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-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
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
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
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
meats is perfectly taken away by the Gospel of our Saviour and therefore if we be well instructed in the nature of our Christian liberty we may eat or not eat just as we please and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder the exercise of our charity because it is wholly at our own choice whether we will eat or not eat And this makes it a great breach of charity to eat with offence to destroy our Brother with our meat for whom Christ died 15 16 v. Which may justly cause our Christian liberty which is a very good and valuable thing in it to be censured and condemned on all hands when it is used so uncharitably to the destruction of our Brother and therefore let not your good be evil spoken of v. 16. And as there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder our charity it being equally lawful to eat or not to eat and perfectly at our own choice which we will do so neither is Religion concerned one way or other in it The Christian Religion indeed is concerned in theDispute about the lawfulnessof eating or not eating such things as were forbid by the Law of Moses because this is a point of Christian liberty and the Apostle does not perswade the Gentile Converts to renounce this liberty which the Gospel allows them but bare eating or not eating without respect to our opinions about it is of no consequence in Religion we are neither the better Christians if we do eat nor the worse Christians if we do not For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink The Gospel of our Saviour prescribes no Laws about the quality of our diet and therefore it is no part of the Christian Religion to eat or to forbear The liberty of eating indifferently of all things is allowed by the Gospel but the act of eating is neither commanded nor forbid and therefore is no duty of Religion But though the Gospel do not give us any direct and positive command about eating or not eating yet there are some duties which are essential to the Gospel wherein the life and spirit of Christianity consists which in some cases may be a collateral restraint upon the exercise of our liberty for the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost And therefore it is an essential duty of Christianity to deal kindly and compassionately with our fellow-Christians to promote the Peace and Unity of the Church and that Spiritual Joy and Delight which Christian Brethren ought to take in each other in the Communion of the same Church and the joynt Worship of their common Father and Saviour These are the things which are most pleasing to our great Master and have so much natural goodness as recommends them to the approbaâ—ion of all men for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men and therefore in the use of our Christian liberty we must be sure to have this Rule always in our eye To follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And therefore though the Gospel has taken away all distinctions of meats and given us free leave to eat of every thing yet since it is not matter of duty in all times and in all places and companies to eat such meats as were formerly forbidden by the Law and since we know that to do so gives great offence and scandal to the weak Jews without serving any end at all in Religion and therefore is directly contrary to those essential Duties of Love and Charity Unity and Peace and mutual Edification let us not so much insist on our Christian liberty in the use of meats as to destroy the work of God for though no meats are now unclean but all things all kind of diet is now pure and lawful yet it is a very evil thing for any man by his eating such meat as his weak Brother thinks unclean to give offence and scandal to him It is good much better neither to eat flesh nor drink wine nor any thing of the like nature whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak discouraged in his Christian course and tempted to apostatize from the Faith of Christ. But besides this as it is purely in our choice to eat or not to eat there being no Law to require either and neither eating nor not eating is in it self considered of any concernment to Religion so it is no injury at all to thy Christian liberty to forbear eating in compliance with the weakness of thy Brother Hast thou Faith Dost thou believe thou mayst eat indifferently of all meats Believe so still and use this liberty privately when it may be done without offence but thou art under no necessity of publishing this belief nor of acting according to it in all companies but have this faith to thy self before God This Faith makes it lawful for thee to eat but then thou must take great care that thou dost not do a lawful thing in such a manner as to make it become sin to thee that is thou must not eat how lawful soever it be in it self with the scandal and offence of thy weak Brother which makes it very unlawful Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth who does not do a good action in so ill a manner as to bring condemnation upon himself But then as thy believing it lawful for thee to eat does not make it necessary to eat nor lawful in all circumstances when it is done with offence and scandal so much less does thy believing it lawful to eat make it lawful for thy weak Brother to eat for if the Jewish Christian who doubteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who stills makes a distinction between meats and believes it unlawful to eat such meats as are forbidden by the Law of Moses if he notwithstanding this eat such forbidden meats he is damned self-condemned by his own Conscience for doing that which he believes to be unlawful for whatever is not of faith done with a full perswasion of the lawfulness of it is sin and therefore thou oughtest not to judge and cenâ—ure and reproach thy weak Brother in such cases but to bear with him and to avoid giving him any scandal or offence This I take to be the true sence of St. Paul's reasoning in this place to perswade the Gentile Christians not to give offence to the Jewish Converts by eating meats forbidden by the Law and it seems to me to contain the plainest and easiest determination of the case of Scandal which I shall therefore briefly review and inquire how applicable it is to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God to which our Reconciler applies it 1. First then I observe that the Apostles discourse in this place can be extended no farther than to forbid offering scandal and offence in the exercise
will allow that Christian Princes ought to take any care of the Christian Church we must grant them so much authority as is necessary to suppress Heresie and Schism and to punish those who are disobedient to the Censures and Authority of the Church How far this may extend is another Question I think all Protestants with great reason reject sanguinary Laws in this case but whoever grants any authority in these matters to Christian Princes must grant what may reasonably be thought sufficient to attain the end Thus I have as plainly as I could given an account of the Apostle's discourse in this Chapter about Scandal and Offence and proved that it cannot be applied to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God by any parity of reason I grant St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers do accommodate this Doctrine of Scandal to other cases some of which passages our Reconciler has transcribed from them that if we must not scandalize our weak Brother by using our innocent liberty much less by our wicked examples by doing things evil in themselves which aggravates the guilt of the offence And I grant such accommodations as these are very allowable in popular Harangues but I hope our Reconciler does not take them for Arguments and yet if he did he could no more apply them to the case of the Church and Dissenters than he can the case of which St. Paul speaks But because this Discourse has been somewhat long though as plain and methodical as I could contrive it I shall reduce some of the most material things in it into a narrower compass and compare the Apostle's Arguments with the Reasonings of our Reconciler which will enable every ordinary Reader to judge how unlike they are The Case of the believing Iews 14 Rom. THe Dispute between the believing Jews Gentiles was concerning the observation of the Law of Moses not about things acknowledged to be indifferent The weakness of the Jews which occasioned their scruples was the effect of a great reverence for an express Law which was universally acknowledged to be given by God but was not at that time as visibly repealed as it was given The offence the Jews took against the Gentiles was at the breach of a divine Law which they still believed to be in force and so had as much reason to be offended as they had to believe the obligation of their Law which was so much as to render forbearance reasonable That weakness which pleaded for the indulgence of the Jews was their weakness in the Faith that they were not well confirm'd in the truth of Christianity and therefore ought to be tenderly used and indulged as being neither capable at present of better instruction nor severer government For the danger which the believing Jews were in and which St. Paul endeavoured to prevent was lest they should reject Christianity if Christianity rejected the Law of Moses which they certainly knew to be given by God and therefore it was reasonable to expect a while till they were confirmed in the Faith before they gave them any disturbance about such matters as would endanger their Apostacy while they more firmly believed the obligation of the Law of Moses than they did the Faith of Christ. And indeed God himself had by visible signs instructed both believing Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon theâ—e Disputes because he had received the believing Jews and Gentiles into the visible Communion of the same one Catholick Church by the visible effusion of the Holy Spirit on them both though one observed the Law of Moses and the other did not and therefore it became both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another as Christian Brethren and to worship God together in the Communion of the same holy Offices And whoever after this visible determination made by God himself undertake to judge and censure and deprive each other of Communion for such matters usurp an Authority to judge over Gods judgment to reject those whom God receives which is like judging another mans servant over whom we have no authority for we have no authority to judge one another in such cases which God allows who is the supreme Lord and Judge of us all Besides this both Jews and Gentiles in observing and not observing the Law of Moses did it to the Lord acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jews observed the Law because God gave them this Law by Moses and had not so visibly repealed it as to remove all just scruples about it The Gentiles never were under the Law of Moses and God had received them into his Church without imposing that burden on them and therefore they did not observe the Law out of reverence and thankfulness to God for that liberty he had granted them And therefore Jews and Gentiles had reason to receive each other since it was not Humour Peevishness or Faction which made them differ but a regard to God and a reverence for his Authority which they both pretended and which at that time they both had And therefore St. Paul exhorts the believing Gentiles not to use their Christian liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren For this was such a case wherein they might be very kind to their weak Brethren if they pleased it being onely a restraint of their own private liberty wherein no body was concerned but themselves for though the Gospel had taken away the distinction of clean and unclean meats and made it lawful to eat indifferently of every thing yet it had not made it our duty to eat such things as the Law had forbidden but we might abstain if we pleased and therefore this was a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private charity not to destroy him with our meat for whom Christ died Especially considering that the Christian Religion is not at all concerned in our eating or not eating for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore they ought not to transgress the Laws of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost of Brotherly love and charity and the peace and unity of the Christian Church which are great and essential Duties of Religion for the sake of eating or not eating such meats which in it self considered is no act of Religion at all Especially the case being such that men may keep their Faith to themselves and enjoy the private exercise of their liberty without offence Whereas the believing Jew who believes it unlawful to eat meats forbidden by the Law could not comply with the Gentile Christians without sin because it is against the judgment and perswasion of his own mind which makes it very reasonable as well as charitable to leave men to the direction of their own minds in the use of their own liberty where they are under the government and restraint of no other Law neither of God nor men for in this
