of it viz. the miraculous effusions of the holy Spirit What have we to do to pass any judgment at all concerning those mens internal communion with God and Christ who forsake the external and visible communion of the Church since the Apostle speaks here of Gods receiving them into visible Church-communion Must the Church alter the most prudent and wholsome Constitutions for the sake of every one whom she does not believe a damned Hypocrite May we not hope charitably that God will be merciful to the prejudices and mistakes of some well-meaning men without destroying all Order in the Church and all the Decency of Worship to let such men into our Communion When God shall as visibly declare that he receives all those into the communion of the Church who dissent from the Constitutions of it and will not conform to its Worship Discipline or Government as he did that he had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of the Church then the Reconciler's Argument may be worth considering but till then it is nothing to the purpose And I cannot but observe what dreadful apprehensions our Reconciler has of the evil and guilt of Schism who believes that such Schismaticks as wilfully separate from the communion of the Church may still be in communion with God and Christ. This his present Argument necessarily supposes for otherwise it does no way appear that God has received them and then it does not follow that the Church must receive them and yet certainly Schism cannot be so damning a sin as at other times he pretends it is if such Schismaticks are still in communion with God and Christ. So that great part of his Book is nothing but putting tricks upon the Church And when he declaims mostt ragically about involving so many precious Souls in the guilt of a damning Schism and destroying those with our Ceremonies for whom Christ died he secretly laughs in his sleeve at those silly people who are so credulous as to believe it for he believes no such matter himself but thinks it want of charity to believe that Schismaticks are not in communion with God nor living Members of Christs Body So that whatever strength those may conceive to be in his Book who believe Schism to be a damning sin it is plain he cannot think there is any strength in it himself for upon this supposition that a man may be saved as well in a Schism as in Church-communion as certainly all those shall who are in communion with God and Christ it is not worth disputing about these matters The Church may keep her Constitutions and Schismaticks may divide and subdivide into infinite Factions and no great hurt done but that it makes Protestant Reconcilers of no use It had been a much more honourable undertaking in him to have convinc'd the Church of her mistake about the damning nature of Schism and to have satisfied Dissenters that they might continue in their Schism without any danger than to scare them both with panick fears and to pelt them with such Arguments as are not worth half a farthing if this Argument be worth any thing for if God and Christ have received such Schismaticks into communion I know no reason they have to be concerned about the communion of the Church 2. The next Argument the Apostle uses or rather a continuation of the former Argument is contained in the fourth verse Who are thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master he standeth or falleth yea he shall be holden up for God is able to make him stand To the same purpose v. 10 12. But why dost thou judge thy brother that is whom God hath made thy Brother and declared him to be so by visible effects though thou refusest to own him for such or why dost thou set at nought thy brother for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God This Argument our Reconciler thought fit to pass over for though it was very much to the Apostles purpose it was nothing to his For what is the meaning of judging another mans servant Are not private Christians subject to the Authority of the Church and liable to be judged and censured by their Governours No doubt of it if Christ have establish'd any Government in his Church And yet it seems this was such a matter as no man had any authority to judge in but was reserved wholly to the judgment of God For the plain case was this God had publickly declared his Will by the visible effusion of the holy Spirit both on Jews and Gentiles that he indulged the believing Jews at that time in the observation of the Law of Moses but would not impose that Yoke on the believing Gentiles Now when God had so visibly determined this Controversie neither private Christians nor Church-Governours had authority to determine it otherwise or to judge or censure or deny communion to each other upon that account for God may accept Jews and Gentiles upon what terms he pleases and to judge and reject the Jews for observing the Law of Moses when God is pleased to indulge them in it or to judge and reject the Gentiles for not observing the Law when God has so manifestly declared that he receives them without it is as if we should judge another mans Servant for doing or not doing what his own Master either allows or permits In such cases as these as St. Iames speaks He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother speaketh evil of the Law and judgeth the Law but if thou judge the Law thou art not a doer of the Law but a judge There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who art thou that judgest another That is when we judge and condemn our Brother for doing or not doing such things which God has by a positive Law or some other publick declaration of his Will allowed them to do or to omit we are not doers of the Law that is do not behave our selves as those who are to receive Laws and to obey them but as judges as those who have authority to make Laws or to censure and controul them So that this Argument against judging another mans Servant relates onely to such matters which God has determined by his own authority and therefore cannot concern the case of our Dissenters unless our Reconciler can prove that God has plainly determined that the Church shall not prescribe the Rules of Order and Decency in publick Worship What God has left to the authority of the Church in such cases the Church may judge and censure and reject the disobedient because private Christians in all such cases are subject to Church-authority and the Church does not exceed her authority in judging them And this is the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters Whether they should obey the Authority of the Church in such matters which
very consistent with the Apostolical Authority in governing the Church but an indulgence of Dissenters is not 335 St. Paul always asserted and exercised the Apostolical Authority as much as any Apostle and therefore would not suffer any diminution of it 337 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary 339 CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the 5th Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler His 1 Arg. from St. Paul's reproving the Christians for going to Law before the unbelievers 341 His 2 Arg. that St. Paul would not impose Virginity upon the Christians though he owned some advantages in that state above marriage therefore the Church must not impose her Ceremonies though they had the advantages of greater Decency 345 The difference between these two cases plain the Apostle had not authority to impose the one the Church has to impose the other 346 His 3 Arg. is from the Dispute about meats offered to Idols ibid. Those knowing persons who eat in the Idols Temple were the Gnostick Hereticks 347 The weak persons who were offended at this were some Paganizing Christians who still thought it lawful to worship their Country-Gods and were confirmed in this belief by seeing the Gnosticks eat in the Idols Temple 349 In the 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle Disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks upon a supposition of the lawfulness of it because it encouraged these imperfect Christians in Idolatry 350 The Reconciler mistakes the whole case The Apostle does not grant it lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but proves the contrary in chap. 10. 