffer them to abound in their own sence in such things there is much less reason to expect this from Church-Governours in other matters where no such Authority can be pretended to justifie their scruples But of the different behaviour of the Apostle to the Romans and Galatians I shall give such an account in what follows as will not be much to our Reconciler's purpose 3. Because the Apostle confineth his discourse to meats not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses he doth not therefore say that Christ had now abolished that Law or that it was not made unto and so could not oblige the Gentile World or any thing which seemeth proper to oppose unto those judaizing Christians but onely saith that meats did not commend to God and such-like things which are all proper to be spoken unto those who understanding of their liberty freely indulged themselves in eating of the Idol-Sacrifice Now this is a notable Argument if it be well considered The Apostle confines his discourse to meats and days not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses Because his whole Epistle treats upon this Argument and he does not repeat all that he said in the foregoing Chapters about Circumcision and Sacrifices Washings and Purifications and the abrogation of the Mosaical Law in this 14th Chapter therefore these meats and drinks and days must not refer to Mosaical observances The whole Epistle concerns the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles and if he can find any other meats and days which the Jews thought themselves bound to observe and the Gentiles thought themselves freed from by Christ he will say something more to the purpose And whereas he argues that the Apostle does not urge such Arguments as are proper to prove the abrogation of the Law of Moses it is evident that this was not his business in this Chapter but he proves what he intended to prove how reasonable mutual forbearance is in these matters which supposes the abrogation of the Law already proved as indeed he had sufficiently proved it before for there is no place for forbearance against a positive Law 4. His last reason is as good as any of the former Because had the Apostle spoken to the strong Iewish Christian and declared his freedom from the observation of the whole Iewish Law he would have contradicted the Churches of Jerusalem and his own practice there for they were zealous for the observation of it and did esteem it their duty so to be and did not judge him a strong but a disorderly Christian who being a Iew observed not their Laws and Customs Now if this proves any thing it proves that St. Paul never did and indeed ought not to dispute against the freedom of the Jewish Converts from the observation of the Law and then we shall want a new Commentator upon most of his Epistles to deliver him from that scandal which all Exposiâ—ors hitherto have cast on him that he has in many places industriously proved that neither Jew nor Gentile were under the obligation of the Mosaical Law But it is
evident in this very place that those whom our Reconciler calls the strong Iewish Christian St. Paul calls the weak in the Faith who did not understand his true Christian liberty and writing neither to strong Jewish nor to strong Gentile Christians but to the Church of Rome which consisted of both in compliance with the Apostolical Decree in the first Council at Ierusalem He imposes no necessity on the Jews to renounce the observation of the Law nor on the Gentiles to observe it and lest such different manners and customs might occasion Schisms and Divisions among them he exhorts them to mutual forbearance not to judge nor censure nor reproach each other upon this account And this the Apostle might do without incurring the censure of the Christians at Ierusalem or contradicting his own practice For he was charged at Ierusalem not with teaching the abrogation of the Law with respect to Jews as well as Gentiles which was a thing so notorious that he neither could nor would dissemble it but with forbidding the Jewish Christians to observe the Law which indeed was directly contrary to the Apostolical Decree which delivered the Gentiles from that necessity but indulged the Jews in it Thus Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem tells him that the Jews who were then in great numbers at Ierusalem and were zealous for the Law were informed of him that he taught all the Iews which are among the Gentiles that they ought to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs Now it is one thing to say that they are under no necessity of doing this and another to say they are under a necesâ—ity of not doing it the first was the Apostles constant Doctrine the second was contrary both to his own practice and to that liberty he every-where indulged the Jews as well as in this Chapter under debate Having thus cleared the way and proved that St. Paul does here discourse about the observation of the Jewish Law and that neither believing Jews nor Gentiles ought to judge censure or condemn each other for observing or not observing such customs I come now to shew what a vast difference there is between this case and those indifferent Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship which are enjoyned by our Church and that we cannot argue from one to the other And methinks every ordinary Reader cannot but be sensible of the difference at the first hearing For the Dispute here is not about indifferent things but about the obligation of the Law of Moses The Proposition our Reconciler undertakes to prove is That indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Law ought not to be imposed by Superiours as Conditions of Communion And this he proves from St. Paul's Indulgence to the Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law Now what relation is there between the Law of Moses and the indifferent Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship Did St. Paul allow the Jews this liberty of observing the Law of Moses upon this reason that it was indifferent for them to observe or not to observe the Law If he did not then this Example is impertinently alleadged as not relating to this present Dispute about imposing or not imposing indifferent things If he did then the observation of the Law is indifferent still for that which is once indifferent must continue so without some new Law to alter its nature and I know of none in this case If St. Paul thought the observation of the Law so indifferent why does he dispute so earnestly against it in this whole Epistle Why did he contend so earnestly even with St. Peter himself in behalf of the Gentiles to maintain their liberty from the Jewish Yoke for if it were indifferent to the Jew it was so to the Gentile and according to our Reconciler's way it did not become such great Apostles to contend about indifferent things either one way or other Why did St. Paul so severely chide the Galatians who chiefly consisted of Gentile Converts for their warping to the observation of the Law and so passionately exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not to be intangled again with the yoke of bondage Why does he so diligently caution the Colossians both against Jewish and Pagan Superstitions as contrary to the Doctrine of Christ This does not argue that the Apostle thought the observation of the Law of Moses an indifferent thing for though he indulged the Jews in it he would not indulge the Gentile Converts especially those Gentile Churches which were panted by himself and were from the very beginning instructed in their Christian liberty which seems to be the true reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia At Rome it is evident there were great numbers both of Jewish and Gentile Converts and as he asserts the liberty of the Gentile Christian from the Mosaical Law so he indulges the believing Jew in such observations and exhorts them both to bear patiently and charitably with one another without despising or judging But the Churches of Galatia consisted of Gentile Converts and either had none or very few Jews originally among them as is evident in that St. Paul from the very beginning had freely and openly instructed them in their Christian liberty and freedom from the Law of Moses which he could not have done had there been any great number of Jews there who were all zealous for the Law therefore when in his absence some Jewish Christians had got in among them and seduced them from the simplicity of the Gospel to the observation of legal Rites and Ceremonies he deals very sharply with them and chides them for their Apostacy for there was not the same reason to indulge them in this case as to indulge the Jews And we may as well from St. Paul's severity to the Galatians prove that it does not become Church-Governours to indulge the wantonness and superstitious conceits and scrupulous fancies of private Christians as from his indulgence to the Jewish Christians at Rome prove the unlawfulness of imposing indifferent things and with much better reason too To be sure since he so sharply reproves the Galatians for their observation of the Law of Moses which he so charitably indulges the Jewish Romans in he does neither under the notion of indifferent things and therefore this Example does not concern our present Dispute But you will say Were not these things indiâ—ferent Does not the Apostle expresly say I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus Christ that there is nothing unclean of it self Was not the Law abrogated which made the diâ—ference between clean and unclean meats And were they not at liberty then to eat or not to eat Yes no doubt of it as we are at this day But it is one thing to eat or not to eat as an instance of natural liberty
Dr. Falkner doth imagine that is that when the Apostle commands them to receive the weak he means they should own them for Christian Brethren and as such should receive them to Communion seeing the Schismatick is by the Doctrine of the Church without that Catholick Church in which alone Salvation can be had Since therefore we do censure him as one who hath no inward relation to or communion with Iesus Christ and therefore no relation to his Body since we do think him worthy of exclusion from Communion with the Church it seems not easie to conceive how we shall escape the condemnation of the Apostles Discourse were the designe of it that onely which he doth imagine As if it were the same thing to deny Communion to any persons as wanting something essential to Christianity and so having no right to Church-Communion and to â—hut those men out of our Communion who are disorderly in it or separate themselves from it as if it were the same thing to deny Communion to those who are not or are judged not to be Christians and to cast disorderly and irregular Christians who will not submit to the Rules and Government of the Church out of our Communion The first makes the Dispute upon which we part to be essential to Christianity as the Doctor well observed the second proceeds onely upon this Principle that those who will live in the Communion of any particular Church must be subject to the Rules and Orders of Worship and Discipline establish'd in it Which may instruct our Reconciler in the difference between the Jews and Gentiles not receiving one another upon the Dispute of the Mosaical Law and the Churches rejecting those from her Communion who will not conform to her Rules of Worship which he endeavours to make parallel cases And as for the Reason he assigns why the Apostle cannot by receiving mean that they should own each other as Christian Brethren because the Arguments he uses to perswade them to receive one another do suppose that they did own each other as Christians is plainly false for the Apostle perswades them to receive each other and to own one another for Christian Brethren because God had received them because he owned them for Christians and therefore if God received the weak Jew with all his weakness and the irregular Gentiles as they judged them with all their irregularities certainly both Jews and Gentiles ought to receive each other But this will better appear by considering the Apostles Arguments and shewing how peculiar they were to that case and that they cannot be applied to the case of Dissenters Now there are two or three Arguments which St. Paul uses to this purpose to perswade them to receive one another though our Reconciler has made a great many of them by applying all the Arguments in this Chapter which concern Christian forbearance and condescension and the avoiding scandal to this purpose 1. His first Argument is That God has received them which plainly refers to what is more largely discours'd in the Council at Ierusalem where St. Peter gives an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and those who were with him all uncircumcised Gentiles while he preached the Gospel to them which was such a visible demonstration of God's receiving them even in their uncircumcision that he durst not deny Water-baptism when God had already baptized them with the Holy Ghost This was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul who declared what wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them And the same Argument served for the circumcised Jews who still observed the Law that God had owned them also by bestowing his holy Spirit in a visible manner on them Now if either Circumcision or Uncircumcision had signified any thing in this matter God would not have indifferently bestowed his Spirit upon believing but circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles By sending his Spirit on Jewish and Gentile Converts in such a visible manner God did evidently declare that both circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles who believed in Christ should be received into the Communion of Christs Church which is here called Gods receiving them For the gift of the Spirit belonged onely to the Disciples of Christ and therefore God did in a visible manner own all those for the Disciples of Christ on whom he bestowed such visible Gifts But how does this concern our Dissenters Yes says our Reconciler it rationally follows that none should be excluded from Communion with us who will not by our God and Saviour be excluded from Communion with them But he should have said whom God has in such a visible and miraculous manner received into Communion And if our Reconciler can prove that God has determined this Controversie about Ceremonies in as visible a manner as he did the Dispute about Circumcision he will say something to the purpose But this is all a mistake from the beginning to the end For I know no way of judging whether any man be in communion with Christ but by his communion with the Church There is no visible communion with God and Christ but by a visible communion with the Church and as for any communion with Christ which is invisible certainly the Governours of the Church who can see onely what is visible are not concerned about it and it is this visible Church-membership and Church communion of which the Apostle speaks He proves that God had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of his Church by the visible gifts of his holy Spirit and therefore that they ought not to deny external and visible communion to each other since God had received them both not meerly into an invisible communion with himself but into the visible communion of the Church which gave them a right to all acts of Church-communion And from hence our Reconciler proves that the Church must alter her Constitutions to receive those Dissenters into the Church who are not in the Church and will not communicate with her because God has received them but how does it appear that God has received them into the communion of the Church who shut themselves out of it Yes says the Reconciler the plain result of this first Argument is this That either we without breach of charity may judge of all Dissenters that they are not received into communion by God and that they are no living Members of Christ's Body but a pack of damned Hypocrites worthy to be excluded from the Church of God and to be under a severe Anathema or if we cannot charitably judge so hardly of them that we ought to receive them into communion with us notwithstanding their different conceptions and practice about lesser matters But what have we to do with the judgment of charity in this case for the Apostle speaks not of a judgment of charity but of a visible proof and demonstration of Gods receiving them from the visible signs and effects
I observed before The necessary consequence of which is that in all such cases wherein not Religion but our own liberty is concerned the great Rule we are to observe is to promote the Peace of the Church and the mutual Edification of each other to follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another Now this is a plain Rule which all men at first hearing will acknowledge to be reasonable not to violate the plain Duties of Religion in contending about such liberties the use and exercise of which are of no account in Religion not to scandalize a weak Brother nor destroy the Peace of the Church and the mutual edification of Christians in love by eating such meats as we may indeed in other cases lawfully eat but the eating of which is at no time and in no case in it self considered an act of Worship or acceptable to God But if we understand these words in our Reconciler's way that the Externals of Religion are of no account and therefore must be sacrificed to the dearer interests of Peace and Charity and mutual Edification I confess the Argument is plain enough but it is neither to the Apostle's purpose nor is it true And yet this is the fundamental Principle of all Reconcilers and of those men who affect the name and character of Moderation that the Externals of Religion are little worth and of small account with God But the great business which Christians ought to mind is Love and Charity and the practice of those moral Vertues wherein they place the life and substance of Religion and therefore it does not become them to quarrel about the external Modes of Worship but an indulgence in such matters becomes the good and benign temper of the Gospel Now how these men come to know that God is so indifferent about his own Worship I cannot guess nor how the Worship of God comes to be a less essential part of Religion than justice and charity to men I am sure under the Law God appeared very jealous of his Honour and Worship and though he rejected all the Worship of bad men and despised those external acts of Worship which were separated from Justice and Charity yet this was no Argument that he undervalued his own Worship because he was not pleased with an empty shew and appearance of it As for his preferring Mercy before Sacrifice I have given some account of it already and may do more in what follows but certainly Religion is properly the Worship of God and therefore that is the greatest thing in it And publick Worship which is the most visible Honour of God consists in external and visible Signs and therefore the Order Decency and Solemnity of Worship is so essential to the notion of publick Worship that there can be no Worship without it for to worship God visibly without publick and visible signs of Honour is a contradiction and therefore it does not seem to me to be so indifferent a thing after what manner God is worshipped and therefore not to be left indifferently to every mans humour upon every slight pretence of Charity and Moderation However it is plain that the Apostle does not speak one word of this here which had been nothing to his purpose and I cannot find any thing to this purpose in all the Scripture 3. This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith nor to do that in publick in the view of all men which we believe we may very lawfully innocently do Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God that is keep thy Faith to thy self and enjoy thy liberty privately when thou may'st do it without offence Now I suppose our Reconciler will not think this a good Rule in all cases to dissemble our Faith and to keep our Religion to our selves which would effectually undermine the publick profession and practice of Religion in the World For if this were once granted men would find a great many other as good reasons to keep their Faith to themselves as avoiding scandal Indeed this Rule can hold onely in matters of a private nature such as I before observed this case to be for matters of a publick nature require a publick profession and practice For let us consider wherein the force of this Argument consists to perswade the Gentile Christians to exercise this forbearance towards their weak Jewish Brethren not to offend or scandalize them with their meat Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God which includes these two Arguments 1. That they are under no obligation to a publick profession or exercise of their Christian liberty in these matters 2. That though it be some restraint yet it is no injury to their liberty not to do those things publickly which give such offence For their liberty in such matters is maintained as well by a private as by a publick exercise of it For if they may do it at any time their liberty is secure though the exercise of it may be sometimes restrained But now if we apply this to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship what sence is there in this Argument for publick Worship must be publickly profess'd and publickly practised or else it is not publick and therefore there is no place here to avoid publick scandal by keeping our Faith to our selves for then we must not worship God publickly as we think we may and that we ought to worship him for fear of giving offence So that this does not onely restrain but it destroys the Authority of Governours and the Liberty and Obedience of private Christians for what relates to publick Worship cannot be done at all if it must not be done publickly and that is no Authority and no Liberty which cannot be exercised without sin that is without a criminal offence and scandal As for what our Reconciler frequently urges and I have already observed and answered that it is not desired that the Church should renounce her Authority and Worship but onely give liberty to Dissenters to worship God in their own way this plainly shews how vastly different the case of the Jews and of our Dissenters is and how little they are concerned in that forbearance of which the Apostle speaks The Jews were offended not at the restraint of their own liberty for they were indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses but at that liberty which the Gentile believers used in breaking of the Law of Moses our Dissenters it seems are scandalized not so much at what we do as because they cannot do what they would The Apostle exhorts private Christians not to do such things publickly as offended their weak Brethren This great Reconciling Apostle exhorts or rather commands the Church to suffer Dissenters to worship God according to their own way and to do what is right in their own eyes and this would remove the
scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
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
superstitious or idolatrous which another thinks a decent Rite of Worship Now is it possible for the Israelites to sacrifice the abomination of the AEgyptians before their eyes and not give offence to them Is it possible for men to joyn as Friends and Brethren in such acts of Worship which they cannot agree to perform in the same manner Is it possible for him that sits at receiving the Lords Supper and believes that kneeling is superstitious and Idolatrous not to censure or deride or despise him that kneels Or is it possible for him who kneels and believes sitting to be a rude and unmannerly posture not to be grieved or offended at him who sits And will you call this worshipping God together when men cannot agree about it but one thinks his Brother idolatrous or superstitious and he in requital thinks him rude or prophane For my part I think it much better they should be parted than spoil each othersDevotion by such mutual antipathies and reciprocal censures No you will say there is no necessity of either that they should judge and censure each other or that they should separate St. Paul gives a better Rule in such cases to bear with each other that the strong should not judge the weak nor the weak despise the strong But what is the meaning of this That he who believes kneeling at the Sacrament to be superstitious should not judge and censure him whom he sees kneel as guilty of Superstition Or that he who believes sitting at the Sacrament to be rude and prophane should not judge him whom he sees to sit as guilty of rudeness and prophaneness This is absolutely impossible and implies a contradiction that we must and must not believe superstition to be superstition nor prophaneness to be prophaneness or that I can readily joyn in acts of Worship with him whom I believe in those very acts of Worship to be either superstitious or prophane I may judge charitably of men whom I believe to be guilty of some errours and mistakes and superstitious customs in matters which do not relate to Christian Worship I may charitably hope that God will not reject men for such mistakes and therefore may think it reasonable to receive them to Christian communion while they comply with the Rules and Orders of it which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles as I have already proved but it is impossible to joyn in communion with such men without judging and censuring those whom I believe in those very acts of Worship in which I joyn with them to be either superstitious or prophane And therefore though such men should worship in the same Church or Religious Assemblies yet they do not worship God in one Communion such men will naturally separate from each other and it is I think more desirable that they should The sum of this Argument is this That though St. Paul required and exhorted the believing Jews and Gentiles to bear with each other in such Disputes as did not concern the Christian Worship it does not hence follow that the Governours of the Church must not prescribe any Rules of Worship for fear of offending any scrupulous and ignorant Christians or that they are bound to alter them as soon as they perceive any such offence which inevitably brings nothing but Confusion and Disorder into the Christian Church 4. Another material difference between the case of the believing Jews and our Dissenters is this That the forbearance the Apostle pleads for was in order to cement Jews and Gentiles into one body and to unite them in one Christian communion to prevent Schisms and Separations between them and therefore he commands them Him that is weak in the faith receive that is into the communion of the Church to worship God together according to the general Rules of Christian Worship For the Disputes between them as I observed before did not concern Christian Worship and therefore a mutual forbearance in other things about which they differed would unite them into one body Thus he exhorts the Philippians Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing Believing Jews and Gentiles were both agreed as to the truth of Christianity and what concerned Christian Worship though they differed about some Mosaical observances and therefore the Apostle exhorts them notwithstanding their other Disputes to