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
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-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
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
equally in the right and equally in the wrong yet one of them is bound to yield Our Reconciler has not attempted any such thing as this nor indeed can he for there is no medium between the Authority of commanding and the duty and necessity of Obedience wherein Governours and Subjects may unite without either commanding or obeying which destroys the very Relation between Governours and Subjects Nor has he told us which of them must give way first unless we may conclude this from the order of publishing his Books that the Church ought to give place to the Dissenters and then his second Book is useless for there will be no need for Dissenters to obey the Church But our admirable Reconciler has first pelted the Church with the Dissenters Arguments and now serves the Dissenters in the same nature which is an excellent way to revive a Quarrel if it had been ended but bare disputing on both sides was never thought a likely way to reconcile a Quarrel I have premised this to take off the odium of answering the Protestant Reconciler which a man may very honestly do and yet be a great and passionate Friend to the Reconciliation of Protestants for there is not the least offer made towards a Reconciliation in all this Book He onely teaches the Dissenters to cast the sin and mischief of all our Divisions upon the Church and the Church to cast it back upon the Dissenters and so leaves them just at the same distance that he found them unless possibly he have added to the confidence and obstinacy of Dissenters by joyning with them in their lewd and unreasonable Clamours against the Church But let us consider what betrayed him into this mistake which he very honestly and plainly tells us in these words That which chiefly did confirm me in this apprehension was this observation That I found each of the Parties strong and copious upon these two points but elsewhere silent The Pleaders for Conformity still pressing the necessity that men should yield obedience to the things commanded but seldom saying any thing to justifie the exercise of that Authority which laid upon the Subject the burthen of obedience to things unnecessary and whosoever shall peruse the Writings of the learned Dr. St. and his Defenders will find that they have been very silent upon this head and have upon the matter left our Rulers in the lurch And on the other hand I find that our Dissenters are very prone on all occasions to cry out against imposing these things as the conditions of Communion and the excluding all that are not able to submit unto them from the priviledge of Church-Communion but they say little of any weight and moment to shew it is utterly unlawful under the present circumstances to yield submission and obedience to the things imposed Now as for matter of fact this is utterly false For the Dissenters themselves to give every one their due have used great variety of Arguments not onely to prove the unlawfulness of imposing these things but the unlawfulness of the things themselves otherwise what is it that the great Champions of the Church of England ever since the first rise of this Controversie and the Dean and his Defenders of late have answered Did they make Objections for the Dissenters and then answer them or did they answer such Objections as they found made to their hands Whether what they object have any weight or moment is another Question but it seems very unreasonable to charge men with saying nothing because they say nothing to the purpose when they say as much as they can and as much as the cause will bear by the same Figure we may assert that the Protestant Reconciler has said nothing But yet if no Answer had been returned to prove that all he has said is nothing I strongly fancy that he and several others of his Size would have thought that he had said something and so would the Dissenters too had not their something been so often proved to be nothing And he has treated the Advocates of the Church and the Dean and his Defenders with the same civility and honesty for have they indeed said nothing for the lawfulness of imposing these things and is not that a sufficient justification of theAuthority which imposes Did he never read any thing in vindication of Ecclesiastical Authority in commanding indifferent things Could he find nothing in the Dean and his Defenders tending this way I assure him I have found a great deal which he may hear of in a convenient place which may teach him to make more careful observations for the future But if this had been so methinks it had more become a Minister and Son of the Church of England to have tried his skill to have supplied these defects of his Brethren than to have exposed the nakedness of his Mother by tearing off her Vail with his own hands Every honest and prudent man thinks himself bound to obey and to justifie the Rites and Uâ—ages of the Church as far as they are lawful and innocent and to perswade others to do so and though he should observe some things which in his private opinion he judges might be altered for the better yet he does not think it his duty to raise a great Noise and Outcry about this and to call furiously for a Change and Reformation to set the people into a ferment and to alarm the Government with new Models and Platforms of Discipline and Worship A wise man considers what different apprehensions men have of expediency fitness and decency of things and that it properly belongs to Governours to determine these matters but it does not become private Christians when Authority does not ask their opinions and advice to sit in judgment upon the Wisdom of Government for there would be no end of this in â—uch matters wherein mens minds differ as much as their faces do Had our Reconciler been a Member of the Convocation when such matters had been under debate it had become him to have declared his mind freely where his Arguments might either have obtained such a Reformation as he desired or have received a fair Answer without appearing abroad to disturb weak and unstable minds or to confirm and harden men who are already engaged in an actual Schism at least if he be so thoroughly convinced of the truth of what he says if he be as he says so sensible of his own weakness and praneness to mistake in judging and most unwilling to do the least disserâ—ice to the Church or to those Reverend Superiours whom from his heart he honours what necessity was he under of publishing such a Discourse as this Why did he not first ask the opinion of his Brethren and Superiours about it What service did he expect to do to the Church by appealing to the People who certainly are not the best Judges in such matters and have no power to reform but by Mutinies and Seditions
which are upon all accounts indifferent and have neither any good nor hurt in them are by no means fit to be commanded in religious Worship for this is to trifle in sacred things which is contrary to the Decency and Gravity of Worship but those Ceremonies which serve the ends of Order and Decency are not indifferent things but necessary considered as decent There must upon some account or other be an antecedent Decency in things before they are fit to be commanded Church-Governours must take care to maintain the Decency of Worship but they must find things decent for by their meer command they cannot make them so All decent Rites and Ceremonies are by the Apostolical Rule to do all things decently and in order fitted and qualified to be made the Ceremonies of Religion which nothing purely indifferent is and all the Authority of Church-Governours in this matter is onely to determine what particular decent Rites of Worship shall be used in their Church that is to apply the Apostles general Rule to particular instances I know very well how jealous and fearful most men are of owning any other necessity or obligation to observe the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion but what is derived from the Authority of Ecclesiastical or Civil Governours and therefore no wonder if in an Age wherein the Authority of the Church is so much despised and the Authority of the Prince in matters of Religion is absolutely denied they fall under such a general Contempt But I confess I see no reason why any man should be afraid to own some kind of necessity antecedent to all humane Authority For as I have already proved 1. The external Decency of Worship is absolutely necessary by an Apostolical Precept antecedent to all humane Authority 2. This makes it necessary that some decent Rites and Ceremonies should be used in religious Worship 3. This makes it necessary that nothing but what is decent should be used And therefore 4. All particular decent Ceremonies have this necessity antecedent to all humane Authority that some of them must be used in religious Worship and no other must And therefore 5. When the Governours of the Church have determined which particular decent Ceremonies shall be used in religious Worship these particular Ceremonies become necessary not meerly by Ecclesiastical Authority but by vertue of the Apostolical Command and their own natural Decency which brings them within the compass of that general Rule Church-Governours have Authority to apply that general Rule to particular Ceremonies which have such Order and Decency as comprehends them within that general Rule But these Rites and Ceremonies when they are fixt and determined do not derive their obligation meerly from the Authority of the Church but from the Apostolical Canon we must observe them not meerly because the Church has commanded them but because they are in themselves decent and so comprehended within the Apostolical Canon and therefore the proper Object of Church-Authority The Authority of the Church consists onely in applying the Apostolical Authority to such particular Rites and Ceremonies as by their own Decency are fit and qualified to be used in religious Worship but it is the Apostolical Authority as applied by the Church to such particular Ceremonies