352 The weak Conscience is not a Conscience which did abstain from eating but which did eat 354 Not a scrupulous Conscience which doubted of the lawfulness of eating but a Conscience erroneously perswaded that it might lawfully eat 355 And therefore the Apostle does not plead for indulgence to this weak Conscicnce but warns them against confirming such persons in their mistakes 356 The Apostle's decision of this Controversie that it is not lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but that it is lawful to eat meats offered to Idols when sold in the Shambles or eat at private houses 357 But yet they were to abstain in these cases also when it gave offence 358 For whose sake the Apostle abridges them of this liberty of eating such meats at private houses ibid. Nothing of all this to our Reconciler's purpose 359 This forbearance onely in the exercise of their private liberty 360 His Argument from St. Paul's own example of charity and condescension ibid. St. Paul was an example of no other condescension than what he taught and if that do not plead for Dissenters as I have already proved it does not neither can his example do it 361 His Argument from St. Paul's preaching the Gospel freely at Corinth answered at large 362 c. CHAP. VII An Answer to his Motives for mutual condescension 372 His first Motive from the smalness and littleness of these things which ought not to come in competition with Love and Peace ibid. This inforced from Gods own example who suffered the violation of his Ceremonial Laws upon less accounts than these 377 And gave his own Son to die for us 380 His second Motive that God does not exclude weak and erring persons from his favour for such errours of judgment as â—re consistent with true love to him 382 His third Argument that Christ broke down the middle wall of partition between Iew and Gentile 387 His fourth Motive from the example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel who concealed at first many things from their Hearers which they were not then able to bear 390 Mot. 5. from that Rule of Equity to do to others as we would be dealt with 392 6. From the obligations of Charity 397 7. That the same Arguments which are urged to perswade Dissenters to Conformity have equal force against the impositeon of Ceremonies as the terms of Communion The particular Argument considered and answered ibid. His Arguments from many general Topicks which he says are received and owned by all Casuits 404 An Answer to the Dissenters Questions produced by our Reconciler 405 CHAP. VIII Some short Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface 431 His Testimonies relating to the judgment of King James King Charles the first and our present Soveraign answered 433 Whether those Doctors of the Church of England whose Authority he alleadges were of his mind 438 Concerning the testimonies of foreign Divines 442 And the judgment of our own and foreign Divines about the terms of Concord between different Churches which does not prove that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church  A conclusion containing an Address to the Dissenters to let them see how the Reconciler has abused them that they cannot plead for indulgence upon his Principles without confessing themselves to be Schismaticks and weak ignorant humorsome People 443 Errata P. 35. l. 32. for and r. as p. 47. l. 28. f. bind r. bend p. 96. l. 10. f. charity r. clarity A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING An ANSWER TO THE Protestant Reconciler The INTRODVCTION THE name of a Reconciler especially of a Protestant Reconciler is very popular at such a time as this and it is a very invidious thing for any man to own himself an Enemy to so Christian a Designe and therefore I do not pretend to answer the Title which is a very good one but to examine how well the Book agrees with the Title and whether our Author has chosen the proper method for such a Reconciliation For this Reconciliation will prove very chargeable to the Church if she must renounce her own Authority to reconcile Dissenters The usual methods taken by Reconcilers have been either to convince men that they do not differ so much as they think they do but that the Controversie is onely about the manner of expressing the same thing or that they are both gone too far into opposite Extremes and have left Truth and Peace in the middle or that the matter in dispute is not of such moment as to contend about it or that the truth of either side of the Question is not certain or that one of the contending Parties is in the wrong and therefore ought to yield to him who is in the right But our Reconciler has taken a new way by himself to prove that both the contending Parties are in the wrong and that both of them are in the right for thus he adjusts the Controversie He who saith that it is sinful and mischievous to impose those unnecessary Ceremonies and to retain those disputable expressions of our Liturgie which may be altered and removed without transgressing of the Law of God saith true And thus the present Constitution of the Church of England in these present circumstances is with great modesty and submission without any dispute pronounced sinful by a professed Member and
thing is doubtful though some men may be very confident both ways and nothing that is doubtful can be necessary to salvation nor can the final decision of it be necessary to the peace of the Church But if the Arguments on one hand to an unbyassed and disinteressed judgment be plain and certain and the Objections on the other hand nothing but empty and trifling Cavils which is the true case between the Church of England and Dissenters in the dispute of Ceremonies if the dissent of these men shall be thought sufficient to render this matter uncertain we shall be condemned to eternal and unavoidable Scepticism But our Reconciler says Let any man peruse the Arguments of the Dissenters against Conformity to symbolical Ceremonies and he will find them strengthned by the suffrages of many grave and learned Divines both of our own and other Churches As for the grave Divines of other Churches let them mind their own business for their Authority is nothing to us and as for the Divines of our own Church who strengthen the Dissenters Arguments against Ceremonies who they are or how many or how grave and learned they are I cannot tell He has indeed transcribed several Sayings out of some of our Divines to plead for the relaxation of such Impositions but none that I know of to strengthen the Dissenters Arguments which no Divine in our Church can do who honestly conforms himself Well but how does this Passage in the Irenicum countenance this reconciling designe Suppose there be probable reasons on both sides where yet it is necessary to act one way what must be done in this case must every man be left to do as he pleases So says the Reconciler that this is the onely way to peace but the Irenicum says the quite contrary That the way to peace cannot be by leaving an absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace It must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations Which is a peremptory determination against our Reconciler who very rarely quotes any Author without wresting his words to another sence than what was intended If every thing were doubtful of which some men doubt and nothing must be determined which is thus doubtful it were impossible that there should be any external form and constitution of a Church or any external Worship If it be a good Argument that a thing is doubtful because some men doubt of it methinks it is as good an Argument that that is not doubtful which no body doubts of and thus symbolical Ceremonies as our Reconciler calls them are past all doubt for no Christian ever had any doubt about them for above fifteen hundred years which is time enough in this way to prove the certainty of any thing And though some Christians begin to doubt and to invent Arguments to countenance their doubts after fifteen hundred years yet this is no reason for the Church to doubt also Well but if mens doubting be not an Argument that the thing whereof they doubt is doubtful how shall we know what is doubtful and what not I answer Where there is no positive evidence and the probabilities or difficulties are great on both sides there is sufficient reason for doubting and in such cases I think the Church has not authority to determine either way when the doubt is about the