unite in Christian Worship about which they were all agreed This occasioned that Dispute between St. Paul and St. Peter which we have an account of in the Epistle to the Galatians They were both agreed that the Gentile Converts ought not to be circumcised they were agreed also that the Jewish Converts should be indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses and that both Jews and Gentiles should forbear each other in these matters and therefore St. Peter himself at Antioch before some Jewish Brethren came thither did eat with the Gentiles but when some believing Jews came to Antioch for fear of giving offence and scandal to them he separated himself from the believing but uncircumcised Gentiles Now the natural effect of this was to make a Schism between the Jewish and Gentile Converts to make two Churches one of Jewish the other of Gentile Christians This St. Paul could not endure and therefore publickly rebukes Peter for it He was willing to indulge Jewish Converts in their weakness but not to indulge them in a Schism which this very Indulgence was designed to prevent Now indeed mutual forbearance of each other when it tends to unite Christians into one body and communion is a great and necessary Duty but St. Paul never thought it a Duty when it would not prevent a Schism much less when it is likely to prove the foundation of eternal Schisms Now I have already proved that the removal of our Ceremonies and such abatements as our Reconciler pleads for as they are not the occasion so neither would they be the cure of our Schisms to be sure Indulgence in these matters would neither prevent nor heal our Schisms as that forbearance which the Apostle pleads for in this place infallibly would Their Dispute did not concern matters of Christian Worship and therefore if they indulged one another in those things wherein they differed as in eating or not eating those meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses they might very well agree in those things wherein they were already agreed as they were in all matters of Christian Worship and therefore they might worship God together in Christian Assemblies as one Body and one Church which did effectually prevent a Schism But while Dissenters differ from the Church about the Rites and Modes of Worship it is impossible they should worship God together and to grant Indulgence to such different apprehensions which the Apostle pleads for in the case of the Jews would onely make a legal Schism and to remove these scrupled Ceremonies as I have already proved would
not unite us in one body and to countenance such Scruples as these by the least Indulgence would lay an eternal foundation of Schisms and therefore the Argument does not hold from the case of the Jews to the case of the Dissenters because forbearance in one case would cure the Schism in t'other it will increase it 5. This indulgence to the Jews in the oâ—servation of the Law of Moses was very consistent with the Apostolical authority in governing the Church and prescribing the Rules and Orders of Christian Worship but an Indulgence of Dissenters in the use of indifferent things in Religious Worship is not so Our Reconciler proves from St. Paul's condescension to the Jews that the Governours of the Church must not impose the use of any indifferent things in the Worship of God or that in charity to Dissenters they must alter such Rules and Canons when as often as there are any who scruple the lawfulness of them that is they must part with their Authority or for ever suspend the exercise of it which is much at one to govern Religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rites of Worship when there are any persons so ignorant or so humoursome as to dispute their Authority or the lawfulness of what they command The absurdity of this Principle I have already shewn at large but yet if the Apostle had set an Example of such condescension as this I would readily submit as not daring to dispute against an Apostolical practice But if this forbearance which the Apostle perswades the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other do not entrench upon the Apostolical Authority in governing Religious Assemblies then it is no President to the Governours of the Church to give up their Authority to Dissenters Now this is the plain case here The Dispute between Jews and Gentiles as you have already seen did not concern Christian Worship nor the government of Christian Assemblies but the exercise of mens private liberty and therefore St. Paul might grant and might exhort to this forbearance without injuring the Apostolical Authority which onely concerns the government of Christian Assemblies and prescribing the Orders and Rules of publick Worship And indeed it is very evident that St. Paul would never have indulged the scruples of Christians to the diminution of the Apostolical Power and Authority which he asserted as high as any of the Apostles He gave several directions for the government of Religious Assemblies for the regular exercise of their Spiritual Gifts in the Church of Corinth for speaking with Tongues and prophesying for their demeanour and deportment of themselves that men should pray and prophesie uncovered and women covered that women should not speak in the Church for their celebrating the Lords Supper and Love-feasts for their holy kiss besides his general directions that all things should be done decently and in order and after these particular directions reserves the final ordering of things to himself The rest will I set in order when I come This same Power he committed to Titus in Crete For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting Now if our Reconciler could shew that in such matters as these which concerned the exercise of Church-Authority the Apostles allowed private Christians to dispute their commands and gave indulgence to every one to do as they pleased who did not like to do what was commanded it would be somewhat to the purpose and might justly be thought a standing Rule for Church-Governours but the Apostles understood their Authority and the Primitive Christians their Duty better than so none disputed their commands in Rules of Prudence and Decency nor would they suffer their commands to be disputed without censure St. Paul commends the Corinthians upon this account I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you He commends them for their obedience to Titus and gives the Thessalonians this general Rule To know them which labour among you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them highly for their works sake And what that means we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls And he commands the Thessalonians If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed Which shews a true Apostolical Spirit and Power which we have no reason to doubt but he exercised in other cases as well as that which is there mentioned Now if this forbearance towards the believing Jews which St. Paul pleads for did not entrench upon Ecclesiastical Authority if it appears from other places that he did assert his Authority and require obedience and submission to it one would wonder how the Reconciler should hence prove that the Governours of the Church should give up their Authority to the Dissenters or which is all one not impose any thing which through ignorance or scrupulosity or from some worse cause they refuse to obey which St. Paul never did where he had authority to impose for as for his becoming all things to all men of which more in the next Chapter it referred onely to the exercise of a private liberty not of an Ecclesiastical Authority 6. I shall adde but one thing more that this forbearance which St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary It was a prudent Expedient for that time which was such a critical period as never happened before nor could ever haâ—pen again nor could continue long and therefore there was no such inconvenience in it but what might be dispensed with out of love and charity to weak Brethren The Jews who at that time believed in Christ could not presently be convinced that the Law of Moses was abrogated or out of date but St. Paul saw a time a coming which would effectually convince them of this when God should suffer the Romans to destroy their City and Temple and put a final end to the Jewish Worship which he seems to refer to when he tells them Let us therefore as many as be perfect thoroughly informed in the Christian Doctrine be thus minded and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Now when we see a fair prospect of the end of such Disputes and have an Expedient in the mean time to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church certainly Christian charity obligeth all men to mutual forbearance But now the case of the Dissenters is quite different from this They raise Scruples and Disputes after above fifteen hundred years prescription against them and separate from the Church of England upon such Principles as condemn the best and the purest Churches of former Ages and if their Scruples be indulged it is impossible there should ever be any Peace
The Apostle says Not to touch a woman And why our Reconciler says wife instead of woman I cannot tell I am sure it is a corruption of the Text and contrary to the Apostolical command Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband v. 3. But to let that pass his Argument in short is this The Apostle declares that a single life has many advantages in it as to the purposes of Religion especially in that afflicted and persecuted state of the Ghuach above Marriage and therefore he recommends a single life to them But knowing as our Saviour had before declared that every one could not receive this saying he does not impose it upon them and therefore the Governours of the Church should not impose our Ceremonies though it could be proved that there is like profit decency or tendence to perform Gods service better as the Apostle says there was under the present circumstances in keeping their virginity Now I would onely ask our Reconciler whether the Apostle had any authority to impose Virginity on the Christians of those days or to forbid them to marry If he had not as I think our Reconciler will not say that he had then his Argument runs thus The Apostle would not impose that upon the Christians which he had no authority to impose therefore the Governours of the Church must not impose that which they have authority to impose Some things may have great profit and advantage in them which yet are instances of so perfect a Vertue as is above the common attainments of Christians and therefore not fit to be made a standing Law they may be proper matter for an Exhortation but not for a Command But what a wide difference is there between the instances of a raised and perfect Vertue and the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship It is too severe an imposition to command the one but there is no difficulty in observing the other But the difference between Laws of burden and Ecclesiastical Ceremonies has been already observâ—d Thirdly His next head of Arguments for condescension to Dissenters is taken from that Dispute about eating of those meats which were offered to Idols 1 Cor. 8. 10. Now there is no need of any other Answer to this but to state this case right which will convince every ordinary Reader how unapplicable any thing which the Apostle here discourses is to the case of our Dissenters And to do this plainly and briefly we must consider 1. Who those were who out of a pretence of extraordinary knowledge went to the Idol-Temples and eat of those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols 2. Who the weak were who were offended with this and what the scandal and offence was 3. How the Apostle reasons about this matter 1. Who these knowing Persons were who eat in the Idols Temples Now it is very plain that the Apostle in this place taxes the Gnostick Hereticks who had occasioned that first Schism â—n the Church of Corinth and taught the People to despise St. Paul as very ignorant of the Mysteries of the Gospel and what the just extent of Christian liberty was For 1. it is plain that he here taxes a vain and arrogant pretence of knowledge v. 2. If any man think that he knoweth any thing he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know which is purposely to warn the Christians against those men who boasted so much of their knowledge assuring them that they were very ignorant notwithstanding all their brags of knowledge 2. It is evident that these men out of pretence of greater knowledge did eat in the Idols Temple If any man see thee which hast knowledge who dost so much boast of thy knowledge sit at meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an Idols Temple Now this St. Paul in the tenth Chapter absolutely condemns not onely as sinful upon account of scandal but as sinful in it self as partaking with Devils by eating of their Sacrifices No true Orthodox Christian ever did this but the Gnostick Hereticks did partly out of luxury to partake in these splendid Entertainments and to defile themselves with those impure lusts which were part of their Mysteries as the Apostle insinuates ch 10.6 7 8. v. These things are our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted neither be ye idolaters as were some of them as it is written The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and partly out of fear of persecution against which the Apostle warns and encourages the sincere Christians v. 13. There has no temptation no tryal by sufferings and persecutions taken you but what is common to men but God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it And to justifie this practice of theirs in eating at an Idols Temple they pretended that an Idol is nothing in the world that the Gods whom the Heathen worshipped were not Gods but dead men or according to the Mythology of the Stoicks which prevailed in that Age among the Philosophical Idolaters and therefore most probably was embraced by the Gnosticks were onely the names of some divine Powers and Attributes of the one eternal God which the errour and superstition of these People had formed into several distinct Dâ—â—ies and therefore an Idol being nothing it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it but it was as lawful to eat of that as of any other ordinary Feast 2. Let us consider who these weak persons were who were offended and scandalized at this liberty which the Gnosticks took Now it is as plain that these were a sort of very imperfect Christians who together with the Faith of Christ retained many of their old Pagan Superstitions as the Jews did the observation of the Mosaical Law This appears from that account St. Paul gives of them that they were men who did not understand that an Idol is nothing but look'd upon them at least as some inferiour Gods and frequented their Temples and eat of the meat offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices and thereby did defile and pollute themselves with Idolatrous Worship Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge for some with conscience of the Idol to this hour eat it as a thing offered unto Idols and their conscience being weak a sick misinformed corrupt conscience is defiled with Idolatry And therefore the scandal which was given to these men was this that when they saw those who pretended to such perfect knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple this confirmed them in their errour and Idolatry and made them conclude that such Pagan Superstitions as these were reconcilablâ—