which gives them their necessity and obligation Hence Mr. Calvin observes that those Ecclesiastical Laws which relate to Discipline and Order must not be accounted humane Traditions because they are founded in this general Precept of doing all things decently and in order and so receive their approbation as it were from the mouth of Christ himself This I think is sufficient to shew that the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion have such goodness and necessity that they ought to be commanded for they have the goodness and necessity of Decency which is enjoyned by an Apostolical Canon But still the Controversie remains what this external Decency of Worship is and by what Rules we must judge of it for one man may account that decent which another may think has no positive Decency at all as it is in our present case The Church of England retains the use of some Ceremonies for the sake of Decency our modest Reconciler who is very sensible of his own proneness to mistake yet ventures to contradict the judgment of the Church and affirms that there is no positive Order or Decency in the Ceremonies of the Church of England wherefore they ought to be commanded And therefore it will be necessary Secondly To consider what the general notion of Decency in religious Worship is and by what Rules we must judge of it Now in general the external Decency of religious Worship consists in performing the Duties of Religion in such a manner as is expressive of Honour Reverence and Devotion This I suppose will not be denied by any man who acknowledges any such thing as external Worship but the difficulty is by what Rules we must judge of external Honour and Reverence and yet most men understand this very well also when they speak of civil Honour They know what Postures what Actions what Habit what Behaviour what Language what Address becomes them when they approach their Prince and their Parents or any other Persons whom they ought to honour or respect And this suggests to us two general Rules to direct us in religious Worship 1. That whatever would be deservedly thought a breach of good manners in common Conversation or a violation of that civil Respect and Honour which is due to Princes and all Superiours can never become the Worship of God What God tells the Israelites who offered the blind and the lame and the sick in Sacrifice holds good in all other cases Offer it now to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person saith the Lord of Hosts 1 Mal. 8. Such words and actions and behaviour as would be an affront to the Majesty of a Prince do much more unbecome religious Worship because God is much greater than the greatest Prince 2. That whatever is a necessary expression of our Honour and Reverence to men as far as it is agreeable with the nature of religious Worship is in a peculiar and eminent degreâ— due to Almighty God Many of the external expressions and signs of Honour both to God and man must of necessity be alike and if not the very same yet of the same kind and nature For whether we intend to honour God or men it must be done by some visible signs of Honour which are not necessarily determined either to religious or civil Worship but applicable to both If it be a signe of Honour to our Prince to be uncovered in his presence to deliver our Petitions upon the knee to come in a decent apparel to put on a grave and modest countenance to keep our distance c. that is if we must express our Reverence for our Prince in our words and gestures in our looks and habit and deportment of our
of the Cross as a solemn Profession of a crucified Saviour and a suffering Religion as Constantine make the Cross his Banner and Royal Standard and yet would any Christian refuse to fight under a General who bore the Cross in his Banner If you say that this is onely a civil Signe and Ceremony I deny it and affirm that it was as much a religious Ceremony as the signe of the Cross in Baptism unless any man think that there can be no Religion in the Field but onely in the Church That which makes it a religious Ceremony either upon a mans forehead or in the Emperours Standard is that it is done upon a religious account as a publick and visible profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour and I think the Cross in the Emperours Standard displayed in the open Field in the sight of Pagans is a more publick and visible Profession of the Cross than what is privately transacted in the Church and leaves no visible signe behind it And I cannot imagine why any man should not as much scruple to fight under such a visible Banner of the Cross as to receive an invisible signe of it upon his forehead since the Profession the Ceremony and the Religion of it is the same It is true such Ceremonies as these ought not to be numerous nor too familiarly used nor upon slight occasions for this burdens Religion and makes them degenerate into Superstition or Formality But our Church has retained but one such Ceremony and that used but once in a mans life upon the most solemn occasion in the world at our admission to Baptism and it argues very little understanding in our Reconciler to reproach the Church for this and scornfully to ask Why she rejects crossing of the breast and retains crossing in the forehead why she rejects crossing at the consecration of the Eucharist and the Baptismal Water and retains it at the baptizing of the Infant why she rejects Exorcism Chrysom Vnction Dipping trine Immersion and retains the Cross in Baptism It does not become me to censure the Practice of the ancient Church in any of these Ceremonies but I think if the ancient Church cannot be condemned for these things our Church cannot One Ceremony is more easily justified than twenty and the using of it once upon a very solemn occasion than a too familiar use especially where it cannot so properly be called a professing Signe which is all I undertake for The onely Objection I can think of against the signe of the Cross in Baptism as a professing Signe is this That there is no need of such a Profession as this because we make the very same Profession at our Baptism which represents and signifies our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of Christ and therefore this is a vain and superfluous addition to the Sacrament of Baptism and does tacitly charge that divine Institution with defect I answer The same Objection for the very same reason might have been made against the Love-Feast which was celebrated at the very same time with the Lords Supper to signifie that Brotherly love and charity which was and ought to be among the Disciples of Christ and yet that heavenly Feast of the Lords Supper does not onely signifie our Union to Christ our Head but our Union to each other as Members of the same Body and therefore required the actual exercise of Brotherly love in receiving And yet this is acknowledged on all hands to be an Apostolical Institution observed by the Apostles themselves and all the Apostolical Churches of those days The same Answer then will serve for both That Christian Love and Unity is included in the Supper of our Lord and a patient suffering for the Name of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism but neither of these Sacraments were instituted to signifie these Duties nor do they signifie them otherwise than collaterally and consequentially The proper use of these Sacraments is not to signifie and represent a Duty but to convey divine Blessings and Vertues to us The Pardon of our sins and the Gift of the holy Spirit in Baptism which incorporates us into the Body of Christ and the continual supplies of Grace and renewals of Pardon in the Lords Supper where we feast on the Sacrifice of Christ and partake in the Merits of it But then as we all feast on the same Sacrifice of Christ eat of the same Bread and drink of the same Cup this consequentially signifies that we are Members of the same Body and that we ought to love one another with the most tender and natural affections But the mutual love and charity of Christians being so great a Duty of the Christian Religion and so proper to be exercised at this time for which reason they used also to kiss each other before receiving and yet not directly and primarily represented in this holy Feast the Apostles did not think it any derogation from the Lords Supper to appoint a common Table for all Christians to eat at as a Testimony and Exercise of mutual love and charity with each other When we feast with any person it is a direct signification that we are in a state of Friendship and Reconciliation with him at whose Table we eat but it does not so immediately signifie that all the Guests who eat at the same Table are Friends to each other It is reasonable indeed that it should be so and God expects and requires that it should be so and none are welcome at Gods Table who do not come in perfect love and charity But I say the Lords Supper considered as a symbolical Rite does not primarily and directly signifie it and therefore the Apostles thought fit to signifie and profess this by a common Table where Christians first eat and drank together as Friends and having thus testified their mutual kindness to each other they were the better prepared to eat together at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour and receive the Tokens and Pledges of his love to them all So that this Love-Feast did not at all intrench upon the Lords Supper it being instituted for a different end though in subserviency to it And thus it is in Baptism It is the Sacrament of our Initiation whereby we are made Members of the Body of Christ and intituled to all the Blessings of the New Covenant but the external Ceremony of Baptism whereby we are said to be implanted into the likeness of Christs death does not primarily signifie our laying down our lives for Christ though that be a necessary Condition of our Discipleship but it signifies our new Birth our spiritual conformity to the death of Christ by dying to sin and walking in newness of life as St. Paul discourses in the 6 Rom. And therefore taking up the Cross being by Christ himself made such an express Condition of our Discipleship the Primitive Christians thought it very fitting to make a visible Profession of this by receiving the signe