lawfulness or unlawfulness the truth or falshood of things for the authority of the Church cannot alter the nature nor the evidence of things and therefore ought not to determine that to be lawful which it is equally probable may be unlawful nor that to be true which has equal proofs of its being false But this cannot concern the controversie about the lawful use of some Ceremonies in religious Worship for which we have as plain and positive evidence as we can desire for a thing of this nature as I have already shewn and therefore any mens doubting of this makes it no more doubtful than their doubts about any plain and necessary Article of Faith renders that also doubtful and suspicious 2. Though the Church must not command any thing which is of a doubtful nature yet the doubts and scruples or mistakes of Christians ought to have no influence upon acts of Government There cannot be a more unreasonable and senseless Imposition upon Governours than this which makes all Government the most arbitrary and precarious and useless thing in the world If this Rule were allowed what work would it make in Kingdoms and Families when Princes Parents and Masters must command nothing which their Subjects Children or Servants scruple to do That which makes Government necessary is that the generality of mankind do not know how to govern themselves but this Principle makes all men their own Governours and makes it unlawful for any Authority to impose any thing upon their Subjects which they have not a mind to for it is an easie matter to scruple or to pretend to scruple whatever we have no mind to do and yet if we will believe our Reconciler here is no distinction to be made between men who are really weak and scrupulous and those who pretend to it for it is an uncharitable thing it seems whatever evidence we have for it to charge those men with obstinacy malice or perverseness who pretend to Scruples and tender Consciences But to what purpose has God committed any Authority to some certain persons in Church or State if they must not govern according to the best judgment they have of things but must be governed by the mistakes or scruples of those whom they ought to govern If they must not command what is innocent useful and convenient when those whom they ought to command do not think it so This all men will acknowledge to be intolerable in the State and I challenge our Reconciler to shew me any wise reason wâ—â— the Secular Powers must have no regard to mens scruples in making useful Laws and the Governours of the Church must Whoever considers how wild unreasonable and fantastical some mens mistakes and scruples are must needs think it a very ridiculous Constitution of Government which has any regard to them It is in the Government of the Church as it is in the State and as it must of necessity be in all Governments Those who have authority to govern must take care to do it wisely and charitably and those who are subject must obey in all things lawful without cavilling at their Superiours commands where they are not manifestly contrary to some divine Law and if there happens any
God has not determined by his own Authority whereas the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles was actually determined by God that the Jews should be indulged in the observation of the Law but that it should not be imposed upon the Gentiles and therefore when they judged and censured one another upon this account they exceeded their authority they judged over Gods judgment and judged another mans Servant which the Church cannot be charged with when she judges and censures her own refractory and dissenting Members for their disobedience in such things as are subject to her authority 3. The Apostle perswades both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another to Christian communion because though they differed in their practice yet both of them acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jew knew that the Law of Moses was given by God and could not be satisfied that it was repealed and therefore still observed the Law in reverence to the Authority which first gave it The converted Gentiles knew that the Law was never given to them and were assured by the same persons upon whose authority they embraced the Gospel that they were not under the obligation of the Law and therefore they thankfully accept that liberty which Christ had purchased for them And therefore since both of them at that time could truly plead a divine authority for what they did and not meerly some unaccountable humour and prejudice they ought not to judge and censure one another for such different practices One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks which would be a profane and impudent mockery of God did he not believe that God had given him liberty to eat indifferently of any thing and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Our Reconciler represents the Apostles Argument thus These persons saith the Apostle ought to be received into communion although they differ in practice and in judgment about these matters because it was from conscience towards God and a desire to do what was most pleasing to him that some did eat and others not that some did regard a day and others not If charity therefore will teach us to conclude of such as do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters that as they outwardly profess so do they really observe or not observe them out of conscience towards God which they who cannot know mens Consciences but by their own professions cannot well deny then must they both by the Apostles Rule receive each other to communion and not reject each other on the accounts of differences in judgment or in practice in these lesser matters Let us then consider what the consequence of this Doctrine would be if it were true viz. that the Consciences of men are under no Government and when we consider what is usually meant by Conscience viz. mens private Opinions and Judgments of things the plain English of it is that every man must do as he list and thus all the Authority of Government is over-ruled by the more soveraign Authority of Conscience This is so extreamly absurd that it is wonderful to me that men of common understanding should not blush to own it For 1. It is plain that God will judge the Consciences of men and condemn them too if they be erroneous and wicked The Jews crucified our Saviour and persecuted his Apostles out of zeal for God as St. Paul witnesses but God destroyed their City Temple and Nation for it I suppose our Reconciler will not charge all the Heathen Idolaters even after the Empire was turned Christian with being a pack of damned Hypocrites Many of them no doubt very sincerely followed their Consciences and yet were damned not for Hypocrites but for conscientious Idolaters All the Laws of God oblige the Consciences of men whatever their particular Perswasions may be and if mens Consciences will not comply with the Laws of God the Law will judge and condemn them and yet it seems as hard a thing that God should condemn men who act out of conscience and a desire to do what is most pleasing to him as that Earthly Governours should condemn and punish them No you 'll say God is the sole Lord and Judge of Conscience and he alone has authority to give Laws to the Consciences of men which no humane power can but all this is senseless Cant for what is it to be the Lord of Conscience and to give Laws to Conscience Does it signifie any more than a Soveraign Authority to command under the guilt of sin if we disobey And have not all Governours then who have received authority from God to command the government of mens Consciences too as far as their authority reaches But this is not the Question Who has authority to give Laws to Conscience for whoever has authority to make Laws has authority to make Laws for Conscience unless they have authority to make Laws without obliging any body to obey them But the Question is Whether after Laws are made either by God or men every man may equitably challenge a liberty to follow the guidance of his own Conscience though his Conscience mistake its rule Now it is plain that God does not grant this liberty for he punishes such erroneous Consciences and will eternally damn those who do wicked actions out of a mistaken Zeal for his glory and yet if there were any reason or equity in the case it would more oblige God than any Earthly Governours because such misguided Zealots are supposed to intend Gods glory in what they do And if God will not indulge such men in the breach of his Laws though they intend to please him by it what reason have Earthly Governours to do it who receive their authority from God and cannot imitate a better Example in the exercise of it than God himself 2. Civil Magistrates ought to take no notice at all of mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the good government of the Nation If the Saints should think it their priviledge and prerogative to rob and plunder and murder the ungodly if they should think themselves bound in conscience to pull down earthly Princes to set up King Jesus on his Throne should Magistrates be afraid of hanging such Villains as these as commit such horrid Outrages from a Principle of Conscience Nay if men refuse to give security to the Government or a legal testimony in any civil cause out of a scruple about the lawfulness of Oaths is the Government to take notice or to make any allowance for this If God does not Magistrates have less reason to do it because God knows what mens Consciences
scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
it on the second month by those who were unclean or in a journey on the first month was a violation of what God had prescribed when God himself had expresly prescribed it And let him consider once more whether works of necessity and mercy were a violation of the Sabbatick rest when our Saviour himself poves that they were not that God never intended that the rest of the Sabbath should exclude such works I am sure our Reconciler cannot produce any one instance wherein God permitted and allowed the violation of any ceremonial Law according to the true intent and meaning of the Law without express order for it but on the other hand God was very strict and rigorous in exacting the observation of them and did give as signal examples of his Justice and Severity upon such accounts as upon any other whatever Witness the man who gathered Sticks on the Sabbath-day and was stoned to death for it The fate of Corah Dathan and Abiram who quarrelled with Moses and Aaron which is more like the case of our Dissenters and offered Incense the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and a Fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered Incense To which we may adde the case of Vzzah who was struck dead upon the place for touching the Ark of God which was not lawful for him to do though he did it with a very pious intention to preserve it from falling Thus Saul's offering Sacrifice in Samuel's absence though he had a very plausible excuse for it and his sparing Agag the King of the Amalakites and the best of the Sheep and Oxen c. cost him his Kingdom This is no Argument that God was so little concerned about the observation of his ceremonial Laws or thought any thing little which he commanded when he so severely revenged the breach of them God indeed did prefer true and real Righteousness before any ceremonial Observances but he did not therefore countenance the breach of his meanest Laws What our Saviour tells the Pharisees Who payed thythe of mint and anise and cummin and neglected the weightier matters of the law judgment mercy and faith is a standing Rule in all these cases These things ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone they should observe them both the great and the less matters of the Law and not neglect or despise either So that Gods example in theâ—e matters is so far from helping our Reconciler's Cause that it makes against him God did not equal the Ceremonies of the Law with the more weighty duties of Judgment Mercy and Faith no more than the Church equals a Ceremony with the dearer interesâ—s of Love and Peace and Unity but yet God instituted these Ceremonies and commanded the observation of them and punish'd the breach of them even when the whole Congregation mutinied and rebelled upon it as they did in the case of Corah that is when they came as much in competition with Love and Peace and Unity as the Reconciler pretends our Ceremonies at this day do 2. But if this will not do our Reconciler has another way of arguing from the example of God to oblige the Governours of the Church not to impose these Ceremonies when there are so many Dissenters amongst us who will not submit to them As 1. The example of Gods love in sending his Son into the World that we might live through him why then should they who are commanded to be followers of God as dear children and walk in love refuse to part with their unnecessary Ceremonies and to refrain the exercise of their imposing power in things indifferent Now if our Reconciler will give me a reason why they should not I will tell him why they should God has in infinite goodness sent his Son into the World to save sinners but still they must be saved in that method which Christ has appointed To this end Christ has given us his Laws instituted a Church-Society appointed Stewards of his Family and Rulers of his Houshold and given them authority to govern Religious Assemblies to prescribe the Rules of Worship and the Methods of Discipline and all this for the salvation of mens Souls and therefore the Governours of the Church must not renounce this Authority and the exercise of it because in its rank and order it is subservient to the great end for which God sent Christ into the World viz. the salvation of mens Souls and is instituted by Christ for that purpose But you 'll object that the exercise of this Authority in indifferent things is so far from contributing to the salvation of mens Souls especially in such an Age as this that it destroys them What destroys them the use of indifferent things No men may observe these Ceremonies without prejudicing their salvation What then is it the imposition of these things Nor that neither for to command that which will not destroy mens Souls cannot destroy them What is it then an obstinate refusal to obey such Impositions Right for this makes men Schismaticks and will damn them and thus disobedience to any other of Christs Laws will damn men though Christ died for them And thus according to this way of arguing God who did so infinitely love sinners as to send Christ to save them ought to have given them no Laws nor made any Conditions of salvation for fear men should break them and be damned for it For is it not a greater thing to give his Son for sinners than to indulge them in some little Follies and Extravagances Will God who loved sinners so as to give his own Son for them damn them for stealing a shilling or two for playing the Good-fellow sometimes or for some kind and amorous Embraces Sure he is so good that he will repeal all these Soul-destroying Laws and when we see this done it will be time for the Governours of the Church to renounce their Authority too in imitation of the love of God II. His next Argument is That God is so merciful to weak and erring persons as not to judge condemn or exclude them from his favour for any errours of their judgments which are consistent with true love to him and which they did not wilfully embrace nor do persist in against conviction of their Consciences but will upon a general repentance for their unknown sins receive them to his favour though they live and die under such errours and mistakes Why then should we who are commanded to be merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful reject them from Communion whom God will receive why should we not forbear to condemn and censure them whom God will absolve This is so fulsomly ridiculous that I should be ashamed to answer it were it not very fit to expose such popular Cant. For 1. Though the infinite goodness of God does incline us to hope well of those who lived and died in invincible errours yet we know