duty but the power of imposing indifferent things as he calls it or the power of prescribing the Rules and Orders and Circumstances of Worship if there be any such power as he grants there is is the power and authority of an Office is a Trust and a Duty the prudent and faithful discharge of which they must give an account of and therefore must not when they please either part with the power or the exercise of it St. Paul was contented to part with the temporal rewards of his Ministry that he might the more successfully discharge the Ministry it self therefore Church-Governours must not exercise their Authority in the discharge of their Ministry to humour Dissenters St. Paul did more than his strict duty required that he might have something to glory in therefore the Governours of the Church must neglect their duty and lose their reward Indeed our Reconciler talks as if the Churches Authority in indifferent things were onely a personal right a Complement to Church-Governours an ornamental power which they may use or may let alone as they please and if this were so I should presently be of our Reconciler's mind but I believe they have no such kind of useless Authority as this Christ has not complemented his Ministers with any power which is not for the use and service of the Church and therefore if they have power in indifferent things this is a useful power and that which they ought to use when there is reason for it whoever be offended at it Another reason why St. Paul preached the Gospsl freely at Corinth he gives us in the 2 Cor. 11. 12 13. What I do that I will do that I may cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that wherein they glory they may be found even as we for such are false Apostles deceitful workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. The meaning of which is this There were several false Teachers who crept in among them and used all manner of arts to recommend themselves to the Corinthians and among others this seems to be one that they preached the Gospel freely to them onely as they pretended out of love of their Souls which was a very popular art especially to that People and therefore St. Paul resolved to persist in preaching the Gospel freely to them to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that is to disappoint those arts of deceit whereby these false Teachers endeavoured to recommend themselves that wherein they glory they may be found even as we that whereas they glory in preaching the Gospel freely this may give them no advantage since it is no more than what I my self have all along done and still continue to do Our Reconciler paraphraseth these words thus To cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that is lest his enemies should take occasion from the exercise of this his liberty to charge or to traduce him as one who more consulted his own profit than the glory of God and the propagation of the Gospel But what occasion had there been for this though he had taken Wages of them as he says he did of other Churches to supply his necessities it was sufficiently evident notwithstanding that he did exact nothing from them to serve the ends of covetousness and ambition for certainly a man may desire the supply of his wants without being charged with covetousness but the Apostle would not suffer these false Prophets by a pretended and hypocritical Zeal to outdo him in any thing Now the Apostle's care to give no advantage to false Teachers is a good Example to the Governours of our Church not to do so neither and I am sure they cannot give them greater advantage than to sacrifice all Order and Decency to their pretended Scruples Well but says our Reconciler the Rulers of the Church by the exercise of this power in indifferent things do give occasion to them that desire occasion to traduce them as men who more regard a Ceremony than an immortal Soul the exercise of their commanding Power than the preserving of poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions c. These are very spightful but very foolish Insinuations As for Schisms and Divisions we have already considered where that charge must rest and then how do Ceremonies come in competition with the Souls of men Does the appointment of some Ceremonies for the decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship hinder the salvation of mens Souls Cannot men be saved who observe the Ceremonies of our Church Then indeed our Reconciler might well complain that those who impose such damning Ceremonies have more regard to a Ceremony than to an immortal Soul otherwise there is no competition between Ceremonies and the Souls of men and those who will be Schismaticks for a Ceremony will be Schismaticks without it and will be damned for their Schism whether there be any Ceremonies or not All that remains in this Chapter are his Answers to Meisner's Arguments which I have already considered as much as is necessary to my purpose CHAP. VII Containing an Answer to the Motives to Mutual Condescension urged in the sixth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler I Find nothing in this Chapter besides some Harangues and Popular Declamations but what has been sufficiently answered already The whole proceeds upon those general Topicks of the smalness of these things the danger mens Souls are in by these Impositions the obligations to Love and Charity which have been particularly discoursed above in the first and second Chapters where the reasons of these things are particularly examined But however I will briefly try whether I cannot give an Answer to all this which may be as popular as his Objections are I. His first Argument or Motive is from considering how small the things are which cause our Discords and Divisions when they are set in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love Peace and the Churches Vnion and Edification and the avoiding the offence and scandal of Iew Gentile and the Church of God which he very pompously proves to be great Gospel-duties Now suppose the things in dispute be never so small if they are of any use in Religion and the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority as our Reconciler owns they are what will he conclude from hence that the observation of such little things must not be enjoyned What not when Christ has given authority to enjoyn them Does Christ then give any authority to his Church which she must not use Must nothing be enjoyned which is little in comparison of Love and Peace and Unity or must they be enjoyned and left indifferent at the same time Must the Church appoint them to be observed but command no body to observe them but those who please In all well-governed Societiâ—s there must be Laws about little as well as about great things and if there be no Authority to determine the least matters both in
Church and State it will necessarily occasion very great inconveniences Well but we must not set these little things in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love and Peace No God forbid we should But does our Reconciler know what a competition between two Laws means I know but of two ways that this can happen either when they contradict each each other or are so contrary in their natures that they can never be both observed or when there is a competition of time that it so happens that we cannot observe both at the same time as when we cannot at the same time go to Church to serve God and stay at home to attend a sick Father or Friend in which cases our Saviour has laid down a general Rule That God prefers Mercy bâ—foâ—e Sacrifice But now upon neither of these accounts can there be any competition pretended between the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and the great duties of Love and Peace and Unity and Edification For cannot men observe the Orders and Constitutions of the Church as to the external Rites of Worship and love one another and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church at the same time Indeed can there be a better means to preserve Love and Peace and Unity among Christians and to promote mutual Edification than an Uniformity in Religious Worship since it is evident that nothing breeds greater Dissentions and Emulations and Envyings among Christians than different and contrary Modes of Worship And if this be so then there is no competition between the Ceremonies of Religion and the Love and Peace of Christians and consequently no reason why the Governours of the Church may not command both though the particular Ceremonies of Religion be acknowledged to be small things in comparison with the great duties of Love and Peace Yes you 'll say the imposition of these Ceremonies does come in competition with these great duties of Love and Peace and Unity because there are a great many who quarrel at them and divide the Church upon that account and if these controverted Ceremonies were removed Love and Unity would be restored among us Now supposing this to be true which I have already proved not to be true what is this to the Governours of the Church If they impose nothing which is inconsistent with Love and Peace and Unity then the imposition of these things in it self considered cannot be inconsistent with these great Gospel-duties for if what we command be consistent with Love and Unity then the Command otherwise called the Imposition must be so too It is not the command or imposition of these things which is inconsistent with Love and Unity but refusal of obedience to such lawful Commands which is not the fault of the Governours but of the Subjects not of those who command but of those who will not obey and therefore these are Arguments proper to be urged against Dissenters but not against the Governours of the Church As to give you a familiar instance of this A Master commands his Servant to put on a clean Band to wait at Table the Servant refuses to do it upon this the whole Family is divided some take part with the Master others with the Servant in steps a Reconciler and tells the Master he did very ill to cause such Divisions in his Family that Love and Peace and Unity were more considerable duties than a Servants wearing a clean Band which therefore ought not to come in competition with them Pray Sir says the Master preach this Doctrine to my Servants and not to me I have commanded nothing but what was fit to be done and I will have it done or he and all his Partners shall turn out oâ— my Family Now let one who is a Master judge whether the Master or the Reconciler be in the right The breach of Love and Peace and Unity is not the effect though it be the consequent which our Reconciler I perceive cannot distinguish of the Command or Imposition but of the disobedience and therefore when the Command is fit and reasonable cannot be charged upon him who commands but upon him who disobeys But besides this I observe that Christian Love and Unity and Peace in the Writings of the New Testament signifie the Communion of the Church and how kind soever they may be to each other upon other accounts men do not love like Christians who do not worship God together in the Communion of the same Church wherein they live and there can be no Edification out of the Church Now if there be no way of uniting men in one Communion but by an uniformity of Worship then to prescribe the Rules and Orders and Ceremonies of Worship is as necessary as Christian Love and Peace and Unity is Men who worship God after a different manner must and will worship in different places too and in distinct Communions and those who will not submit to the Injunctions of a just Authority will never consent in any form of Worship and therefore this may multiply Schisms but cannot cure them This is all perfect demonstration from the experience of our late Confusions when the pulling down the Church of England did not lessen our Divisions but increase them But our Reconciler confirms this Argument that the Governours of the Church ought not to insist on such little things when they come in competition with Love and Peace and Unity c. from the example of God himself who was not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Worship but that he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed about it upon accounts of lesser moment than these are He instances in the Law of Circumcision which was not observed in the Wilderness because this would hinder the motion of the Camp In the Law of the Passover which was to be observed on the first month and the 14th day of the month but God expresly provided that if any man were unclean or in a journey far off at that time they should observe it on the 14th of the second month in the Sabbatick rest which admitted of works of necessity and mercy which were never forbidden by God in that Law nor intended to be Now are not these admirable proofs That God is not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Law but that upon some accounts he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed when it does not appear that he ever did so As for the neglect of Circumcision in the Wilderness I doubt not but God had given express order about it otherwise Moses who was faithful in all his house and a punctual observer of all the divine Laws and Statutes would never have neglected it and this I may say with as much reason as our Reconciler can produce for Gods permission of it without an express Order and somewhat more As for the Passover let our Reconciler consider again whether the observation of