the Church which he has no authority to do But this is not necessary for mens Souls Right and therefore not an absolute and necessary Duty otherwise how does it appear that the Bishops Authority extends onely to Necessaries Why may not the Honour of God and the external Beauty of his Worship be considered in Religion as well as the salvation of mens Souls Why may not spiritual advantages find place in our Worship as well as what is barely necessary But it is no part of spiritual Government Right not to seize mens Estates to adorn the Worship of God By these Reasons he proves that this is more Authority than Christ has given to his Ministers From whence we may easily learn what kind of Authority he means such an absolute Authority to adorn Religion as gives the Bishop authority over mens Estates for such prous uses But Christ has given Authority to his Ministers to take care of the Decency of Worship and therefore their Authority is of equal extent with the Decencies of Religion 3. When that Reverend Bishop says That Rule Let all things be done decently and in order must be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion he must have some larger notion of confusion than the usual signification of that word will justifie for men may avoid all confusion and yet neglect all the natural Decencies of religious Worship The Meetings of Quakers may be very orderly without any confusion and yet without any Decency And the reason the Bishop assigns for this Because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their Duty unless things be so orderly that there be no confusion is a very good reason against confusion but is no reason at all to prove that the Rule of Decency and Order extends no farther than to rescue from confusion in the common acceptation of the word for there is something more required in religious Assemblies than meerly that the Bishop or Pastor may do his Duty without disturbance and confusion viz. that the People worship God in such a decent manner as becomes the divine Majesty The external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship are an essential part of Religion and therefore naturally belong to the care of Church-Governours whether there had been any Law for it or no much more when they are commanded to do all things decently and in order we may reasonably conclude that their Authority extends to whatever is truly decent in Religion But our Reconciler thinks that this limitation of the words to matters done in confusion and disorder may be plainly gathered from all the instances preceding which gave occasion to the Rule they being instances of great indecencies and disorders committed in the Church of Corinth And from thence he tells us This onely can be certainly collected that when any thing is performed indecently and disorderly in the Service of the Church the Rulers of it should correct them And to the same purpose he urges an Argument of Mr. Ieanes The words of the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order are not disobeyed unless there be some indecency committed in the Worship and Service of God or some disorder in it for Decency and Indecency Order and Disorder or Ataxy are privatively opposite and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no indecency But now by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no indecency in those parts of the Worship of God and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them I wonder how learned men can impose upon themselves and others with such silly Sophisms as these for let us consider 1. Suppose this Precept to do all things decently and in order were given upon occasion of those disorders and indecencies which were committed in the Church of Corinth how does it hence follow that the Apostle requires no other Decency than just what will remove the indecencies of Worship Is Decency a thing valuable for it self or onely as it is opposed to indecency If the Decency of Worship be a good thing and if it be not Indecency cannot be a fault then it is a ridiculous thing to say that the end of Decency is onely to prevent Indecency as if the end of seeing were onely to prevent blindness or the end of Vertue onely to prevent Vice They tell us that Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite that is I suppose that Indecency is the privation of Decency not that Decency is the privation of Indecency and therefore though the nature of Indecency consists in its opposition to Decency yet the nature of Decency does not consist in its opposition to Indecency Though we should allow that to be decent which is not indecent yet it is not decent meerly because it is not indecent but because it is agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency And therefore though the Apostle gave this Precept upon occasion of these Indecencies committed in the Church of Corinth yet the Command extends to any instances and degrees of Decency for he does not command Decency meerly out of opposition to Indecency which is to invert the natural order of things but for its own sake as necessary and essential to publick Worship as he who reproves the Vices of the Age and exhorts men to the contrary Vertues does not mean that they should onely practise so much Vertue as not to be guilty of these popular Vices but that they should aim at the highest degrees and instances of Vertue 2. And therefore those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion may be included in this Apostolical Precept to do all things decently and in order the omission of which is not disorderly and indecent if they be agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency because the Decency of our Actions does not consist in its opposition to Indecency but in conformity to the Rules of Decency This is the principal Argument on which our Reconciler and Mr. Ieanes rely to prove that the Ceremonies of the Church of England cannot be included in that Apostolical Precept of doing things decently and in order because the omission of these Ceremonies is not indecent If then says the Reconciler it can appear that praying without a Surplice or receiving the Sacrament without kneeling or baptizing without the Cross is doing these things indecently and disorderly then must it be confess'd that this is a good warrant for the imposition of these things but till this can be made appear it must be vainly pleaded to that end But now says Mr. Ieanes by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no Indecency in those
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
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
for which a Church may deny her Communion to any persons either because they renounce the terms of her Communion or because they refuse to submit to her Laws and Rules of Worship and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that a Church makes every thing a term of her Communion for the refusal of which she denies her Communion to her own Members We may call these if we please the terms of her particular Communion but this is no greater fault for any Church to make such terms of Communion than to make Laws for Government and Discipline for such terms are nothing else To return then to our Argument Since the act of Worship and the necessary circumstanâ—s of Action though they may be distinctly considered yet cannot be separated that Church which commands nothing but a decent performance of those acts of Worship which Christ himself has commanded us to perform cannot be charged with making any additions to the Laws of Christ or with commanding any new thing For the decent manner of doing a thing is included in the command of doing it unless we think our Saviour was indifferent whether we worship God decently or indecently and therefore if the Church onely enjoyn such habits and postures times and places as are necessary to the doing of the action and are decent circumstances of doing it she commands nothing but what Christ has virtually commanded And this is a plain Answer to that other Objection that the Apostles had authority to teach onely such things as Christ had commanded them which if it be opposed to their Authority of Governing the Church which required the exercise of their own Wisdom and Prudence and making occasional Laws in emergent cases is a very trifling Objection but however the Church of England teaches nothing but what Christ taught She teaches all the acts of Worship which Christ commanded and no other and she â—eaches the decent manner of doing this which is involved in the very command of doing it for though the particular decent Rites of Worship are not expressed yet all decent Rites are included in the command of doing it and therefore the Church may take her choice Well but the Apostles gave Laws onely about necessary things as we see in the Council of Ierusalem they would lay no other burden upon the Disciples but what they thought necessary at least for that time 15 Acts 29. Now though there might several Answers be given to this I shall say no more at present but that I take the Decency of Worship to be necessary I am sure St. Paul gives an express Law about it But as for the necessary things which were determined at the Council in Ierusalem they did not concern the circumstances of Worship but some external Rituals and Ceremonies which were matters of burden We have nothing like it in our Church and if ever the Church should undertake to determine such matters it will be seasonable to urge the practice of the Council at Ierusalem to determine onely necessary things These are the most material things our Reconciler has urged against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England Whether upon the whole it appears that they are so useless and unnecessary that the Church ought not to interpose her Authority in such matters or be justly blameable for doing it I must leave every man to judge CHAP. II. Concerning charity to the Souls of men and how far and in what cases it obliges Church-Governours and what regard Church-Governours ought to have to the Errours and Mistakes and Scruples of PRIVATE CHRISTIANS under their care HAving discours'd thus largely of the usefulness and necessity of the decent Ceremonies and Circumstances of religious Worship in opposition to our Reconciler who affirms them to be useless and unnecessary and to have no positive Order or Decency for which they should be commanded it is time now to consider the other part of his Argument viz. that charity to the Souls of men obliges Church-Governours not to impose any such unnecessary things or to alter and remove them if already imposed when through the mistake and scruples of some Christians about such matters they occasion their sin and fall and hazard their eternal Salvation that is when such Impositions as these which some men believe unlawful and others doubt whether they be lawful or not tempt men to forsake the Communion of the Church and lift themselves in a Schism which is a damning sin I need not point out to any particular place wherein this is said for it is to be found almost in every page of his Book and comes in at the tail of every Argument and therefore I shall once for all consider these Principles also and begin here with charity to the Souls of men which in the method of my Discourse is the second general Principle I promised to examine The Question then is this Secondly What obligation charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church That the Governours of the Church ought to exercise great tenderness and charity to the Souls of men I readily grant for the care of Souls is their proper work and business and our Reconciler could not have pitch'd upon a more popular Argument to declaim upon as he does at large p. 187 c. And indeed I find his Talent lies more in some insinuating Harangues than in c'ose reasoning but though he has made a fine Sâ—ory of this and said things artificially enough to move the Passions of his Readers he has never offered fairly to state the extent and measures of Charity with relation to acts of Government but onely asserted charity to the Souls of men to be the Duty of Governours as well as of private Christians which no body denies that I know of and from thence infers the alteration of our Ceremonies and that Church-Governours act uncharitably if they do not consent to such an alteration Now the alteration of publick Laws and Râ—tes of Worship which some men take an unjust and unreasonable offence at whatever mischief they do to their own Souls by such an unjust offence does not seem to me to be an immediate consequence from the obligations of charity to mens Souls and therefore there should have been something at least offered for the proof of it and I confess I cannot see any thing that looks like an Argument to this purpose Since therefore I have little or nothing to answer upon this Argument which our Reconciler thought better to take for granted than to prove it I shall endeavour to state this matter so plainly as to vindicate our Governours from this spightful and uncharitable Accusation of want of charity to mens Souls And to this end I shall briefly inquire wherein the Charity of Governours must consist and how it must express it self which I shall explain by these two Principles I. That the Charity of Governours is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government II.