for denying this liberty and indulgence is known to all men and it is hard to think then that he was a Reconciler for never any Reconciler was a Martyr for the Church And methinks the Act of Uniformity and the prosecution of Dissenters upon that and former Acts might convince any reasonable man that our present Soveraign is none of his Protestant Reconcilers But if notwithstanding all this he can prove against plain matter of fact and the evidence of sense and the experience and complaints of Dissenters all these to be Reconciling Kings I am resolved I will be a Protestant Reconciler too and I hope I may pass for as good a Reconciler as any of these renowned Kings without recanting this Book Let us hear then how he proves these great Princes to be Reconcilers As for King Iames he proves him to be a Reconciler from Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perroon Now how faithfully Casaubon represented the Kings Judgment is more than our Reconciler can tell onely I am certain he did misrepresent him if he made a Reconciler of him But there is no reason to take Sanctuary in this for whoever considers the occasion of those words may put a very sober construction on them without giving any countenance to our Reconciler for the Dispute did not concern the Rules of Order and Decency in Religious Worship but the unscriptural Innovations of Popery which they imposed upon all Churches as terms of Catholick Communion Now in this Controversie any man may safely say what Casaubon says for the King without being a Protestant Reconciler For there is no nearer way of concord than to separate things necessary from unnecessary to call nothing simply necessary but what the Word of God commandeth to be believed or done or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence that other humane Constitutions whatever antiquity or authority is pretended for them might be changed mollified antiquated and that this may in the general be said of most Ecclesiastical observations introduced without the Word of God Now this does not refer to the decent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Religion but to such Ecclesiastical observations as are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome as the Celibacy of the Clergy Prayers for the Dead Pilgrimages Monastick Vows the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the like for which the Church of Rome pretends the Authority of ancient Councils or the ancient practice and usage of the Church Now in these cases I am perfectly of the Kings mind and yet do not take my self to be a Protestant Reconciler in our Authors way Our Royal Martyr when he saw what danger Church and State and his own Royal Person was in from the outrageous zeal of dissenting Protestants who did not now humbly beg for Indulgence and Toleration but contended for Rule and Empire was willing if it were possible to allay these Heats and divert the Storm by yiâ—lding somewhat to their boisterous and threatning importunities and if he had yielded a great deal more at that time than he did I think it had been no argument of his own setled judgment of things The Reconciler might hence prove that the King thought it much better to yield a little at that time than to ruine Church and State by too much stiffness not that he thought it unlawful to impose any thing on his Subjects in matters of Religion which they were pleased to scruple And yet what is it that the King yielded under these necessities For that our Reconciler produces these words As for differences among our selves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning Religion we shall in tenderness to any number of our loving Subjects very willingly comply with the advice of our Parliament that some Law may be made for the exemption of tender Consciences from punishment or prosecution for such Ceremonies and in such cases which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent and of some to be absolutely unlawful Does the King in these words promise to alter the Constitutions of the Church to abolish all Ceremonies c By no means he onely says that he will comply with the advice of his Parliament to exempt such tender Consciences from punishment And how can our Reconciler hence conclude that the King believed it unlawful to impose these Ceremonies because at such a critical time he was contented there should be some provision made to secure Dissenters from the execution of the penal Laws And yet that ill usage which so excellent a Prince met with from these dissenting Protestants after such a condescension as this gives no great encouragement to Princes to try this Experiment again Thus he proves our present Soveraign to be of his mind by his Declaration from Breda which he prints at large I suppose for fear People should forget that there had been such a Declaration or what were the contents of it How the present circumstances of affairs at that time might incline his Majesty to such a condescension is not my business to inquire it is sufficient for us to know that the House of Commons presented their Reasons to the King against that Declaration which so far satisfied him that he gave his assent to the Act of Uniformity and therefore I suppose is not of our Reconciler's mind now and indeed never was notwithstanding that Declaration for he never asserted it unlawful to impose scrupled Ceremonies upon Dissenters but thought it expedient at that time to indulge their weakness And while matters were under debate for the re-establishment of the Church of England no wonder that the King and his great Ministers should make Proposals of Accommodation and offer their Reasons and Arguments for it but I always thought that what is said by any person on one side or other while the matter is under debate is not so good an Argument what his judgment and opinion is as what he agrees and consents to when the Reasons on both sides have been heard and scann'd Thus our Kings are our own again and of all men in the world have the least reason to countenance such a designe as this which serves onely to encourage a busie and restless Party among us who first strike at the Church but will never be quiet till they have usurp'd the Throne What the sence of our Church is in this matter is evident from her Articles Canons and Constitutions and this signifies a great deal more to me than the opinion of any private Doctors of what note and eminency soever It is unreasonable to oppose the authority of any particular Doctors to the Judgment of the Church and it would be an endless work to number the Votes and Suffrages of private Doctors on both sides indeed their authority is no greater than their reason is and if any of them be of our Reconciler's mind I am sure they speak without book unless they have something more
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
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
Apostles which made it necessary to reveal the Gospel-mysteries by degrees and to persons well disposed and qualified to receive them but when a Doctrine has been fully published and confirmed by all necessary evidence and universally received as a Christian Doctrine the Governours and Pastors of the Church must continue to preach it whether Dissenters will hear or no for else we may lose all Christian Doctrines by degrees again and return to our Milk which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Humanity and leave off feeding on strong Meat which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Divinity because Jews and Socinians cannot bear it Whatever has been published by Christ and his Apostles as Christian Doctrine is the sacred Depositum which is committed to the Church and which all Bishops as well as Timothy are commanded to keep 5. His next Motive to condescension is from the consideration of that great Rule of Equity which calls upon us to do to others as we would be dealt with Now I confess this is a very good Topick to declaim on as our Reconciler doth for as it is usually managed it contains an Appeal to the Passions and Interests more than to the Reason of mankind It is a sufficient Answer to this to observe that this Rule obliges no man to do any thing but what is in it self just and equitable to be done for what is more than this how passionately soever men desire it is owing to their fondness and partiality to themselves not to a true reason and judgment of things and therefore unless it appear upon other accounts to be in it self reasonable to grant this Indulgence this Rule cannot make it so To discourse the true meaning of this Rule at large would be too great a digression from my present designe and therefore in answer to what our Reconciler says Would we be contented if we were inferiours to be punished imprisoned and banished for Opinions which we cannot help