not certainly how God will deal with them in the other World God has nowhere told us any thing of it and therefore this is not so certain as to make it a President and Example for Governours 2. But suppose this were so as all of us have reason to hope it is yet this is no Example to Governours in Church or State For there is a vast difference between Gods judgements in the other World and acts of Government and Discipline in this The one respects mens personal deserts and determines their final doom the other onely respects the preservation of good order and government in Church or State And therefore the final judgment considers all circumstances which may deserve reward or punishment pity and compassion not onely what was done but who did it with what intention and designe whether knowingly or ignorantly or the like the other considers onely what is done what prejudice it is to the publick and how such an example deserves to be punished and therefore it is very fitting for earthly Governours to punish those sins which God will pardon because they cannot maintain good Government withour it If through ignorance and mistake though so innocent and involuntary that God may see reason to pardon it any men should disturb the Peace and Order of Church or State it would utterly overthrow all Government if these men must not be restrained nor punished Our Reconciler might have considered that God forgives us all our sins which we sincerely repent of though they were never so great and voluntary and methinks he might as well have undertaken the Cause of penitent Thieves and Rebels and Murderers as of impenitent Schismaticks He should do well when he sees the Tears and Sorrows and Agonies of such guilty Wretches and hears their solemn profession of repentance to mind the Judge and the Jury of the mercy and pitifulness of our good God who forgives the sins of all true Penitents and therefore they who are commanded to be followers of God like dear children to be merciful as our Father which is in Heaven is merciful to put on bowels of compassion as the Elect of God should not hang up those poor penitent Wretches but forgive that on Earth which God will forgive in Heaven Now I wonder how a Judge and Jury would gaze upon such a Reconciler as this whether they would think him fittest for Bedlam or Bridewel It is certain that this good and pitiful God whose Example our Reconciler proposes does himself make a difference between this World and the next in executing Judgments he sometimes punishes those sins in this World which he himself forgives in the next and therefore certainly Earthly Governours whether of Church or State may punish those sins in this World which God will pardon in the next Thus it was in the case of David whom the Prophet Nathan upon his repentance assured that God had pardoned him and yet at the same time denounced the Judgments of God against him the rebellion of his Son Absolom and the death of the child begotten in Adultery Thus we have reason to hope that so pious a man as Vzzah though he was struck dead upon the place yet was not eternally damned for touching the Ark. 3. And yet Gods final Judgment is no Rule and Pattern for humane Judicatures because Earthly Governours do not know the hearts and thoughts of men as Gods does He knows when mens ignorance is invincible and involuntary which no man can know and therefore God can make such allowances in his last and final Judgment which no man can or ought God judges the hearts of men but man can onely judge of their actions and therefore an Earthly Governour may and ought in justice to punish that which God may very equitably pardon 4. Especially considering that this last and final Judgment of God is designed to rectifie all the necessary defects as well as miscarriages of humane Judicatures A man who is guilty of some troublesome errour and mistake may and ought for the publick good to suffer for it in this World though it may be hard that he should suffer for it in the next And this very consideration as I have observed before answers all this difficulty Schismaticks how innocent soever their mistake is ought to be cast out of the Church on â—arth or all Ecclesiastical Authority is lost and the Church left without any Government to defend it self but if the case be favourable God will make allowances for it in the other World and he who is guilty of Schism without a schismatical mind we hope may find mercy And therefore this can be no reason for the Church not to pass her censures upon such men if they are visibly guilty of that which deserves a censure A temporal Judge does not intend to damn every man whom he hangs nor an Ecclesiastical Judge to damn those whom he censures they are onely concerned to see that the Judgment and Censure be deserved in this World but they leave the final Judgment to God himself This I think is enough to answer to this Argument though our Reconciler rhetoricates upon it He observes that the Scripture represents God as very pitiful and we believe God to be very pitiful as any earthly Parent can be but not indulgent to the humour or frowardness of children But it is this God of mercy who himself goes into the mountains to save and to bring home the strayed sheep And thus the Governours of the Church ought to do to bring home stray Sheep into their Fold not to indulge them in their wandrings But God provided an Asylum for him who ignorantly committed murder accidentally he means without intending any such thing which is not the errour of the mind but of the hand and therefore does not relate to this business But God remitted the sin of Abimeleck because he did it ignorantly but Abimeleck had been guilty of no sin for he had not touched Sarah Abraham's Wife But he had mercy of St. Paul for the same reason though he persecuted the Church of Christ but the mercy consisted in bringing him to repentance unless the Reconciler will say too that he had mercy on those who crucified Christ because they did it ignorantly and on all those Jews of whom St. Paul witnesses that they had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge And indeed it is worth coâ—sidering that this Argument of the Reconcilâ—r's pleads â—or a Toleration of all Religions especially if we can suppose that there are honest and ignorant men among them such persons will be received by God according to our Reconciler's Principles whatever Religion they be of Jews or Turks or Pagans though he does none the honour of a particular vindication but onely the Papists If Charity teaches us thus to hope saith the most learned Bishop Sanderson of our forefathers who lived and died in the idolatrous acts of Worship why then should we reject
them from Communion whom God will receive So that the poor Church of England must receive Papists into her Communion as well as the Phanaticks where we must observe the Charity is Bishop Sanderson's the Inference and Application the Reconciler's III. His next Argument is from one great purpose of Christ's Advent and the effusion of his precious bloud to make both Iew and Gentile one by breaking down the middle wall of partition that was between them and abolishing the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances Now the conceit of it is this He supposes the Ceremonies of the Church of England to be such a Partition-wall between Conformists and Nonconformists as the Mosaical Law was between Jews and Gentiles and therefore as Christ has broken down one Partition-wall and made Jew and Gentile one Church so our Governours ought to break down the other Partition-wall to make Conformists and Nonconformists one Body and Church which is such a dull conceit and argues such stupid ignorance in the Mysteries of Christianity that I do not wonder he is so zealous an Advocate for Ignorance and Errour The Partition-wall is an Allusion to that Partition in the Temple which divided the Court where the Jews worshipped from the Court of the Gentiles and that which made this Partition was Gods Covenant with Abraham when he chose his carnal Seed and Posterity for his peculiar People and separated them from the rest of the World and the more effectually to separate them from other Nations gave them a peculiar Law which was to last as long as this distinction did For God did not intend for ever to confine his Church to one Nation but when the promised Messias came to enlarge the borders of his Church to all mankind And therefore this Law was so contrived as to typifie the Messias and to receive its full completion in the perfect Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death which put an end to the former Dispensation and sealed a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with all mankind Thus Christ by his death broke down the Partition-wall because he put an end to the Mosaical Covenant which was made onely with the Jews and to that external and â—ypical Religion which was peculiar to the Mosaical Dispensation and made a distinction and separation between Jew and Gentile that is as Christ made a Covenant now with all mankind so he put an end to all marks of distinction between Jew and Gentile and to that typical and ceremonial Worship which was peculiar to the Jews as a distinct and separate People Now indeed any such Partition-wall as this which confines the Covenant and Promises of God to any particular People or Nation and excludes all others is directly contrary to the end and designe of Christs death and ought immediately to be pulled down but must there therefore be no Partion to distinguish between the Church of Christ and Infidels and Hereticks and Schismaticks Must there be no Walls and Fences about the Church this Vineyard and Fold of Christ Must there be no Laws made for the government of Religious Assemblies and the Decency and Order of Christian Worship for fear of keeping those out of the Church who will not be orderly in it How come the Ceremonies of our Church to be a Wall of partition the Church never made them so for she onely designed them for Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship which it is her duty to take care of Let those then who set up this Wall of partition pull it down again that is let those who separate from the Church and make these Ceremonies a Wall of partition return to the Communion of the Church which no body keeps them from but themselves As for his modest insinuations that our Ceremonies are carnal Ordinances weak and beggarly Elements and therefore ought to be removed for their weakness and unprofitableness as the Mosaick Ceremonies were I have already largely shewn the difference between a Ritual and Ceremonial Religion and those Ceremonies which are for the Decency of Religious Worship which are as necessary and must continue as long as External Worship which requires external Signs of Decency and Honour does IV. His next Motive to Condescension is from the Example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel which in short is this That when Christ was on Earth he did not instruct his Disciples in such Doctrines as they were not capable of understanding till after his Resurrection and therefore left the revelation of such matters to the Ministry of his Holy Spirit whom after his Ascension into Heaven he sent to them And the Apostles when they converted Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of Christ did not immediately tell them all that was to be known and believed but instructed them in the plainest matters first and allowed some time to wear off their Jewish and Pagan prejudices therefore the Governours of the Church should forbear imposing of some practices at which our Flocks by reason of their prejudice and weakness will be apt to stumble and take offence But how this follows I confess I cannot understand if it proves any thing it proves that the Governours of the Church must not instruct their People in any thing which they are not willing to learn that our Reconciler should never have published his second part to convince Dissenters that they may lawfully and therefore in duty ought to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church when they are imposed for if notwithstanding the Example of our Saviour and his Apostles we may instruct our People in such things we may require their obedience too otherwise we had as good never instruct them But did Christ and his Apostles then intend that Christians should be always children Did not St. Paul testifie that he had declared the whole Will of God to them And when the Gospel has been fully published to the World for above sixteen hundred years must the Church return again to her state of infancy and childhood to humour Dissâ—nters But indeed is the duty of obedience to Governours in all things which Christ has not forbid such a sublime and mysterious Doctrine that it ought to be concealed as too difficult to be understood Is it not a pretty way of reasoning that Euclid's Elements is too difficult a book for a young child to learn therefore his Master must not teach him to obâ—y his Parents neither I am sure this was one of the first Lessons which the Apostles taught their Disciples whatever else they concealed from them for there can be no Church founded without Government and there can be no Government where Subjects must not be taught Obedience But however there is a great difference between the first publication of any Doctrine and the preaching of it after it is published The first requires great prudence in the choice of a fit time to do it in and of fit persons to communicate it to which was the case of Christ and his