That the Charity of Governours must express it self in the Acts of Government 1. That the Charity of Governours must be such as is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government For charity to others cannot dispense with our own duty and therefore if Christ have given authority to his Ministers to govern his Church whatever pretences of charity there be to the contrary they must govern it or they are very uncharitable to themselves in neglecting their own Duty out of pretence of charity to others Nay all private acts of charity must give place to publick charity Now Government is a publick good that is is a publick charity and therefore must not be neglected out of pretence of charity to private Christians Now to apply this to our present purpose If the Governours of the Church could do what our Reconciler desires without neglecting their own Duty or injuring their Authority and Government I think this Plea of Charity would be more specious and plausible but that they cannot do it is as plain to me as a first Principle For 1. It is their duty to direct and govern religious Assemblies and to secure the Order and Decency of publick Worship which they cannot do without prescribing the Rules and determining the decent circumstances of action But you will say Cannot the Bishops govern the Church nor take care of the Decency of Worship unless they command the Minister to officiate in a Surplice and the People to receive kneeling Yes no doubt they may Then these Laws are alterable They are so Then in charity they are bound to alter them according to your own Rules for they may do this without neglecting their duty of governing religious Assemblies I deny the consequence and that for this reason because Charity does not require any man much less Governours to do a foolish thing which serves no good end at all For if they should alter our present Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship they must prescribe some others or else they neglect their Duty for the Decency of publick Worship cannot be preserved without the decent Circumstances of Worship and they cannot be secured especially in such an Age as this wherein so many men think a rude and slovenly Worship to be most pure and spiritual without some fixt and standing Rules of Decency Now whatever change they make they cannot change for the better nor remove any scruple by such a change For most of the Principles upon which our Dissenters dispute against our present Ceremonies will serve as well against any other establish'd Order of Worship and certainly it is not worth the while for Governours to alter Laws meerly to try the humours of People to see whether those who without reason scruple Impositions in one case will without reason submit to other Impositions when the same reasons hold in both It is neither consistent with the prudence nor charity of Government upon such slight pretences as these to make alterations so much for the worse as they must be if ever they alter our present Rules of Worship If this should gratifie some humoursome People it might justly offend and scandalize much better men to see a decent way of Worship changed for that which is less decent No saith our Reconciler this cannot with any truth be pretended Are not things indifferent such as may be imposed or not imposed at pleasure And doth not our Church declare her Ceremonies to be things indifferent Can therefore any regular Son of the Church of England be offended that she doth use her liberty in matters wholly left unto her liberty and by her first Reformers declared to be so Yes why not for all this Must every thing which is alterable be altered for no reason at all May it not justly offend a regular Son of the Church of England to see a more decent way of Worship laid aside and that which is less decent come in the room of it The Church of England I am sure is not of this mind she allows that her Ceremonies may be changed and altered but they ought to be altered onely upon just causes as she expresly determines and though in such cases she allows of some alteration in her Ceremonies yet she judges it necessary that some Ceremonies should be retained since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Order or quite Discipline in the Church But says our Reconciler they do not desire that the Ceremonies by Law establish'd should be abolished or that Conformists should be forbid to use them but onely that others whose Consciences will not permit them so to do should be dispensed with in their omission of them This would be a greater and more just offence than the other for this must be either in the same or in distinct Assemblies If in the same this introduces nothing but Disorder Confusion and Schismâ— into the Bowels of the Church if in distinct Assemblies this is to establish Schism by a Law and to make them onely legal Conventicles But he says As some sit some stand some kneel at Common-Prayer and Prayer before Sermon and this without confusion so may some sit some kneel some stand at the receiving the Sacrament But does our Reconciler think this variety of posture at Prayer an orderly and decent thing especially for men to sit at Prayers Standing may be sometimes necessary because especially in full Auditories all persons may not have the conveniency of kneeling But is one Irregularity sufficient to justifie another Does not the Church require an uniform posture at Prayer too And is it not more decent and orderly that it should be so And yet there is a great difference between such various postures at Prayers and at receiving the Lords Supper For excepting the rudeness of sitting when men have strength of body to kneel or stand which is an offence to pious and devout minds these variety of postures do not proceed from mens differing judgments and opinions about them and therefore do not occasion mutual scandal and offence censuring and judging one another in the very act of Worship But differing postures in receiving the Lords Supper is matter of Dispute and scruple one thinks kneeling idolatrous and superstitious the other deservedly thinks it rude and unmannerly to sit and this must of necessity occasion mutual Emulations in the very act of receiving than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the nature of that holy Communion And if you say that men must lay aside this judging and censorious humour you must either mean that while men retain these differing apprehensions of things they must not judge one another which is to say that they must not judge of men and things as they think which is ridiculously impossible unless you can teach men not to think as they think or that they must alter their apprehensions of things and look upon all these as indifferent postures and then there will be no reason to alter
the Laws or to allow of such different postures when mens scruples are removed 2. As the Governours of the Church would neglect their Duty so they would manifestly injure their Authority by such a compliance with the ignorance humour and scruples of men and therefore how charitable soever our Reconciler may think this it is not such a Charity as becomes Governours For private Christians to abridge themselves in the use of their Christian liberty for the sake of others is in many cases highly commendable and a generous act of charity but for Governours to renounce their Authority to gratifie Dissenters is so far from being an act of charity that it is betraying their Trust. Either Christ has committed this power to them to govern religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rules of Worship or he has not if he have as our Reconciler has more than once owned in this very Book then this power is a Trust committed to them and such a Trust as they must give an account of and therefore no pretence of charity can justifie them in renouncing the exercise of it The Reconciler indeed tells us That which is here pleaded for is neither a denial nor a dissembling of their imposing power in Superiours but onely an abatement of the exercise thereof toward some weak Dissenters Which may be done with the asserting of the power and a profession that they do suspend the exercise thereof not through conviction that it may not be lawfully used but out of pure commiseration and howels of compassion towards their weak Brethren But all the Protestations in the World will not salve this matter for the great Dispute about Ceremonies turns upon this hinge whether the Church have authority to command any thing relating to the Worship of God which is not expresly instituted and enjoyned by Christ. Hence all such Rules of Order and Decency are by our modest and peaceable Dissenters opprobriously call'd Will-worship and Humane Inventions and teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men and though they had nothing to say against the lawfulness of the things themselves and indeed all that they have to say is next to nothing yet their not being commanded by God and their being commanded by men though by such men as are invested with Christ's authority to govern his Church is thought a sufficient reason not to submit to them Now when the Authority of the Church is the principal matter in dispute and Ceremonies onely a collateral dispute as depending upon an usurped and illegal Authority I would fain know of our Reconciler how upon these terms they can give up these Ceremonies to the clamours of the Dissenters without giving up their own Authority with them which is the principal thing in question and for the sake of which the Ceremonies are disputed Now let any man judge whether this be an act of charity to part with that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church Is this Authority for the good of the Church or is it not If it be not then it seems Christ has placed such an Authority in his Church as is not for the publick good and this charges our Saviour himself with want of prudence or charity to his own Church in setting such an uncharitable power over it If Church-Authority be for the publick good then it is no act of charity to part with it As to give but one instance of this which our Reconciler is often at He tells us That the Scripture-Exhortations to Peace and Unity are so far from requiring such an Vnity and Vniformity as we plead for that they perfectly confute all those who think it fit to lay the Vnion of the Church upon an uniformity in lesser matters and do impose them as the Conditions of Communion for either we must all submit to some infallible Guide and Iudge of Controversies in order to our Vnion as R. H. thinks it necessary in order to our compliance with these Precepts or else confess 't is morally impossible to comply with them it being visibly impossible to bring all men unto an unity of judgment and of practice in these things and so we must reflect upon the wisdom of our Lord and of his Precepts And grant that Protestants have no sufficient means of Vnity which is the very thing that Papists do so continually upbraid us with or must acknowledge that the way to this desired Vnity is not that of imposing and requiring uniformity in little matters concerning which the minds of men are full of doubts and scruples but that of mutual condescension and forbearance and charity in lesser differences God help that Church which meets with such Reconcilers as these But that which I shall observe here is his own concession and his Dilemma upon it He argues strongly That while men are left to judge for themselves in the Externals of Worship it is impossible to bring them unto an unity of judgment and practice in these things for this he says must be granted unless we own the necessity of an infallible Judge Here indeed the Reconciler and I differ a little about the infallibility of this Judge but we agree upon the main point that without a Judge to determine these matters there can be no Unity and Agreement among Christians which certainly is a demonstration in the Age in which we live how strange soever it might have been thought in the Primitive times of Unity And his Dilemma is a very sore one For either this reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ himself and grants that Protestants have no sufficient means of Unity or that the way to this desired Unity is not requiring uniformity in little matters Now to begin with the last first it is demonstrably true that there is no Church-Unity without Unity in Worship wherein the principal exercise of Christian Communion consists and that there can be no Decency and Order in this which is an Apostolical Precept without Uniformity and no Uniformity without such Impositions What follows then but that we must reflect on the wisdom of Christ in not leaving Authority in his Church sufficient to determine such matters and grant that Protestants have no means of Union These are hard terms but I cannot see how they can be avoided without granting that Christ has given though not an infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith yet a supreme Authority to his Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order which all Christians are bound to obey in all cases where their Rules and Orders do not contradict some plain and express Law of Christ. And this Principle will quickly make us all of a mind in such matters Now then from hence I thus argue If the wisdom of Christ himself in instituting a Church-Society and commanding all Christians to live in Peace and Unity and Love if the Unity of Christians among themselves and the Decency and Uniformity of Worship are so nearly concerned in the sacredness of