or shut out from the means of Grace for such Opinions Or should we not be glad that others would bear with us in some lesser matters in which we by our judgments are constrained to differ from them and would not pass upon us the sâ—verest censures because we are constrained thus to differ I say in answer to these and such-like Popular Appeals I shall ask him some other Questions as Whether ever any Offender or Criminal is contented to suffer for his fault or does not earnestly desire to be pardoned and to escape Whether it be unreasonable to punish any man because all men are unwilling to be punished Whether every mans love to himself in such cases or that natural pity which all men have for those who suffer be a Rule for the exercise of publick Discipline and Government in Church or State Whether any man in his wits can think it reasonable that mens private Fancies and Opinions should over-rule the Authority of Church and State Whether is the most pitiable sight to see a flourishing and truly Apostolick Church rent and torn in pieces by Factions and Schisms or to see such Schismaticks suffer in the suppression of their Schism Whether it be reasonable for the Civil Powers to punish Schismaticks when their Schism in the Church threatens the State and makes the Thrones of Princes shake and totter The truth is this Rule To do to others as we desire they should do to us may be a good Rule to direct our private Conversation but it does not extend to publick Government and my reason for it is this That this Rule has respect onely to every mans private happiness and supposes an equality between them For that which makes this a Rule of Equity is that equals as all men are considered as men ought to have equal usage and therefore that natural sense which every man has of happiness that natural aversion to suffer wrong and that natural desire to receive good from others should teach every man to deal by others who have the same sense of happiness and aversion to misery as they desire to be dealt with themselves But now publick Government has a greater respect to the Publick than to any mans private good and a mans private and particular good must give place to the publick Welfare and therefore what aversion soever there is in mankind to suffering it is very fit and just that private men when they deserve it should suffer for the publick Good and it is not every mans love to himself or what he is willing to suffer which is the Rule here but a regard to the publick Good And though all wise and good men ought to prefer the publick Good before their own private Interest yet whatever reason there is for this it is certain mens natural love to themselves to which this Rule appeals will never make them willing to suffer especially when the sufferings are great and capital upon any considerations and therefore to do as we would be done by is not our Rule in such cases for then no fault must ever be punished Nor is there an equality between Governours and Subjects either in Church or State Civil Magistrates are invested with the Authority of God who is the supreme Governour of the World and the Governours of the Church with the Authority of Christ who is the supreme Head of the Church and therefore they are not to consider the private passions and affections of men that because they themselves are not willing to suffer when they are in a fault therefore they must not punish others for they act not as private men but as publick Ministers of Justice and Discipline and where there is an inequality this Rule of Equity will not hold Governours and Subjects are equal considered as men but very unequal as Governours are invested with the Authority of God which sets them above other men This I take to be the true reason why the same men pass such different judgments on the same thing when they are Subjects and when they are Governours because when they are Subjects they have a principal regard to a private and particular good and consult the desires and weaknesses and passions of humane nature when they are Governours they have a greater regard to a publick good and consider what their Character and Office and Authority requires them to do Thus we know when some of our Dissenters had got the Power in their hands they were as severe in pressing Conformity to their new Models and Platforms as loud and fierce in their Declamations against Toleration as now they are against Conformity and for a Toleration When they had the Power in their hands they saw plainly what the necessities of Government required now the Power is out of their hands they consider what is necessary to their own preservation which makes them dislike those things when the Government is against them which they saw a necessity of before This is universally true of all
Reverend Bishops once have condescended to these terms of Vnion would they not have rejoyced to have seen the Church restored and themselves readmitted to the execution of their sacred Function upon such terms as the abatement of such trivial things Ans. I judge it very likely they might as a banished Prince would be glad to be restored to his Crown again though he parted with some Jewels out of it But when the providence of God restores them to the exercise of their Function without any such restraints and limitation of their power it is their duty to use their whole power as prudently and charitably as they can The restoring of Episcopacy restored the face of a Church again which was nothing but a Schism without it and no doubt but all good men would be very glad of this though upon hard and disadvantageous terms but surely to restore the Church to its ancient beauty and lustre in a regular and decent administration of all holy Offices is more desirable than nothing but the meer being of a Church still deformed with the marks and ruines of an old Schism and therefore when this can be had it ought to be had and it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Bishops must use no other authority in the government of the Church when they are in a full possession of their power than barely so much as they would have been contented to have bargained for with Schismaticks when they were thrust out of all power Though whether St. Cyprian would have made any such bargain with Schismaticks as inferred a diminution of the Episcopal Authority I much question Had the Wisdom of the Nation at the happy return of his Majesty to his Throne thought fit to have made any tryal and experiment what some condescensions and abatements would have done the Reverend Bishops no doubt would have acquiesced in it not out of any opinion they had of such methods but to satisfie those who do not see the events of things at a distance by making the experiment But that factious and restless Spirit of Phanaticism which began immediately to work convinced our Prince and Parliament how dangerous such an experiment would be and prevented the tryal of it and now we have such fresh and repeated experiments how dangerous these Factions are both to Church and State our Reconciler would perswade our Governours out of their senses to cherish those men who if they be not suppressed will most infallibly involve this unhappy Church and Kingdom in Bloud and Confusion As for what our Reconciler adds concerning the Rubrick about kneeling at the Sacrament and the Canon about bowing of the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship have been sufficiently answered already CHAP. VIII Containing some brief Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface and the Conclusion of the whole with an Address to the Dissenters THus I have with all plainness and sincerity examined the whole reason of this book for as for the remaining Chapters whatever is of any moment in them I have answered before in the first and second Chapters of this Vindication whether the Answer I have given be satisfactory or not I must leave to others to judge but I can honestly say I have used no tricks and evasions nor have I used any Argument but what is satisfactory to my self All that remains now is a brief examination of those Authorities our Reconciler has produced in his Preface to prove that our own Kings and many famous Doctors of our own Church besides many foreign Divines have pleaded for that condescension for which he pleads in this Book Now I thought it the best