terms of admission are very different from the Rules of Government That a man has served an Apprentiship to a Trade and is made free by his Master is sufficient to make him a Member of such a Corporation but though he understand his Trade very well and behaves himself honestly in it yet if he prove a disobedient and refractory Member to the government of the Society he may be cast out again and I wonder what the Master and Wardens of such a Company would say to the Reconciler should he come and plead in the behalf of such a disobedient Member that they ought not to make any thing necessary to his continuance in and communion with the Society but what was necessary to his first admission The Charter whereon the Society is founded is very different from the particular Laws of the Society whereby it is governed as it must be where there is any power of making Laws committed to the Governours of it and therefore if Christ has committed such a power of making Laws to his Church as our Reconciler himself acknowledges it is a ridiculous thing to say that they must not excommunicate or cast any man out of the Church who believes the Christian Religion and lives a vertuous life which is the sum of the Baptismal Covenant how disobedient soever he be to the Laws and Government of the Church Which is a sufficient Answer to Quest. 6. His sixth Query Whether anathematizing men for doubtful actions or for such faults as consist with true Christianity and continued subjection to Iesus Christ be not a sinful Church-dividing means Onely I shall observe farther that as he has stated this Query it does not concern the Church of England She anathematizes no man for doubtful actions for she commands nothing that is doubtful though some men are pleased to pretend some doubts and scruples about it But I have already shewn that there is a great difference between a doubtful action and an action which some men doubt of the first ought not to be commanded the second may And then our Church excommunicates no man who lives in a continued subjection to Iesus Christ which no Schismatick does whatever pretences he makes to holiness of life for subjection to Christ requires subjection to that Authority which Christ has set in his Church as well as obedience to his other Laws Quest. 7. As for his next Question about imposing heavy burdens and intolerable yokes when Christ came to take them away it has been at large answered already Quest. 8. Whether Christ hath not made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Vnity to his Church and whether any man should be cut off from it who breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-unity and communion Ans. Christ has made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Unity to his Church for he has commanded all Christians to submit to the Authority which he has placed in his Church which is the onely Bond of Union in a particular Church and therefore those who are cut off from the Church for their disobedience to Ecclesiastical Authority while nothing is enjoyned which contradicts the other Laws of our Saviour cannot be said to break no Law of God necessary to Church-unity or communion for they break that Law which is the very Bond of Union and deserve to be cut off though they should be supposed to break no other Law of Christ. Quest. 9. Whether if many of the children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of sin and Hell was the cause a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case when his abating it hath no such danger Ans. A tender Pastor in such cases ought to instruct such children but not to suffer such childish fancies to impose upon Church-authority For to disturb the Peace and Order of the Church and to countenance mens injudicious scruples by such indulgence is a much greater mischief and more unpardonable in a Governour than the severest censures on private persons If a private connivance for a time in some hard cases would do any good it might be thought reasonable and charitable but to alter publick Laws and Constitutions for the sake of such injudicious people is for ever to sacrifice the Peace and Order and good Government of the Church to the humours of children which would not be thought either prudent or charitable in any other Government Quest. 10. If diversity in Religion be such an evil whether should men cause it by their unnecessary Laws and Canons and making Engines to tear the Church in pieces which by the ancient simplicity and commanded mutual forbearance would live in such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected Ans. Whoever cause a diversity of Religions by their Laws and Canons or make Engines to tear the Church in pieces are certainly very great Schismaticks but Laws for Unity and Uniformity can never make a diversity of Religions nor occasion it neither unless every thing produces its contrary heat produce cold peace war and love hatred Men may quarrel indeed about Laws of Unity and Uniformity but it is the diversity of Religions or Opinions which men have already espoused not the Laws of Unity which makes the quarrel The plain case then is this Whether when men are divided in their opinions and judgments of things and if they be left to themselves will worship God in different ways according to their own humours and perswasions it be unlawful for Church-Governours to make Laws for Unity and Uniformity because whatever they be some men will quarrel at them Or whether the Church may justly be charged with making a diversity of Religions by making Laws to cure and restrain that diversity of Religions which men have already made to themselves It is certain were men all of a mind the Laws of Unity could not make a difference and therefore these Laws and Canons are not the Engines which tear the Church in pieces but that diversity of opinions which men have wantonly taken up and for the sake of which they tear and divide the Church into a thousand Conventicles But had it not been for these Canons by the ancient simplicity and mutual forbearance they would live in such a measure of love and peace as may be here expected But what ancient simplicity does he mean The Church of England is the best Pattern this day in the World of the Primitive and Apostolick simplicity for a Phanatick simplicity was never known till of late days there never was a Church from the Apostles days without all Rites and Ceremonies of Worship till of late when men pretended to reform Religion by destroying all external Order and Decency of Worship and therefore he is fain to take in a commanded mutual forbearance to patch up Church-unity that is if men be permitted to worship God as they please and are commanded not to quarrel with one another and are not permitted to cut
one anothers throats this is such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected that is among Schismaticks and Dissenters But this is not such a Love and Peace as makes the Church one for that consists in one Communion which can never be had where men differ in the Rites and Modes of Worship and every man is permitted to worship God as he pleases Quest. 11. If a Patient would not take a Medicine from one mans hand whether would not a good Physician consent that another should give it him whether would the merciful Father let the Infant famish that would take food from none but his Mother And if the People culpably will hear no others but Dissenters is it better to let them hear none at all than that they should preach to them Ans. Now I would ask our Reconciler one Question Why all this will not hold as well in Civil as Ecclesiastical Government If the People culpably will be governed not by a King and Parliament but by some select and trusty Members of a House of Commons or by another Oliver is it better these poor People should be without any Government than that they should be governed by Rebels or a new modelled Commonwealth Now here is an excellent Argument to perswade the King out of great charity to his People to resigne up the Government and let them chuse their own Governours though I am afraid then they would be cantoned into as many little Independent Kingdoms as there are now Independent Pastors But let us consider his comparisons He says If a Patient would not receive a Medicine from one mans hands whether would not a good Physician consent that another man should give it him Yes why not so long as the Physician prescribed the Physick But would such a Physician suffer such a humorsome Patient could he hinder it to go to a Quack or a Mountebank or to take Physick very hurtful and pernicious to him I believe the Colledge of Physicians are of another mind who have been as industrious to suppress such Quacks as the Church has been to silence Dissenters But whether would the merciful Father let the Infant famish that would take food from none but his Mother But suppose he is as fond of a Strumpet as he is of his Mother what would the Father do in that case It is a pretty inâ—inuation this that dissenting Preachers are the true Mother and therefore it is very pardonable in the People to long after them But is not our Reconciler a great Politician who thinks it reasonable that publick Government should humour Subjects as a Physician does a sick Patient or an indulgent Father a froward child that the Hospital or the Nursery should be the best Platform of Government in Church or State But now our Reconciler speaks out and in down-right terms pleads for the toleration of dissenting Preachers that the People may have somebody to hear and it is better to let them hear them than that they should hear none at all But there is no necessity of either that I know of for thanks be to God there are other excellent Preachers to hear though the Dissenters were never to preach more and there is no danger that those People who have such itching ears should ever grow so sullen as to hear none at all when they cannot hear whom they would they will hear whom they can and by hearing wise and honest instructions may in time grow wise themselves which I suspect some men are afraid of whatever our Reconciler be These Queries our Author has borrowed from Mr. Baxter and made them his own by his approbation of them and now he tells us That Mr. Barret hath offered many Questions of the like nature which he being slow of understanding which I believe the Reader by this time will take his word for cannot answer to his own satisfaction and therefore in a great fright crys out passionately for help Men of Israel help And I will endeavour to help him out here too Q. 1. Might not Conformists with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so needless and burdensome to many Was ever Schism made so light a matter of and the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own judgment but things doubtful and unlawful in the judgment of others might not be forborn Ans. This I have sufficiently answered already in the vindication of the Savoy-Commissioners and therefore shall onely adde here that it does become the Governours of the Church to secure the external Order and Decency of Worship and the good government of the Church though they know a great many men will be offended at it and turn Schismaticks and when men quarrel with those Ceremonies which have been anciently received and practised in the Church upon such Schismatical Principles as equally overthrow all decent and orderly Constitutions there ought to be no regard had to them nor any alteration made upon their account When these Ceremonies were appointed to be retained in Religious Worship as they were purged from all superstitious uses in the reformation of King Edward the sixth they were scrupled by no body nor could the Governours of the Church foresee that they would be scrupled and as for the happy resettlement of the Church under our present gracious Soveraign whom God long preserve to which I suppose Mr. Barret and our Reconciler refer it was very unreasonable to justifie the late horrid Schism and Rebellion by yielding to the unjust clamours of those men who had by a pretence of Conscience once already overturned both Church and State such Consciences ought to be governed and chastised not indulged Q. 2. Whether they pray as they ought Thy Kingdom come or whether indeed they act not against their own Prayers who endeavour to hinder the preaching of the Gospel by making these unnecessary things the conditions of so doing Let us bring the case before our supreme and final Iudge and bethink your self whether of these two things he will most likely have regard unto the saving of Souls which he bought with his bloud or the preserving inviolate certain humane Institutions and Rules confessed by the devisers of them not to be necessary Ans. As for their being confessed not to be necessary that has been often enough answered already and as for his Appeals to the final Judgment we are very well contented with that as being satisfied that no popular Cant will pass currant there That the imposition of these Ceremonies does not hinder the preaching the Gospel is evident to sense for the Gospel is still preached and I hope to better purpose than in the late days of Rebellion And as for the Kingdom of God in this World it signifies the Christian Church and to pray for