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
Church to have rejected those Ceremonies which had been made venerable by ancient use when they would equally or better serve those ends we designe than any new ones This is the very account our Church gives of it Having given the reason why she retained some Ceremonies still as I have already observed she answers that Objection why she has retained some old Ceremonies If they think much that any of the old remain and would rather have all devised new then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had surely where the old may be well used there they cannot reasonably reprove the old onely for their age without bewraying of their own folly For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence to them for their antiquity if they will declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord than of Innovations and new Fangleness which as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religion is always to be eschewed Let our Reconciler consider whether this be Hypocrisie or true and sober reasoning 2. The Dean's second reason is To manifest the justice and equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see that they did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Or as our Reconciler adds That they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the ancient Church Which the Dean does not say under that Head nor any thing like it But yet here he takes advantage and says It is manifest that we have left off praying for departed Saints the Vnction of the sick the mixing water with the Sacramental Wine c. with many other things which were retained in the ancient Church and in the Liturgie of Edward the Sixth he should have said the first Liturgy and which are things indifferent retained in the Roman Church But is our Reconciler in good earnest I fear the next Book we shall have from him will be the Roman Catholick Reconciler Are all these things as used in the Roman Church indifferent Is praying for the dead as it is joyned with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Merit in the Church of Rome a thing indifferent Is the Sacrament of Extream Unction an indifferent thing Are their Grossings and Exorcisms and such-like Ceremonies abused by the Church of Rome to the absurdest Superstitions indifferent things Our Reformers at first in veneration to the Primitive Church in which some of these Ceremonies were used did retain the use of them in the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth but upon more mature deliberation finding how impossible it was to restore them to their primitive use and to purge them from the superstitious abuses of the Church of Rome to which their people were still addicted laid them all aside and for this they are reproached by our Reconciler Some men would have been called Papists in Masquerade for half so much as this But what is this to the Dean's reason That we do not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For certainly to retain three indifferent Ceremonies though we should reject five hundred more equally indifferent is a sufficient proof that we do not quarrel nor break Communion for indifferent things considered as indifferent which is all that the Dean meant by it But he has a fling at some others besides the Dean though whom he means I cannot well tell but he says Some of our Church senselesly pretend we cannot change these Ceremonies because they have been once received and owned by the Church I suppose he means the Catholick Church and though I think it is too much to say we cannot change what has been once received for the Church of this Age has as much Authority as the Church of former Ages had yet I think what has been received by the Catholick Church ought not but upon very great reasons to be rejected by any particular Church But now had our Reconciler been honest he might have made a great many useful Remarks upon this History of ancient Ceremonies for the conviction of Dissenters He might have observed that even in the Apostles days there were several Ceremonies used of Apostolical institution which yet had not a divine but humane Authority and therefore were afterwards disused or altered by the Church That in all Ages of the Christian Church there have been greater numbers of Ceremonies used and those much more liable to exception than are now retained in the Church of England That the Church has always challenged and exercised this Authority in the Externals of Religion and therefore there has not been any Age of the Church since the Apostles with which our Dissenters could have communicated upon their Principles This had been done like an honest man and a true Reconciler but it is wonderful to me that he who can find so many good words for the Church of Rome can find none for the Church of England 3. It may so happen that some things must be determined by publick Authority which are matter of doubt and scruple to some professed Christians When I say Authority must determine such things I mean if they will do their duty and take care of the publick Decency and Uniformity of Worship without which there can be no Decency This is evident in such an Age as this wherein some men scruple every thing which relates to publick Worship but what they like and fancy themselves To be uncovered at Prayers is as considerable a scruple to some Quakers as to kneel at the Sacrament is to other Dissenters This it seems was a Dispute in the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's days but the Apostle made no scruple of determining that question notwithstanding that and yet praying covered or uncovered are but circumstances of Worship as kneeling or sitting at the â—acrament are and if I had a mind to argue this point with our Reconciler I think I could prove them as indifferent circumstances as the other For the reason the Apostle assigns for the mens praying uncovered and the women covered that one was an Emblem of Authority the other of Subjection which makes it a symbolical Ceremony as our Dissenters speak is quite contrary among us though it were so in the Apostles days and is so still in some Eastern Countries To be uncovered among us is a signe of Subjection and to be covered a signe of Authority and therefore Princes Parents and Masters are covered or have their Hats on while Subjects Children and Servants are uncovered in their presence And therefore in compliance with the Apostles reason men should now pray covered because that is a signe of civil Dignity and Superiority whereas we now pray uncovered in token of a religious Reverence and Subjection to God Now I would ask our Reconciler whether our Church may determine that all men shall pray with their Hats off notwithstanding the scruples of some Quakers for if the Church must have respect to mens scruples why not to the scruples of Quakers
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
evil of Dignities with Treasons and Murders of Princes and â—ug the most profligate Villains in their boâ—om and palliate and excuse all their Vices â—f they will but espouse their Interest and Quarrel These are the men who have weakned the Churches Authority and exposed her Censurâ—s to contempt and then reproach her for not using her Authority to correct the Vices of the Age. The Debauchees of our days learn to despise the Censures of the Church by the Example of Dissenters and when they cannot shelter their Vices in our Communion they take Sanctuary in a Conventicle II. His next Argument against the imposition of Ceremonies upon Dissenters is from the kindness and indulgence of our Saviour to his Disciples while he was with them That he would not impose such a burden as fasting on them because they were infirm and weak and therefore might be prejudiced by it that like old Bottles filled with new Wine they might be apt to burst that is by these severities imposed on them they might be discouraged and fall from him and so might perish I confess I have often been troubled what to make of this place not that I ever suspected such inferences from it as our Reconciler has discovered but these words being generally expounded by ancient and modern Writers of Christ's indulgence to the weakness of his Disciples I could never understand what this weakness should be which made them less able to fast than the Disciples of Iohn or of the Pharisees It could not be weakness of body for they were men of mean fortunes who had been used to more hardship than most of the Pharisees and what weakness of mind could they labour under which should make fasting so grievous a burden They were Jews who were to observe the publick Fasts of their Law and therefore fasting was no new thing to them and why should they be compared to old Cloth and old Bottles and fasting to new Cloth and new Wine These are difficulties which I cannot answer and shall be thankful to our Reconciler if he can And therefore I am apt to suspect it is all a mistake from a misapplication of those comparisons which our Saviour brought to illustrate that Answer which he had given to the Question of Iohn's Disciples They ask'd him Why do we and the Pharisees fast often but thy Disciples fast not And Iesus said unto them Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them but the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them and then shall they fast Christ is the Bridegroom the Church his Spouse the Apostles the Children of the Bride-chamber who immediately attended his Person in his greatest privacies and retirements The appearance of Christ on Earth was a time of as great joy to all that knew him as the presence of the Bridegroom and as it would be very indecent and improper for those who attend the Bridegroom to be sorrowful and pensive so would it be for his Disciples to mourn and fast which is an expression of mourning and sorrow while he was present All this refers not to the weakness of his Disciples but the unfitness of the season to fast Now the Question is Whether in what follows our Saviour onely illustrates this Answer or gives a new one And I confess it seems most probable