way in the first place to examine his Reasons for this condescension for if there be no reason to do this it is no great matter who pleads for it without reason and yet I should be very unwilling to leave such a reproach upon so many great men that they declare their opinions and judgment for a Cause which has no reason to support it And therefore to give a fair account of this also I reviewed his Preface and found there were two ways of answering it either by examining his particular Testimonies we having no reason to believe any thing upon his credit or by taking the Testimonies for granted and shewing that this does not prove that they were of his mind The first of these I had no great stomach to as being a tedious and troublesome work which would swell this Vindication to a great bulk which is grown too big already and the onely end it could serve is to prove that the Protestant Reconciler does not quote his Authors faithfully but I have already given such evidence of this in my Vindication of Bishop Taylor as will spoil his credit with all wary men And therefore I resolved upon the other way of answering him to shew that the Testimonies produced by him as he produces them do not prove what he intended them for But I called to mind that I had a Book written upon this very subject entituled Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler in a Letter to a Friend which I read over and to my great comfort found my work done to my hand for that Author has with great judgment said whatever I can think proper to be said in this Cause and therefore I shall onely give some little hints of what I intended more largely to discourse and refer my Readers to those Remarks for further satisfaction The intention of this Preface our Reconciler tells us p. 3. was to strengthen the designe of his Book by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy Persons both of our own and other Churches who have declared themselves to be of the same judgment and have pursued the same designe which he has done in his Book Now the designe of his Book as I have shewn from his own words in my Introduction p. 13 14. is to prove that it is utterly unlawful for the Governours of the Church to impose the observation of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religion especially when these Ceremonies are scrupled and many professed Christians rather chuse to separate from the Church than submit to them Now to prove this he first alleadges the Authority of three Kings King Iames King Charles the first the Royal Martyr and best of Kings and men as he is pleased to stile him and our present Soveraign and I know not where he could have named three other Kings more averse to his Reconciling designe What King Iames his Judgment was is evident from the Conference at Hampton-court where he so severely determined against Dissenters and kept his word all his reign without granting any liberty to these pretended scruples which is very strange had he been of our Reconciler's mind that it is unlawful to impose these Ceremonies upon a scrupulous Conscience How much King Charles the first suffered
to say than our Reconciler has and when we know what it is we will consider it And yet those private Doctors of the Church of England to whose judgment our Reconciler appeals say nothing to his purpose not a man of them affirm that it is unlawful for the Church to impose indifferent things no not when they are scrupled as any one may observe who carefully reads their Testimonies Some of them indeed do think it advisable if it would heal our present Schisms to part with some things of less moment for so good an end And there seems to be two sorts of these men 1. Those who think this might be done were there good evidence and assurance that such abatements would cure the Schism and lay a foundation of a firm and lasting Peace in this Church 2. Those who think this way ought to be tryed whether it will effect the cure or no. 1. As for the first if this were the case that the exchange of a Ceremony or two while the external Order and Decency of publick Worship might be otherwise secured would certainly heal our Schisms God forbid that I should ever be the man who should oppose so good a work But if I may speak my thoughts freely that which I take to be the fault of these great men is this that they trouble themselves and the world in declaring their judgments unasked about an imaginary case which it is demonstrably impossible should over be a real case This is evident not onely from the present temper and complexion of the Schism which even among the most moderote Dissenters is improved far beyond the dispute of a Ceremony but from this very consideration that their Principles whereon they demand such an alteration are schismatical and it is impossible that the Peace of the Church should be built upon Schismatical Principles Though it were possible that the removal of our Ceremonies might for the present quiet our Disputes yet this Peace would last no longer than the men are in a good humour because those very Principles which disturb the Peace of the Church now will also disturb the best Order and Constitution of the Church that can possibly be devised and while the Principles remain the seeds of Discord remain also and there will never want men or Devils to improve them into open Contentions Whoever believes that nothing must be done in the Worship of God but what we have an express divine Law for that things lawful or indifferent in their own natures are sinful when they are commanded though by a lawful Authority that neither the Governours in Church nor State have any authority in indifferent things which are the great Principles on which men oppose the Ceremonies of our Church will as inevitably be Schismaticks under any constitution of things as those who believe that the Soveraign Powers are accountable to the People will be Rebels whenever they are not pleased and have power to resist Take away these Principles and we may keep our Ceremonies and while these Principles last it is to no purpose to part with the least Ceremony 2. As for those who think the Church ought to try this Experiment whether such Abatements and Condescensions will reconcile Dissenting Protestants to the Church it is in my opinion a very dangerous as well as a very unreasonable Experiment All changes and innovations unless they be made on great and urgent necessities and with wonderful wisdom and caution are of very dangerous consequence and the greatest Polititians cannot always foresee what the event will be but to change lightly and wantonly without a certain prospect of a good effect is a reproach to the wisdom and gravity of Government it is onely like the uneasiness of a sick man who seeks for some present relief by changing sides though when he has done he finds himself as uneasie as he was before If such Abatements do not take effect we part with the external Decencies of Worship to no purpose we expose our selves to the scorn and derision of Sectaries make them more bold and clamorous and weaken the Authority and Sinews of Government which loses it due reverence when it is not steady and true to it self Of all persons in the world Governours ought to make the fewest Experiments and to confess the fewest faults and mistakes if there were any much less to seem to confess a fault when there is none for Government ought to maintain its own Reverence and Authority and nothing can maintain the Authority of Government but a great Opinion both of its Power and Wisdom that it can defend it self and direct others whereas all such changes and alterations though they may be called a charitable condescension to the weakness and importunities of others are always expounded as an Argument of the weakness or mistakes of Government that it cannot defend it self against popular Clamours and Oppositions or that they mistake their Rule The first makes their Authority precarious and teaches people not to fear their Governours when they see their Governours are afraid of them the other destroys the Reverence of their Laws and teaches people not to obey but to dispute And of all mistakes the mistakes in Religion are most unpardonable and the greatest blemish to the Wisdom of Government because here is a standing Rule which is plain and certain and does not alter with accidental and mutable