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
for denying this liberty and indulgence is known to all men and it is hard to think then that he was a Reconciler for never any Reconciler was a Martyr for the Church And methinks the Act of Uniformity and the prosecution of Dissenters upon that and former Acts might convince any reasonable man that our present Soveraign is none of his Protestant Reconcilers But if notwithstanding all this he can prove against plain matter of fact and the evidence of sense and the experience and complaints of Dissenters all these to be Reconciling Kings I am resolved I will be a Protestant Reconciler too and I hope I may pass for as good a Reconciler as any of these renowned Kings without recanting this Book Let us hear then how he proves these great Princes to be Reconcilers As for King Iames he proves him to be a Reconciler from Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perroon Now how faithfully Casaubon represented the Kings Judgment is more than our Reconciler can tell onely I am certain he did misrepresent him if he made a Reconciler of him But there is no reason to take Sanctuary in this for whoever considers the occasion of those words may put a very sober construction on them without giving any countenance to our Reconciler for the Dispute did not concern the Rules of Order and Decency in Religious Worship but the unscriptural Innovations of Popery which they imposed upon all Churches as terms of Catholick Communion Now in this Controversie any man may safely say what Casaubon says for the King without being a Protestant Reconciler For there is no nearer way of concord than to separate things necessary from unnecessary to call nothing simply necessary but what the Word of God commandeth to be believed or done or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence that other humane Constitutions whatever antiquity or authority is pretended for them might be changed mollified antiquated and that this may in the general be said of most Ecclesiastical observations introduced without the Word of God Now this does not refer to the decent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Religion but to such Ecclesiastical observations as are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome as the Celibacy of the Clergy Prayers for the Dead Pilgrimages Monastick Vows the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the like for which the Church of Rome pretends the Authority of ancient Councils or the ancient practice and usage of the Church Now in these cases I am perfectly of the Kings mind and yet do not take my self to be a Protestant Reconciler in our Authors way Our Royal Martyr when he saw what danger Church and State and his own Royal Person was in from the outrageous zeal of dissenting Protestants who did not now humbly beg for Indulgence and Toleration but contended for Rule and Empire was willing if it were possible to allay these Heats and divert the Storm by yiâ—lding somewhat to their boisterous and threatning importunities and if he had yielded a great deal more at that time than he did I think it had been no argument of his own setled judgment of things The Reconciler might hence prove that the King thought it much better to yield a little at that time than to ruine Church and State by too much stiffness not that he thought it unlawful to impose any thing on his Subjects in matters of Religion which they were pleased to scruple And yet what is it that the King yielded under these necessities For that our Reconciler produces these words As for differences among our selves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning Religion we shall in tenderness to any number of our loving Subjects very willingly comply with the advice of our Parliament that some Law may be made for the exemption of tender Consciences from punishment or prosecution for such Ceremonies and in such cases which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent and of some to be absolutely unlawful Does the King in these words promise to alter the Constitutions of the Church to abolish all Ceremonies c By no means he onely says that he will comply with the advice of his Parliament to exempt such tender Consciences from punishment And how can our Reconciler hence conclude that the King believed it unlawful to impose these Ceremonies because at such a critical time he was contented there should be some provision made to secure Dissenters from the execution of the penal Laws And yet that ill usage which so excellent a Prince met with from these dissenting Protestants after such a condescension as this gives no great encouragement to Princes to try this Experiment again Thus he proves our present Soveraign to be of his mind by his Declaration from Breda which he prints at large I suppose for fear People should forget that there had been such a Declaration or what were the contents of it How the present circumstances of affairs at that time might incline his Majesty to such a condescension is not my business to inquire it is sufficient for us to know that the House of Commons presented their Reasons to the King against that Declaration which so far satisfied him that he gave his assent to the Act of Uniformity and therefore I suppose is not of our Reconciler's mind now and indeed never was notwithstanding that Declaration for he never asserted it unlawful to impose scrupled Ceremonies upon Dissenters but thought it expedient at that time to indulge their weakness And while matters were under debate for the re-establishment of the Church of England no wonder that the King and his great Ministers should make Proposals of Accommodation and offer their Reasons and Arguments for it but I always thought that what is said by any person on one side or other while the matter is under debate is not so good an Argument what his judgment and opinion is as what he agrees and consents to when the Reasons on both sides have been heard and scann'd Thus our Kings are our own again and of all men in the world have the least reason to countenance such a designe as this which serves onely to encourage a busie and restless Party among us who first strike at the Church but will never be quiet till they have usurp'd the Throne What the sence of our Church is in this matter is evident from her Articles Canons and Constitutions and this signifies a great deal more to me than the opinion of any private Doctors of what note and eminency soever It is unreasonable to oppose the authority of any particular Doctors to the Judgment of the Church and it would be an endless work to number the Votes and Suffrages of private Doctors on both sides indeed their authority is no greater than their reason is and if any of them be of our Reconciler's mind I am sure they speak without book unless they have something more
pleaded for a weak and ignorant and scrupulous Conscience And I wonder what service our Reconciler could think to do by pleading for the Dissenters under such a character as they will neither own themselves nor their Governours believe of them He takes it for granted that they are guilty of Schism and that their Schism is owing to a weak and ignorant tender and scrupulous Conscience Now Dissenters disown all this they do not think themselves Schismaticks or at least are too wise to own it much less do they think themselves ignorant but the most knowing and understanding Christians the very Gnosticks of the Age nor are they scrupulous but fully assured that they are in the right and their Governours in the wrong and therefore if they be wise they will give him no thanks for his pains And our Governours know indeed that they are Schismaticks and that they are ignorant or worse but do not take them for weak tender-conscienced scrupulous Schismaticks but know the quite contrary that they are proud conceited troublesome factious that they despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities that they are restless Underminers of the setled Constitutions of Church State wherein they live that they despise instruction and think themselves too wise to learn or receive better information and this they are as certain of as forty years experience can make them So that were our Reconciler's Arguments never so good to perswade Governours to indulge weak and scrupulous and tender Consciences yet they fail in their application to Dissenters and are not so much as an Argument ad hominem because our Governours do not and have no reason to believe our Dissenters to be such persons and I cannot imagine what makes our Dissenters so fond of this Reconciler unless it be that they find so much of their own temper and spirit in him to unsettle the present Constitutions of the Church and to censure and reproach the Wisdom and Charity of his Governours And therefore I would advise Dissenters to act like men and if they are resolved to continue Dissenters to keep their Post and stand upon their defence and not to take Sanctuary in such lame Apologies as no considering man can make for himself without blushing If they are in the right they may justifie themselves against all Imposers without the help of a Reconciler and if they are in the wrong no Reconciler can help them And therefore they are bound in their own defence to answer the Second Part of the Protestant Reconciler as I have done the First in the defence of my dear Mother the Church of England which God Almighty long preserve and defend against all whether Popish or Protestant Dissenters and Reconcilers Amen THE END Reconcil p. 3. Preface p. 2 3 Reconcil p. 4. P. 2. Prot. Recon p. 39. Pref. p. 2. Reconcil p. 39. Reconc p 39 40. See Pract. disc of religious Assembl 6.2 See Defen of Dr. Still Unr. of Separ p. 30. Calvin in 1 Cor. 14.40 1 Mal. 6. v. 14. 1 Cor. 11.4 5 6 7. ch 14.34 35. 1 Tim. 2.11 12. 4 Rev. 4. 7 Rev. 9. 19 Rev. 8. See Defen of Dr. Still Unr. of Separ p. 41 42. 13 Joh. 4 5. 1 Tim. 5.10 P. 297. Prot. Rec. p 38 26 Mat. 29 14 Mark 25. 22 Luke 15 16 17. Prot. Rec. c. 8. p. 313. Ibid. P. 3 4. Duct dubit l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. S. 8. Prot. Recone p. 220 c. Reâ— c. 7. p. 212. Duct Dubit 3 b. 4 c. R. 20. S. 6. Recon p. 214. P. 227 c. Preface p. 53. P. 215. See the Vind. of the Defen of Dr. Stilling p. 427 c. Recon p. 332 333. Of Ceremonies why some abolish'd and some retain'd Pref. to the Com. Pray P. 338. P. 159. P. 323. Rec. p. 31 32. Recon p. 208. P. 247 c. P. 239 240. Irenicum p. 3. Recon p. 109 c. Chap. 8. p. 259. Hist. of Separation p. 16. Recon p. 297. Pref. to the Com. Prayer-book about Ceremonies 1 Cor. 11.3 4 c. Rec. p. 339. 15. Acts. P. 309. Libertas Eccl. p. 429. Recon p. 317. Libertas Eccl. p. 415. P. 318. 5 Joh. 10. 6 Luke 9. 12 Mat. 12. Prot. Rec. c. 1. P. 22. Recon ch 10. p. 326. P. 327. P. 330. See Dr. Still Hist. of Separation p. 4. P. 25. P. 331. Recon ch 2. p. 23. Recon p. 45. P. 46. 6 Hos. 6. 6 Mic. 6 7 8. 12 Mat. 7. 9 Mat. 13. P. 47. 9 Mat. 14 c. P. 49. P. 48. P. 50. P. 51. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16 17 18. â—3 Mat. 13. v. 4. P. 54. v. 2 3. P. 56. 9 Mark 38. 15 Acts. Chap. 2. P. 73. P. 71. P. 79. Ibid. p. 80. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Loc. 21 Acts 24. 21 Acts 21. 5 Gal. 1. 2 Col. 5.8 c. 14 Rom. 14. P. 77. 14 Rom. 1. v. 2. v. 3. P. 83. Libertas Ecclesiastica P. 437. Acts 10. 2 Gal. 11 12. 15 Acts 1. P. 84. P. 79. 14 Rom. 3. 15 Acts 7. P. 85. P. 86. 14 Rom. 4. 4 Jam. 11 12. 14 Rom. 5 6. P. 87 88. 14 Rom. 13. P. 77. 18 Mat. 6 10. 1 Cor. 8.10 ch 15 Acts 29. 14 Rom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrys. in Locum Reconciler p. 88 c. v. 17. v. 18. Prot. Recone p. 59. Prot. Reconc p. 99. 14 Rom. 5. 14 Rom. 1. Unreason of Separation p. 215 216. Recâ—nc p. 81. Ibid. P. 82. 1 Cor. 10.32 Recon p. 154. Vid. Supra ch 2. p. 124. 14 Rom. 14 Rom. 1. 3 Philip. 16. 2 Gal. 11 12 c. Vide Supra ch 2. p. 118. 1 Cor. 11.34 1 Tit. 5. 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Cor. 7.15 1 Thess. 5.12 13. 13 Heb. 17. 2 Thess. 3.14 3 Phil. 15. Argum. 1. P. 122. Argum. 2. Recon p. 123. Vide Supra ch 4. p. 209. Recon p. 127. 1 Cor. 8.2 v. 10. v. 4. v. 7. v. 10 11. v. 8. v. 8 10. v. 1. Prot. Reconc p. 127. 1 Cor. 10. 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27. v. 28. 1 Cor. 8.8 Ibid. v. 13. 1 Cor. 9.20 21 22. Prot. Recon p. 138. 1 Cor. 9. v. 14 v. 12. 2 Cor. 9.1 c. 1 Cor. 9.15 16 18. Prot. Recon p. 138. Prot. Recon p. 166. See chap. 3. See Defence of Dr. Still Separat about Church-unity Recon p. 170. 16 Numb 2 Sam. 6.6 7. 1 Sam. 13.9 10 c. 15 ch 7 8 c. 23 Mat. 23. Recon p. 178. Ibid. 2 Sam. 12. P. 179. 20 Gen. 6. P. 180. 2 Phil. 14 c. Recon p. 182. P. 183. 1 Tim. 6.20 P. 185. Prot. Recon p. 197. P. 198. Prot. Reconc p. 200. See chap. 2. p. 131 c. Recon p. â—02 Vide Supra p. 104. Chap. 2. p. 144 c. Supra p. 105 c. Recon p. 20â— Chap. 1. p. 24 c. See chap. 2. Chap. 1. p. 79 c. p. 109 c. Recon p. 207. Chap. 2. p. 140 141. Preface p. 4. Chap. 1. p. 100 c.