to me that our Saviour onely confirms and illustrates the same answer which he does by two comparisons the first to shew the indecency of the thing the second the impossibility of it The first is this No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment and the rent is made worse At Weddings and Festival Entertainments they used to put on new Cloths at fasting to wear any old â—attered Garments Now says our Saviour mourning and fasting in the presence of the Bridegroom which is a time of joy is as indecent as it would be to patch up a Garment of wedding and fasting Cloth of new and old For the new Cloth is so far from adding to the beauty of the old Garment that the rent is made worse more notorious and visible and exposed to the view and scorn of all men and so indecent would it be for the Children of the Bride-chamber to fast as for men to go to a Wedding in such a patcht Garment The second comparison shews the impossibility of the thing that they should fast while the Bridegroom is with them To fast without mourning is an hypocritical Fast it is better not to fast at all than thus to mock God and yet it is impossible they should mourn whose minds are transported with such new and fermenting joys at the presence of the Bridegroom Neither do men put new wine into old bottles else the bottles break and the wine rumeth out and the bottles perish but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved Wine is proper at Festival Entertainments and very aptly signifies the joy and exultancy of the mind For Wine maketh the heart glad and new Wine signifies some new and present transports of joy whiâ—h boil and ferment in the breast as new Wine does upon the Lees and therefore aptly signifies such a joy as is in the presence of the Bridegroom Old Bottles may signifie a mournful sorrowful mind which is as weak and dejected with grief as men usually are with age Now as new Wine when it ferments will burst old Bottles that are weak and crasie so such transports of joy as are occasioned by the presence of the Bridegroom will dispel all sorrow from our minds and run out in all expressions of inward satisfaction and therefore will spoil our mourning and fasting This is the account why the Disciples could not fast while Christ was with them but when he should be taken from them then they should fast If this be the true interpretation of the place as the very aptness of the application perswades me it is then our Reconciler is at a loss for here is not one word of indulging the weakness of his Disciples and it seems very strange to me that any man should think that by old Bottles our Saviour should represent the weakness of his Disciples and forbear putting new Wine into them imposing the severe discipline of fasting upon them for fear of breaking these old Bottles when no man yet ever refused to put new Wine into old Bottles for fear of breaking the Bottle but for fear of losing the Wine which makes the application very absurd But yet let us suppose that our Saviour out of condescention to the weakness of his Disciples did not impose fasting on them what follows hence Why it plainly follows that the Governours of the Church must not impose any Rites and Ceremonies of Worship things much inferiour to this duty of fasting upon Dissenters when they do tend to the ruine and
disadvantage of so many Souls as are made Schismaticks upon this account Let us then briefly consider what likeness or affinity there is between these two cases 1. The Fasts of which the Dispute is here are private and voluntary Fasts such as men imposed upon themselves or observed in imitation of their Sect and Party or in obedience to the directions of their several Masters Christ imposed no such Fasts upon his Disciples therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship though in such matters Christ conformed himself and taught his Disciples to conform to the Rules and Orders of their Synagogues which were all as much of humane institution as our Ceremonies are which is an admirable way of arguing The observing or not observing private and voluntary Fasts though it might offend some superstitious Pharisees was no affront to publick Authority nor made any alteration or confusion in publick Worship and therefore was not of that consequence whatever our Reconciler thinks as dissenting from publick Constitutions This Christ never indulged his Disciples in nor has the Church any reason to do it 2. This Indulgence was but temporary during our Saviour's abode with them on Earth but he tells them when he should be taken from them then they should fast And the ancient Writers look upon this saying to be a kind of Institution of the Quadrigesimal Fast and will our Reconciler argue â—rom a short Indulgence for a year or two granted to the Disciples by Christ to prove a perpetual Indulgence to the end of the World to be granted to Dissenters For if his Arguments are good they will last for ever Christ did not intend that his Disciples should be always Children nor has he imposed upon his Church to indulge such childish weakness and fancies for ever 3. Fasting was a very severe duty very afflictive both to mind and body and therefore there might be some reason for our Saviour to forbear commanding it for some time But what severity is there in the Ceremonies of our Church What mighty trouble is it to kneel at the Sacrament What offence is a white Linnen garment to the eye What disturbance does the signe of the Cross made with the gentle motion of the finger cause But though these Ceremonies are not grievous in themselves yet they are burdensom to the Conscience Let him shew then that our Saviour had any regard in this to a doubtful or scrupulous Conscience and I will grant it a good proof How could any Jew scruple the lawfulness of fasting which was so often commanded and recommended in their Law I am sure all the ancient Writers take notice onely of the severity of the Duty not of its burdensomness to the Conscience as the reason of our Saviour's Indulgence Well but he tells us that Theophylact and St. Chrysostom say That herein Christ gave them a Rule that when they should convert the World they also should condescend and behave themselves towards them with the greatest meekness Whether Christ intended this or not in what he now said to be sure it is a good Rule and that which the Apostles carefully observed they indulged the believing Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law and bore with many weaknesses and infirmities both in Jews and Gentiles But did this meekness extend to suffer every man to worship God as he pleased Did they prescribe no Rules or Orders or Ceremonies of Worship Or did they prescribe such Rules without exacting obedience to them Did they suffer any Christians to dispute their Authority in such cases And was it thought an act of meekness and gentleness to do so It is strange then that it should never be thought so in after-Ages wherein the Church exercised an absolute and uncontroulable Power in all such matters and no Christian ever pretended to dispute their Authority But the Prophet Isaiah describes our Saviour as one who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoaking flax and who will gather his lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom and shall gently lead those that are with young Well we readily grant that our Saviour was the most kind and gentle Master that ever was but does this signifie that he would give no Laws about Worship Or that if any person scrupled these Laws he would not insist upon it but give them their liberty to worship God as they pleased If Christ was a kind and merciful Lord without this his Ministers also may exercise great lenity and gentleness without prostituting their Authority or the Worship of God to the ignorance or giddiness or frowardness of Professors Christ gave very easie and gentle Laws instructed his Hearers with great mildness and calmness bore their dulness and infidelity their indignities and affronts with admirable patience convers'd even with Publicans and Sinners to gain them to repentance encouraged the least beginnings and cherish'd the first and weak Essays of Faith but if they would be his Disciples he expected they should submit to his Authority and Laws and still expects that they should submit to that Authority he has plac'd in his Church And if Church-Governours use this mildness and gentleness in their Laws and in their behaviour though they assert their own Authority and exact obedience to their Laws they need not fear the censure of the Shepherds of Israel which our Reconciler so charitably threatens them with The diseased have you not strengthned neither have you healed that which was sick neither have you bound up that which was broken neither have you brought again that which was driven away neither have you sought that which was lost III. His next Argument is a wonderful one That Christ took compassion on the Iews as Sheep without a Shepherd that he went about preaching himself that he sent his Disciples to preach that he commands his Disciples to pray that God would send forth more Labourers into his Harvest The Query then is Whether they do conform to this Example or the matter of this Prayer who do exclude so many Servants of the Lord from labouring in his Harvest for a thing indifferent Truly I think they may though they excluded the Reconciler into the bargain for thanks be to God it is not now with us asit was in our Saviour's days at the first preaching of the Gospel God has now sent out numerous Labourers into his Vineyard men of Learning Piety and Diligence more indeed than there is entertainment or employment for And the Christian Church notwithstanding this Prayer of our Saviour never scrupled casting Schismatical Presbyters out of Christ's Vineyard But has our Reconciler the face to say that they are shut out meerly for indifferent things when they themselves give another account of it Renouncing of the Covenant kept them out a great while Reordination Episcopal Government a National Church Liturgies c. and are all these indifferent things But the dissenting Preachers
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