events So that if things be well setled at first there is no reason ever to change as may be in all other Laws which must be fitted to times and places and other changeable circumstances but even the external circumstances of Religion must not vary with the unreasonable humours and fancies of men in every Age or if it does Religion it self as well as Ecclesiastical Authority suffers by it Now whatever private Doctors are of another mind it is all one to me for those who assert any thing without Reason assert it without Authority too His next Testimonies are borrowed from some foreign Divines such as Beza Zanchy Iunius and it were easie to oppose other foreign Divines against them if not to answer them out of their own Writings but I do not think this worth the while for it is certain these men are not infallible I will never value those mens judgments about Ceremonies who can be contented to change the Apostolical Order of Bishops for a Presbyterian Parity In the next place he insists at large on those terms of Concord which have been proposed both by our own and by foreign Divines between distinct Churches and hence very wisely concludes that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church But this I have considered already and refer my Readers for further satisfaction to the Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler Thus I have done with our Reconciler and shall conclude this Work with a short Address to our Dissenters lest they should not rightly understand how much they are
Dr. Falkner doth imagine that is that when the Apostle commands them to receive the weak he means they should own them for Christian Brethren and as such should receive them to Communion seeing the Schismatick is by the Doctrine of the Church without that Catholick Church in which alone Salvation can be had Since therefore we do censure him as one who hath no inward relation to or communion with Iesus Christ and therefore no relation to his Body since we do think him worthy of exclusion from Communion with the Church it seems not easie to conceive how we shall escape the condemnation of the Apostles Discourse were the designe of it that onely which he doth imagine As if it were the same thing to deny Communion to any persons as wanting something essential to Christianity and so having no right to Church-Communion and to â—hut those men out of our Communion who are disorderly in it or separate themselves from it as if it were the same thing to deny Communion to those who are not or are judged not to be Christians and to cast disorderly and irregular Christians who will not submit to the Rules and Government of the Church out of our Communion The first makes the Dispute upon which we part to be essential to Christianity as the Doctor well observed the second proceeds onely upon this Principle that those who will live in the Communion of any particular Church must be subject to the Rules and Orders of Worship and Discipline establish'd in it Which may instruct our Reconciler in the difference between the Jews and Gentiles not receiving one another upon the Dispute of the Mosaical Law and the Churches rejecting those from her Communion who will not conform to her Rules of Worship which he endeavours to make parallel cases And as for the Reason he assigns why the Apostle cannot by receiving mean that they should own each other as Christian Brethren because the Arguments he uses to perswade them to receive one another do suppose that they did own each other as Christians is plainly false for the Apostle perswades them to receive each other and to own one another for Christian Brethren because God had received them because he owned them for Christians and therefore if God received the weak Jew with all his weakness and the irregular Gentiles as they judged them with all their irregularities certainly both Jews and Gentiles ought to receive each other But this will better appear by considering the Apostles Arguments and shewing how peculiar they were to that case and that they cannot be applied to the case of Dissenters Now there are two or three Arguments which St. Paul uses to this purpose to perswade them to receive one another though our Reconciler has made a great many of them by applying all the Arguments in this Chapter which concern Christian forbearance and condescension and the avoiding scandal to this purpose 1. His first Argument is That God has received them which plainly refers to what is more largely discours'd in the Council at Ierusalem where St. Peter gives an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and those who were with him all uncircumcised Gentiles while he preached the Gospel to them which was such a visible demonstration of God's receiving them even in their uncircumcision that he durst not deny Water-baptism when God had already baptized them with the Holy Ghost This was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul who declared what wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them And the same Argument served for the circumcised Jews who still observed the Law that God had owned them also by bestowing his holy Spirit in a visible manner on them Now if either Circumcision or Uncircumcision had signified any thing in this matter God would not have indifferently bestowed his Spirit upon believing but circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles By sending his Spirit on Jewish and Gentile Converts in such a visible manner God did evidently declare that both circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles who believed in Christ should be received into the Communion of Christs Church which is here called Gods receiving them For the gift of the Spirit belonged onely to the Disciples of Christ and therefore God did in a visible manner own all those for the Disciples of Christ on whom he bestowed such visible Gifts But how does this concern our Dissenters Yes says our Reconciler it rationally follows that none should be excluded from Communion with us who will not by our God and Saviour be excluded from Communion with them But he should have said whom God has in such a visible and miraculous manner received into Communion And if our Reconciler can prove that God has determined this Controversie about Ceremonies in as visible a manner as he did the Dispute about Circumcision he will say something to the purpose But this is all a mistake from the beginning to the end For I know no way of judging whether any man be in communion with Christ but by his communion with the Church There is no visible communion with God and Christ but by a visible communion with the Church and as for any communion with Christ which is invisible certainly the Governours of the Church who can see onely what is visible are not concerned about it and it is this visible Church-membership and Church communion of which the Apostle speaks He proves that God had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of his Church by the visible gifts of his holy Spirit and therefore that they ought not to deny external and visible communion to each other since God had received them both not meerly into an invisible communion with himself but into the visible communion of the Church which gave them a right to all acts of Church-communion And from hence our Reconciler proves that the Church must alter her Constitutions to receive those Dissenters into the Church who are not in the Church and will not communicate with her because God has received them but how does it appear that God has received them into the communion of the Church who shut themselves out of it Yes says the Reconciler the plain result of this first Argument is this That either we without breach of charity may judge of all Dissenters that they are not received into communion by God and that they are no living Members of Christ's Body but a pack of damned Hypocrites worthy to be excluded from the Church of God and to be under a severe Anathema or if we cannot charitably judge so hardly of them that we ought to receive them into communion with us notwithstanding their different conceptions and practice about lesser matters But what have we to do with the judgment of charity in this case for the Apostle speaks not of a judgment of charity but of a visible proof and demonstration of Gods receiving them from the visible signs and effects