was from that of our Dissenters For 3. Another material difference between that Indulgence St. Paul granted to believing Jews with respect to the Law of Moses and that liberty our Reconciler exacts from the Church for Dissenters is this that the first had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the uniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church but the second must do one or t'other or both which is such a liberty or forbearance as St. Paul never did and never would allow The believing Jews thought themselves still obliged to observe that difference of clean and unclean meats which was prescribed by the Law and to celebrate the Jewish Festivals and this liberty might be granted them without dividing the Communion of the Christian Church or disturbing Christian Worship for whatever private rules of Diet they observed believing Jews and Gentiles might all worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity and therefore the Apostle exhorts the Romans to receive those who were weak in the Faith that is to receive them to Christian Communion to worship God together in Christian Assemblies This account the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet gave of this matter This being matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in meats and drinks Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the Dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such cases then the Apostle allows of no separation from the publick Communion of Christians This our Reconciler very gravely smiles at As if the business here discours'd of were onely matter of Diet relating to their own Families and the command of the Apostle Him that is weak in Faith receive did onely signifie Let him dine with you This with submission to that Learned Person I judge a most unlikely thing for what great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent in from every Christian Family This is such leud trifling with a Great man and in a serious Cause as I leave to the censure of every sober Christian. For did not the Laws concerning clean and unclean meats respect their ordinary Diet in their own Families Was it not sufficiently known without a Bill of Fare that the Jews did observe these Laws Did not this occasion great Heats and Animosities Judgings and Censurings of one another Did not some both Jews and Gentiles separate from each other upon these accounts and disturb the Peace and divide the Communion of the Church Does not the Dean expound receiving the weak by joyning together as Christians in the Duties common to them all Cannot we expound meats of their ordinary Diet in their private Families without expounding Receive him that is weak by Let him dine with you And yet whereas he says What great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent 〈◊〉 from every Christian Family I readily grant they could give none Nor does the Apostâ—e command the Gentile Christians to abstain from such meats in their private Families when no body was preâ—ent who took offence at it but onely not to use this liberty publickly nor in their private Families neither if any believing Jew happened to be present who was offended at it Well but our Reconciler thinks it most probable that the Apostle speaks of eating in the Idol-Temples Suppose this were so it does not alter the state of the case if they did not eat there as an Act of Worship to the Idol but as at a common Feast And whether it be private or publick eating it is all one if it be innocent it has no influence upon Christian Worship and therefore cannot break Church-Communion while men forbear one another in such matters And yet it is evident the Apostle cannot here mean eating at the Idol-Temple but their ordinary Diet. For this whole Epistle to the Romans concerns the Dispute about the obligation of the Law of Moses as I have already observed and as our Reconciler acknowledges to be the general sence of ancient and modern Expositors concerning this very Chapter But our Author proceeds The Apostle does not onely speak of meats but also of observing days v. 6. Now that was not a matter of Diet but of publick Worship taught in the fourth Commandment And so the Dean acknowledges For some Christians went then on Iewish Holy days to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship Their going to the Synagogues on Jewish Holy days did not hinder their Communion in Christian Worship and therefore they ought not to break Communion on such accounts But now these Controversies about Religious Ceremonies do wholly concern Christian Worship it is not what Clothes men shall ordinarily wear what Diet they shall use or how they shall behave themselves in other matters of a like nature wherein a great latitude and variety may be allowed without any breach of Christian Charity and Communion but how we shall worship God in the publick Assemblies of Christians whether the Minister who officiates shall wear a white Linnen Garment whether the Child that is baptized shall be signed with the sign of the Cross whether Christians who communicate at the Lords Table shall receive the consecrated Bread and Wine kneeling sitting or standing Now I would fain know of our Reconciler how it appears that these two are parallel cases or by what Logick he can fairly argue from one to the other That because the Apostle grants a liberty and indulgence to the Jews in such things as do not concern Christian Worship therefore the same liberty must be granted in the Acts of Worship it self though it must either destroy the Uniformity of Worship or divide the Unity of the Church especially considering that he has not produced and I am sure cannot any one instance of such indulgence granted to private Christians to dissent from the publick Rules of Worship and Constitutions of the Church and if he cannot shew any thing of this nature all his other Scripture-proofs are nothing to our Case And that these cases are so different that we cannot argue from one to the other I shall
prove by these following Considerations First I observe that the Apostle himself makes a plain distinction between an offence offered to private and particular men and that publick offence which is offered to the Church or to the Body and Society of Christians Give none offence neither to the Iews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God Which shews that we are to have a different regard to particular men in their single or private capacity whether they be believing or unbelieving Jews or Gentiles and to the Church or whole Community of Christians For this is an eternal Law in all Societies to prefer the publick good before the interest of any particular man And therefore though we must have a tender regard to the satisfaction of particular men and have a great care lest we offend a weak Brother in such matters as are of a private nature and use yet in all things of a publick nature i. e. in all things which concern Christian Communion we are to have a greater care of offending the Church than particular Christians though their numbers may be great And therefore we cannot argue that because we must grant all reasonable indulgence to weak Brethren in such matters as do not concern Church-communion which is the case of the Apostles indulgence to the Jews therefore the publick Constitutions of the Church and Rules of Worship must be made to comply with the private Fancies and Humours of men and submit to unreasonable Scruples Our Reconciler owns this consequence as to Dissenters Seeing the refusal of submission to these things gives great offence unto the Church of God it equally concerneth the Dissenters upon these motives to submit unto them and it concerns them both to be as the Apostle careful to please all men in all things not seeking their own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved But why could not our Reconciler observe that this Rule equally concerns Governours as it does Dissenters not to offend the Church of God when he so earnestly disputes that Church-Governours are as much concerned in all these Rules of charity forbearance avoiding offence and scandal as private Christians and St. Paul urges this Exhortation from his own Example even as I please all men in all things Now if Church-Governours must not offend the Church they can grant a liberty and indulgence to the private scruples and fancies of men onely in such things as do not concern the publick communion of Christians The Rules of Worship and the Methods of Government and Discipline must be fixt and determined according to the general directions of the Gospel and with regard to the publick edification of the Church not to the pleasing and humouring some weak and scrupulous Christians for it is a just offence and scandal to the Church to make some mens private Fancies and groundless Scruples the Rule and Measure of Christian Worship Secondly This will more plainly appear if we consider a very material difference between indulging mens private scruples which concern matters of private use and observance and indulging such scruples as affect the publick Worship of Christians that in the first case Christian communion may be secured Men might worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity though believing Jews were allowed to abstain from all meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and believing Gentiles indifferently to eat of all but when men differ about the Rules of Christian Worship one of these three things must happen Either 1. That Christians of different Perswasions in these matters must divide communion and separate from each other Or 2. That Christian Worship must be made to comply with the groundless fancies of scrupulous Christians Or 3. That men of differing opinions must be allowed to observe different Modes and Rites of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies each of which are a great offence and scandal to the Church of God 1. That Christians of different Perswasions must divide communion and separate from each other This is the usual effect of such Disputes about the Modes of Worship as our own sad experience witnesseth But this our Reconciler will not plead for and to be sure St. Paul never intended as you shall hear more presently 2. Christian Worship then must be made to comply with the groundless Fancies of scrupulous Christians That is there must be no Rules given for the Decency and Solemnity of publick Worship but what the most ignorant and most humoursome Professor will readily submit to which is both absurd in it self and inconsistent with all Government and makes it impossible to secure the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship which ought to be the principal care of Church-Governours as I have already proved 3. As for the third That men of differing opinions might be allowed to observe different Rites and Modes of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies This is as absurd as the other as sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd At this rate the Governours of the Church cannot do their duty in taking care of the external Decency of publick Worship for who can foresee what Indecencies will be committed when every man is left to worship God as he pleases Nay this very thing in it self is extremely indecent for what Order what Decency can there be where there is no one Rule of Worship Uniformity in worship is like the proportion and symmetry of parts in the natural body wherein the external grace and beauty of it consists Though there were no difference at all as to external reverence in the several postures of receiving the Lords Supper whether kneeling standing or sitting yet it would be indecent and disorderly in the Communicants who receive together not to observe the same posture for some to kneel others to stand others to sit I am sure we should think it so at any ordinary and common Feast should some of the Guests sit at the Table on Chairs others stand and eat by themselves in a corner others sit on the ground others lean on Couches though there were nothing indecent in any of these postures according to the different Modes and Fashions of different Countries yet such an odd and humoursome variety it self is indecent and disorderly at the same Feast And if it be so at a common Table I think the indecency is much greater and more unpardonable at the Table of our Lord which requires the most universal harmony and consent Nay such a variety as this must needs give mutual offence and scandal to each other in the very act of receiving as I have already observed The onely reason that is or can be pretended why every man should be left to his own liberty to worship God as he thinks best is because men are divided in their Opinions about the Modes and Rites of Worship One thinks that rude and unmannerly which another thinks necessary One thinks that posture or habit c.