onely refused to obey the Law themselves but scorned and despised the Jews for doing it and used their Christian liberty in an open contempt and defiance of them and their Law this would have been very apt to have alienated their minds from the Christian religion which the Apostle therefore calls laying a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in our brothers way and destroying him with our meat by tempting him to infidelity and Apostacy for whom Christ died Thus St. Chrysostom expresly tells us that St. Paul was afraid lest this contemptuous usage of the believing Jews should tempt them to renounce the Faith of Christ. But what is this to the case of our Dissenters are they tempted to renounce the Christian Religion by the Ceremonies of the Church of England It is so far from this that they learn to despise their Teachers and to think themselves a more perfect and excellent sort of Christians But you 'll say it makes them Schismaticks and Schism is as dangerous to mens Souls as Infidelity and therefore the same charity which obliges us to prevent the one obliges us also with equal care to prevent the other Now though I think every good Christian will and ought to do what he reasonably can to prevent a Schism yet the difference between the case of Schism and Infidelity in point of scandal is very great While men are weak and unsetled in the Faith and apt to take offence and apostatize from Christ they ought to be treated with all manner of tenderness and condescension because they are not yet capable of being governed they must be humoured for a while as Children are who must be managed by Art not by Rules of Discipline but when men are well rooted and confirmed in the Christian Faith they are no longer to be humoured but governed they must be taught to submit to that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church and to obey not to dispute the commands of their Superiours when there is no plain positive Law of God against them This is the onely way to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Christian Church and if men will take offence at the exercise of a just Authority and turn Schismaticks it is at their own peril And this indeed I take to be the true notion of the weak in the Faith whom the Apostle in this Chapter commands the strong Christians to treat with so much tenderness without giving them the least offence those who are not well confirmed in the truth of the Christian Religion and therefore are apt to take offence at every thing and to renounce the Faith And so his stumbling and being offended and made weak signifies his being shaken and unsetled in the Faith Every one who is an ignorant and uninstructed is not therefore a weak Christian his Understanding may be weak but his Faith may be strong that is he may very firmly and stedfastly believe the truth of the Christian Religion though he do not so well understand the particular Doctrines of it But these two sorts of weak persons are to be used very differently you must have a care of offending those who are weak in Faith but you must instruct and govern those who are weak in Understanding or else you prostitute the Authority of the Church and the truth of Christianity and the just liberties of Christians to every ignorant and yet it may be conceited obstinate and censorious Professor which is a plain demonstration that those directions the Apostle gives in this Chapter not to offend those who are weak in the Faith cannot concern our Dissenters who though they are weak enough as that signifies ignorant yet are not weak in the Faith as that signifies those who are not thoroughly perswaded of Christianity or not well confirmed in that belief and therefore are not to be humoured like Children but trained up to greater attainments by wise Instructions and a prudent Discipline Secondly Having seen what this Scandal and Offence was let us now consider by what Arguments the Apostle perswades those who were strong not to offend the weak Now our Reconciler has turned almost every word into an Argument One Argument is That it is our duty not to judge or lay a stumbling-block before our Brother That it is contrary to charity and evil in it self That it caused Christianity to be blasphâ—med That it is contrary to the concerns of Peace and the edification of the Church c. Now I have no dispute with our Reconciler about this that it is a very ill thing and very contrary to the duty of a Christian to give any just offence or scandal to a weak Brother if we were as well agreed what it is to give offence as that giving this offence is a very evil thing the Dispute were at an end And yet by this artifice he imposes upon his Readers is very copious and rhetorical in his Harangue on this Argument and transcribes several passages out of St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers to shew the great evil and manifold aggravations of scandal which every one would grant him to be very good when rightly applied but we deny that the Church of England is guilty of giving offende to the Dissenters in that sence in which St. Paul and other ancient Writers meant it and if our Reconciler had pleased he might have found enough in St. Paul's Arguments to have convinced him that the Apostle spoke of a case very different from ours which because he has been pleased to overlook I shall be so charitable as to mind him of it Now I take the sum of the Apostles Argument to be this That the reason why they were not to offend the Jews by an uncharitable use of their Christian liberty in eating such meats as were forbidden by the Law is because their eating or not eating such meats in it self considered is of no concernment in the Christian Religion and therefore is the proper Sphere for the exercise of charity For when we discourse of offence and scandal the first and most natural inquiry is of what moment and consequence the thing is in which we are required to exercise our charity for there are many things which we must not do nor leave undone out of charity to any man whatever offence be taken at it but if it be of that nature as to admit of a charitable condescension and compliance then all the other Arguments against scandal and giving offence are very seasonably and properly urged And this is the case here as will appear from considering the series of the Apostles Arguments In the 13th verse he perswades them not to put a stumbling-block and occasion to fall in their Brothers way And to inforce this Exhortation he adds in the 14th verse 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 That is all distinction of
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
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.
and Unity in the Christian Church for they may entertain and multiply such Disputes for ever with the same reason that they do now And therefore there is always reason to suppress those Scruples which câ—nnot be cured or outworn by time when Indulgence will not cure the Disease nor time remove it it must be stifled and suppressed by Ecclesiastical Authority Whether our Reconciler will think this a sufficient Answer to his fourth Chapter I cannot tell I am sure I do CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler or his Arguments taken from St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians HAving in the former Chapter so particularly answered our Reconciler's Arguments taken as he pretends from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other in that great Dispute about the observation of the Law of Moses there seems little occasion to answer the rest of his Arguments from Scripture which every ordinary Reader may do from the Principles already laid down But that our Reconciler may not complain that he is not answered I am willing to undergo the trouble of a needless Answer if my Readers will be pleased to pardon it His first Argument is from St. Paul's discourse 1 Cor. 6. Where he condemneth the Corinthians because they went to law before the heathens which was a blemish to the Christian Faith and ministred scandal to the heathens and made them apt to think that Christians were covetous contentious and prone to injure one another c. Since therefore our Contentions about these lesser matters do minister far greater Scandal to the Atheist the Sceptick c. our Governours should rather suffer themselves to be restrained a little and even injured in the exercise of their just Power about things unnecessary than by their stiffness to assert and to exert it to continue to give occasion to so great a Scandal to the Christian Faith This is an admirable Argument if it be well considered The Christians must not go to law before Heathen Judges therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship Yes you will say the Argument is good because the reason is the same to avoid Scandal Let us then suppose this was the reason if we will make these two cases parallel it must be thus To go to law with our Christian Brethren is scandalous and therefore must be avoided to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion is scandalous and therefore Church-Governours must not exercise this Authority Will our Reconciler now stand to this Proposition No that he durst not affirm that the exercise of a just Authority in these matters is scandalous but the contentions about such Rites and Ceremonies are scandalous and therefore Governours must not insist on their Authority to prescribe them But now this way of stating it does not make the case parallel and therefore he cannot argue by any parity of Reason from one to the other St. Paul exhorts the Christians not to go to law before Heathen Judges because it was scandalous to the Christian Profession to do so and therefore if our Reconciler will make a parallel case he must instance onely in something which is scandalous and then by a parity of reason he may prove that to be forbidden also But neither the Authority to prescribe the decent Rites of Worship nor the prudent exercise of it is scandalous and therefore he cannot prove this to be forbid by any parity of Reason But contentions indeed in the Christian Church whatever be the cause of them are very scandalous and therefore all scandalous contentions are forbid as all scandalous going to law is For we must observe that though the Apostle in the seventh verse tells them There is utterly a fault among you because ye go to law one with another yet he does not absolutely forbid going to law as that signifies using some fair and lawful means of righting our selves when we suffer wrong even from our Christian Brethren but onely as it signifies going to law before the Vnbelievers or Heathen Magistrates for he requires and exhorts them to have their Causes heard and tryed before the Saints that is either the Governours of the Church or any other Christians whom by joynt consent they shall make Judges and Arbitrators among them But to go to law in those days did properly signifie to implead one another before the Heathen Tribunals because there were no other Magistrates at that time who had any legal authority and this going to law was scandalous Thus by a parity of Reason it is onely that contention which is scandalous that can be forbid and therefore for the Governours of the Church to assert their own Authority in ordering the Externals of Religion and for private Christians to defend the Authority of the Church though with some vehemence and earnestness is not scandalous for it is what they ought to do but to contend against the Authority of the Church is a very scandalous contention because it is against the Duty which private Christians owe to their Superiours and therefore whatever Scandal is given by such contentions is wholly owing to the scandalous Contenders that is to the Dissenters who scandalously oppose the Authority and Constitutions of the Church And therefore our Reconciler ought to have reproved the Dissenters and exhorted them to leave off their scandalous contentions not to lay a necessity on the Governors of the Church not to exercise their Authority which these men so scandalously oppose as we find the Apostle in this very place turns the edge of his reproof against those who did the wrong and gave occasion to these scandalous contentions Ye do wrong and defraud and that your brethren Contentions either about the Doctrine Discipline or Worship of the Christian Church are very scandalous but is this a good reason not to contend for the Faith not to oppose Heresies and Schisms because these Disputes represent Christianity as a very uncertain thing and give scandal and offence to Atheists and Infidels then the Orthodox Christians did very ill to meet in such frequent Councils to condemn Arianism and other pestilent Heresies Where there is a Scandal onely on one side and Contention is the onely Scandal this is a good reason against such contentious Disputes but when it is more scandalous to suffer Heresies in the Church to see Ecclesiastical Authority despised to permit any indecencies and disorders different customs and practices in Christian Worship than it is to contend for the Truth and for the Order and Uniformity of publick Worship we must not be afraid to contend for these things the onely scandalous contention being to contend against them His second Argument which he draws out to a great length is taken from 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us that the Apostle grants it is good for a man not to touch a wife
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